...an article in PLoS Biology, you can find it here.

 

On another topic, I proposed to teach physics only with calculus, I think we should also only teach genetics & evolution when students know a little about probability and statistics. They would get a much better understanding of the subject and would be less likely to be misled by creationists.

 

On another topic, I proposed to teach physics only with calculus, I think we should also only teach genetics & evolution when students know a little about probability and statistics. They would get a much better understanding of the subject and would be less likely to be misled by creationists.

 

 

Quote from the web:

 

"The Quest for Right": A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics.

 

By Stephen L of the newsgroups.derkeiler.com

 

Here's a different take on creationism/ID: "The Quest for Right," a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics:

 

"American Atheists base their reasoning on Quantum Interpretation, hand in hand with Quantum Mathematics. Summoning the dark forces of quantum mysticism, with mathematical incantations, possesses the power to bewilder, and thus con, the average persons seemingly at will, into believing the bizarre and surreal: Z Particles, Neutrinos, Leptons, Quarks, Weak Bosons, etc. Mystics attempt to pass off quantum abuses as legitimate science, by expressing the theories in symbolic fashion. These formula represent the greatest hoax ever pulled upon an unsuspecting public....The objective....is to expedite the return to classical physics, by exposing quantum dirty tricks. That is, unethical behavior or acts,...to undermine and destroy the credibility of Biblical histories. These dirty tricks include: Absolute dating systems, Big Bang Theory, Antimatter, and Oort Cloud. These...have no further station in Science."

 

http://www.questforright.com

 

A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to "prove" that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don't really exist, except in the imagination of scientists.”

arguement from ignorance sums up that 'quest for right' thing perfectly,

just because you do not understand it does not mean it isn't true.

To be honest, I'm really not concerned about creationists, I think they've legitimized atheism in North America by attacking science from molecular biology to astrophysics. In short, they're working on my side

 

I'm mostly concerned about how evolution is taugh in school.

In Book Talk, the idea is to discuss the book or article the OP raises, not bring up other publications with a different POV. PhDP, if you like, I can delete the off-topic posts.

Can you explain your reasoning behind this...

 

On another topic, I proposed to teach physics only with calculus

 

I don't understand why that's necessary.

 

Oops, is that off topic ? I didn't see this mentioned in the article.