(Ohio) State panel backs disputed lesson, infuriates supporters of evolution

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 2/11/04 | Scott Stephens

[ThinkPlease]

The lesson plans--Appendix A, especially, reads like Jonathon Wells wrote it word for word out of his latest book. I suspect there will be a lawsuit incoming if this passes, and it will get overturned however. Some of the references listed therein reference God explicitly, which is a no-no.

[ThinkPlease]

Vasiliy, I need one ping. One ping only, please.

[newgeezer]

"It's a sad day for science in Ohio," said Patricia Princehouse, who teaches biological evolution at Case Western Reserve University. "This opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule nationally and internationally."

Tsk, tsk, tsk... Lady, was it not a sad day for "science" when they brought your religion into the classroom?

[ThinkPlease]

Tsk, tsk, tsk... Lady, was it not a sad day for "science" when they brought your religion into the classroom?

Riiight. Your perception (about science being a religion) is sadly, wrong.

[biblewonk]

Tsk, tsk, tsk... Lady, was it not a sad day for "science" when they brought your religion into the classroom?

That's for sure.

[newgeezer]

Riiight. Your perception (about science being a religion) is sadly, wrong.

Riiight. Your perception (about evolution being a science) is sadly, wrong. Especially evolution as it is usually taught in the public schools.

[antiRepublicrat]

the board voted 13-4 to declare its intent to adopt the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson next month.

In itself, not a bad idea. Teaching critical analysis of anything, including accepted scientific theory, can only be a good thing. If not for that, we'd still think Newtonian physics ruled everything.

much of the language in the lesson plan came from Jonathan Wells' “Icons of Evolution,” a seminal text in the intelligent design movement

However, this shows their true intention to create a backdoor for creation myths taught as scientific theory.

Not that I mind creation myths. I think a class on them would be quite interesting.

[ThinkPlease]

What, is there a parrot in here?

Considering I work with evidence of an old Earth regularly, claims otherwise have always been specious. The lesson plans here are no different. Same old song and dance.

[newgeezer]

Considering I work with evidence of an old Earth regularly

Your beliefs are based on a set of assumptions, in which you place your faith.

Same here, just different assumptions.

[ThinkPlease]

Your beliefs are based on a set of assumptions, in which you place your faith.

Not the same thing, however you might try to spin it. You spin better than Kerry will be tonight on the evening news.

[newgeezer]

No spin on my part, only denial on yours.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[VadeRetro]

Princehouse and other scientists complained that much of the language in the lesson plan came from Jonathan Wells' “Icons of Evolution,” a seminal text in the intelligent design movement.

Who was it who said, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGHHH?"

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[VadeRetro]

What's Wrong With Jonathan Wells's 'Icons'? What isn't?

[antiRepublicrat]

Who was it who said, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGHHH?"

Joseph of Aramathea, according to Monty Python.

[VadeRetro]

But he would have said it, not written it.

[antiRepublicrat]

But he would have said it, not written it.

Then it would probably be Lancelot's reading of Joseph's writing.

[CobaltBlue]

It's a violation of the Establishment Clause to teach "God" in public schools. So said the SCOTUS in Aguilar and other cases. That's the law of the land.

Evolution, being neutral as to God, doesn't violate the Establishment Clause.

[Modernman]

Your perception (about evolution being a science) is sadly, wrong.

How is the theory of evolution not scientific?