We may not have fossils but we do have Champ
Posted on 02/27/2004 5:55:40 PM PST by Coleus
February 26, 2004
Darwinism to Face Scrutiny
by Sonja Swiatkiewicz, state issues analyst
Ohio and Minnesota have the opportunity to make a difference in how Darwinism is taught to schoolchildren.
Ohio made history in December 2002 when its state Board of Education approved changes to public school science standards requiring students to be tested on their understanding of evidence for and against Darwinism.
Just over a year later, Ohio again stands at a crossroads of sorts, while its school board seeks to establish a model curriculum to implement 2002's changes. Minnesota, likewise, has come to a place of decision — whether or not to follow in Ohio's footsteps in the teaching of Darwinism.
The Ohio school board voted 13-4 on Feb. 10 in a preliminary vote to accept "Set A" of the model science curriculum -- the curriculum that will be sent to each district to guide teachers in how the new science standards should be implemented in the classroom. "Set A" includes 42 individual lessons that deal with potentially "controversial" topics; nine of them (those slated for grade 10 life sciences) discuss evolutionary theory.
Only one of the 42, however, seeks to include the "critical analysis" of Darwinism that is now required to be taught — and that's where the rubber meets the road.
Fiercely protective pro-Darwinists are attempting to derail the new science standards before kids in the classroom ever reap the benefits of this dramatic change in policy. Critics have claimed that the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson mandates the teaching of Intelligent Design.
In fact, the "Critical Analysis" lesson supports the new requirement that students be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Students will be taught that theories are tentative explanations that are subject to modification as continued experimentation demands; the differences between microevolution and macroevolution; and guided to examine the various lines of evidence for and against the theory of a common ancestry (macroevolution).
While the board had already indicated its support of "Set A" in its entirety, Darwinists are applying pressure to the board members to convince them to remove their support. A final, binding vote will be taken during the board's meeting March 8-9.
A few states away, Minnesota's Legislature is grappling with making initial changes to the state's science standards. Four members of the science standard writing committee have submitted a "minority" report, urging the Legislature to accept two standards that mirror Ohio's.
These two standards will lay the groundwork for Minnesota's schoolchildren to be taught critical analysis of evolution — which has been specifically encouraged by the No Child Left Behind Act conference report.
But first, the "minority report" must be accepted into the recommendations to be sent to the full House and Senate.
Those who support a balanced presentation of Darwinism, the evidence for and against macroevolution, must make their voices heard. The type of science education Ohio and Minnesota's kids receive is dependent on board members and legislators knowing concerned citizens care about the unbiased teaching of evolution.
TAKE ACTION
Ohio
Please contact the board members who voted in favor of the "Set A" curriculum to thank them for their support and encourage them to vote in favor of "Set A" on Mar. 8 or 9. Please contact them by March 5.
Richard E. Baker (Hollansburg), 937-548-2246
Virgil E. Brown, Jr. (Cleveland Heights), 216-851-3304, Virgil.Brown@ode.state.oh.us
Michael Cochran (Blacklick), 614-864-2338, ota@ohiotownships.org
Jim Craig (Canton), 330-492-5533, Jim.Craig@ode.state.oh.us
John W. Griffin (West Carrollton), P.O. Box 49201, West Carrollton, OH 45449-0201
Stephen M. Millett (Columbus), 614-424-5335
Deborah Owens Fink (Richfield), 330-972-8079, deb@uakron.edu
Emerson J. Ross, Jr. (Toledo), 419-248-8315
Jennifer L. Sheets (Pomeroy), 740-992-2151, Jennifer.Sheets@ode.state.oh.us
Jo Ann Thatcher (McDermott), 740-858-3300
James L. Turner (Cincinatti), 513-287-3232, jturner@cinergy.com
Sue Westendorf (Bowling Green), 419-352-2908, sue.westendo@ode.state.oh.us
Carl Wick (Centerville), 937-433-1352, carl.wick@ode.state.oh.us
Please politely urge the four board members who voted against "Set A" to reconsider and vote in support. Please contact them by Mar. 5.
Robin C. Hovis (Millersburg), 330-674-5000, Robin.Hovis@ode.state.oh.us
Cyrus B. Richardson, Jr. (Bethel), 513-734-6700, Cyrus.Richards@ode.state.oh.us
G.R. "Sam" Schloemer (Cincinnati), 513-821-4145, Sam.Schloemer@ode.state.oh.us
Jennifer Stewart (Zanesville), 740-452-4558, Jennifer.Stewart@ode.state.oh.us
Two members were absent for the Feb. 10 meeting, and should be politely contacted as well.
Virginia E. Jacobs (Lima), 419-999-4219, Virginia.Jacobs@ode.state.oh.us
Martha W. Wise (Avon) 440-934-4935, Martha.Wise@doe.state.oh.us
In addition, please contact Gov. Bob Taft and tell him you support the teaching of critical analysis of evolution. For contact information for Gov. Taft, visit our CitizenLink Action Center.
