Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Almost 150 years ago, Charles Darwin knew something that the scientific establishment seems to have forgotten -- something that is being endangered today in the state of Ohio.
In Ohio, high school science students are at risk of being told that they are not allowed to discuss questions and problems that scientists themselves openly debate. While most people understand that science is supposed to consider all of the evidence, these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications.
In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design. They mandate something much milder. According to the standards, students should know that "scientists may disagree about explanations . . . and interpretations of data" -- including the biological evidence used to support evolutionary theory. If that sounds like basic intellectual freedom, that's because it is.
The Ohio Department of Education has responded by implementing this policy through the development of an innovative curriculum that allows students to evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.
And that has the American scientific establishment up in arms. Some groups are pressuring the Ohio Board to reverse its decision. The president of the National Academy of Sciences has denounced the "Critical Analysis" lesson -- even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.
Hard as it may be to believe, prominent scientists want to censor what high school students can read and discuss. It's a story that is upside-down, and it's outrageous. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion.
Debates about whether natural selection can generate fundamentally new forms of life, or whether the fossil record supports Darwin's picture of the history of life, would be off-limits. It's a bizarre case of scientists against "critical analysis."
And the irony of all of this is that this was not Charles Darwin's approach. He stated his belief in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin knew that objective science demands free and open inquiry, and while I disagree with Darwin on many things, on this he was absolutely right. And I say what's good enough for scientists themselves, as they debate how we got here, is good enough for high school students.
Contact us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) to learn more about this issue and about an intelligent design conference we're co-hosting this June.
The Ohio decision is the leading edge of a wedge breaking open the Darwinist stranglehold on science education in this country. The students in Ohio -- and every other state -- deserve intellectual freedom, and they deserve it now.
So casinos get rich and suckers go broke.
Ok. Are you applying this the "random" / "directed" debate? "following laws" and "being directed" does not have the same meaning.
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Really? The last time that happened was, IIRC, Louis Agassiz (1807-1873). He is still considered a real scientist, the discoverer of Ice Ages in particular.
Perhaps you have a more modern example?
Here is the attempted dichotomy:
And what is qualifies as a "selection" of Nature, does Nature "select" things randomly or are you relying on some sort of deification of Nature in which it "selects" things rationally, purposefully, etc.?This is a "con" game. The dichotomy is false.
Nature does not select randomly as most would understand it. At any given time, in some specific population, it is selecting stronger, or smarter, or swifter, or better armored, or more precisely specialized in grabbing the leftovers from a shark's meal. The pressures in these directions are not random; they result from one specific kind of relative difference being situationally superior.
The Miller experiment showed that undirected simple compounds will form complex ones. That does not mean the behavior is random. In fact, if you do the same experiment again for the same length of time, you should (and do) get about the same mix of results as did Miller.
Those results are not the only theoretically possible ones, given the input mix. They are the only ones you actually get because the probabilities are skewed by the underlying chemistry of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen.
That Rocky! If Bulliwinkle wasn't a stabilizing influence, he'd be doing hard time by now.
This story was in the news just recently:
Feb. 24, 2004 -- Flipping a coin may not be the fairest way to settle disputes. About a decade ago, statistician Persi Diaconis started to wonder if the outcome of a coin flip really is just a matter of chance. He had Harvard University engineers build him a mechanical coin flipper. Diaconis, now at Stanford University, found that if a coin is launched exactly the same way, it lands exactly the same way.
The randomness in a coin toss, it appears, is introduced by sloppy humans. Each human-generated flip has a different height and speed, and is caught at a different angle, giving different outcomes.
But using high speed cameras and equations, Diaconis and colleagues have now found that even though humans are largely unpredictable coin flippers, there's still a bias built in: If a coin starts out heads, it ends up heads when caught more often than it does tails.
*Note: In football's inaugural kickoff coin toss, the coin is not caught but allowed to bounce on the ground. That introduces an extra complication, one mathematicians have yet to sort out.
Another generally accepted truism bites the dust...
Like this....
For the most part I agree with what you are saying - except for one point. Sorta a chicken and egg issue. Nature can not do anything - nature does not direct selection. Nature has no intelligence nor ability to select or direct. What we have are observation AFTER THE FACT rather than example of nature directing actions. I agree that "nature does not select randomly" but this is an AFTER THE FACT observation - nature did not direct the selection - that would take some form of intelligence and then Evolution would be Intelligence Design.
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.