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.
I was going to suggest "tit for tat" selection.
Ichneumon: Wrong
Elsie: Waiting for RA to respond...
Sorry for taking so long here. :-(
Since the term evolving is used with all kinds of "stuff", such as the evolution of the TV set, there seems to be this thought that "The Theory of Evolution" deals with everything we see around us, including the origin of the universe.
The word evolve is used to denote change. However "The theory of Evolution" only deals with living organisms and their change over time. This theory does not even address the origin of life. That is a different theory altogether.
Jeez now you tell us! You mean all of these broken bones, fractures and bruises were for nothing? Now how am I gonna get those wings?
Are you now going to admit your claim that "random" and "directed" are not opposites is a false statement?
No anthropic Nature, no big guy with a fuzzy beard.
BTW: that is your opinion, not proven fact. (I assume you are alluding to directed nature). Currently we have little to no proof (for or against) whether or not something directs nature or it is all based on happenstance. Orthodox Darwinism requires pure happenstance - anything else runs contrary. Evidence of patterns in randomness are hints this may not all be based on happenstance but it is far far far far from proof positive.
As for playing dumb - I am not sure you realize this is a core issue in the Intelligent Design debate. Evo-Reactionaries try to pretend anybody that has doubts or questions about Orthodox Darwinism are bible-thumbing believers is "Creation Science" - which is a bunch of crap.
The core issue between the Orthodox Darwinist and those that question is the evidence of non-happenstance forces - if there are truly non-happenstance forces than Orthodox Darwin is wrong. I use the term Orthodox Darwinism because some aspect of Darwinism would not be false - just the soup-to-nuts Orthodox Darwinism theory (which requires happenstance and only happenstance).
If what we observe are patterns in the past tense - happenstance can still be the cause. If we claim forces or laws direct these patterns than Orthodox Darwinism is false. (it is possible to falsify Orthodox Darwinism without a belief in God or even an alternative theory – Evo-Reactionaries can’t grasp this concept).
Your comment about "random" and "directed" has made you stumble backwards into the center of the quagmire and I don't think you even realize it so I don't think you should be throwing around accusations of someone else being dumb.
Are you implying beliefs can alter reality. Interesting. Jung was into that trip also...
You can bet on whether or not forces of nature are observed in the past tense or directors of actions? How do they determine who wins?
The key is: was the outcome DIRECTED by nature or is it just an observation after the fact. If nature directed this - Orthodox Darwinism is false.
See, you can define a scenario were Evolution is falsified without evoking a god or designer.
NOTE: Morphogenetic Fields does not falsify the entire theory of evolution - it just changes one of the core principles (it the theory proves to be true).
I studied Dr. Sheldrake and Morphogenetic Fields in the context of Jung's theory of Collective Unconscious about 20 years ago so I don't know where the theory currently stands - my point is one can have issues with evolution without evoking a God or Designer.
I am attacking the entrapment by false dichotomy attempted by Cash-the-Undead in this statement:
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.?I have also explained already what my objection is:
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.I have also explained that most people understand "random" to include the idea of "unbiased." You may wave the dictionary around all day and the ploy in the first quoted section above would still be transparently dishonest as explained in the second. Your purported inability to understand most of what is posted to you on this thread is of a piece. Standard "cretin science."
Medved's talking parrott man, Sheldrake. Jung is bad enough. You are overly impressed with fruitcakes.
This is well and good but you really need to retract your statement about directed. The selection may not be random but if you are claiming it is directed you are falsifying Darwinism. I understand why you are turning to nonsense and insults - you have made an incorrect statement and you don't have the integrity to admit you made an incorrect statement.
I understand the meaning and implication of "directed" - do you? (seems like the answer is "no")
The only ploys and dishonesty are in your insults and lack of integrity. If you claim nature "directs" selection, you are trying to falsify evolution.
You are such a clown.
It is obvious you don't have the first clue related to the theory of Morphogenetic Fields. You also think you can dismiss Jung with a four word nonsensical statement. An amazing display of arrogant ignorance.
What H-E-double hockey sticks is "Medvid's talking parrott[sp] man" supposed to mean?
Your "explanation" NEVER addresses the term "directed" - strangely enough you refrained from using the term "directed" in your explanation..why? Because you are wrong and you are trying to cover it up by spewing insults.
You keep spewing insults and I will keep nailing your butt to the wall.
Now try an "explanation" that includes the term "directed" (HINT: biased does not mean directed - not even close)
Jung's ideas were nutty even compared with other psychoanalysts. Do you actually believe in the 'collective unconscious'?
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.