Minnesota
Please contact the chairpersons of the House and Senate Education Policy Committees, Rep. Barbara Sykora and Sen. Steve Kelley, and urge them to accept the "minority report."
In addition, please contact your own representative and senator and politely urge them to support the critical analysis of evolution when it comes to a vote.
Also, please contact Gov. Tim Pawlenty and urge his support for teaching the evidence for and against evolution. Contact information for Gov. Pawlenty is available through our CitizenLink Action Center.
Actually the Adirondacks aren't part of the Appalachians they are a spur off the Canadian Sheild. They are 4x older at ~1 Billion years which is why you don't find any fossils because they pre-date all complex life and unlike the Appalachians they are mostly very erosion resistant metamorphic rock.
I'm also not going to give you an apologetic as to the veracity of Scripture. I could give you details of why it is a valid historical document (eyewitness accounts, comparative documents, archaelogical evidence, etc.), but you're not likely to believe that either.
The only way for you to 'get it' is to open your mind and your heart to the ONE who Created you.........seek Him, and the rest will come. You shouldn't believe ME.......you should believe HIM, and He will speak to You if you ask Him to.
They are 4x older at ~1 Billion years which is why you don't find any fossils because they pre-date all complex life and unlike the Appalachians they are mostly very erosion resistant metamorphic rock.
Sounds pretty boring.
We may not have fossils but we do have Champ
Haeckel made a conjecture based on his observations. He may or may not have slanted his drawings to support his conjecture, but there is little about his drawings that a non-biologist would classify as fraudulent. I would guess that a layman presented with his drawings and actual photographs of embryos would not be able to identify the significant differences.
His conjecture was that embryos resemble the adult forms of their ancestors. This is not true. A more recent conjecture, also partly wrong, is that embryos resemble the embryos of one's ancestor species. The full truth is more complex.
There are lots of examples of conjectures being wrong. The early Lowell drawings of Mars are inaccurate. There is no doubt they were distorted by an imagination that wished to validate a conjecture about Mars. But they were not fraudulent. And they generally appear in textbooks as illustrations of historical events in science. They are not presented to illustrate proof of Martian canals, and Haeckel's drawings are not presented as proof of his obsolete conjecture.
Mysticism should be taught in religious and philosophy classes, not in science classes.
It's not what I say about the motion of the sun and the earth, it's what scripture says. Don't want to give your views about the solar system? That's okay. I understand.
Oh.....and that passage in Joshua. I believe it.
Thanks for answering.
In the meantime, please don't post to me with any more feeble attempts to entrap, OK?
I wanted to know your thinking about those scriptural geocentric passages. Sorry if that embarrassed you.
What book is this? Are you telling me the drawings used are identifiably Haeckel's but the context is not historical?
I've taken it on the chin here from others (perhaps not you), and it's time to leave for good.
If you are a devout Catholic, perhaps you should investigate how many times Genesis is quoted in the New Testament (including by Christ) as fact, and not as allegory. But, as a Christian what matters is that you believe, "In the beginning, GOD....."
You can misinterpret Scripture all you like, but you'll certainly not 'embarrass' me.....
I've said it to others.......you don't have to answer to ME, you have to answer to your CREATOR.
I'd give that some serious thought if I were you.........
No. Questioning is the essence of science. The embryo picture thing was exposed because of the natural questioning of science, instead of being taken on faith by everyone after that. So was Piltdown Man.
But the underlying assumption of questioning is this: You have to be prepared to accept the answer, even if it was not what you originally expected, even it goes against your pre-conceptions. If you are not willing to "question" evolution and be prepared to come away supporting it, then you are not really questioning it.
If someone appeared tomorrow with credible evidence that a major tenet of evolution was wrong, I'd have to look at that and reassess. But it would be weighed against all the evidence (vast mountains of it) in favor of evolution. I've looked at the creationist stuff. It's not in that category.
The "evidence" for intelligent design is in two categories - mathematical "equations" that prove nothing because the numbers involved are completely subjective, or "don't you see how complex this is - it could never have evolved." And when I say I think it could easily have evolved over a long enough time span, they just say "Come on, look closer. Can't you see it. It's just too complex!". That's not science, it's philosophy. It's not falsifiable, as others have pointed out.
So, no, asking questions doesn't make a fanatic. Refusing to accept answers you don't like does.
By all rights they SHOULD be; no normal theory would still be being discussed after being overwhelmingly disproven over a 150-year time span.
Got it. You don't know, or won't say, whether you accept the geocentric universe presented in scripture. But somehow you do know, or you certainly suggest that you know, about how I stand with the Creator.
This statement is true and yet it doesn't tell you what it should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.