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.
"Thank you for calling the Psychic Parrot's Network...how would you like to begin?"
"Um, I want to know about my future..."
"Wrooock! You will meet a tall but very strange man with a ASCII Bat mascot, and fall deeply in love! WROKKKKKKKK!"
Oh. Then all is lost.
A "Mighty Thor" placemarker...
You tapdance like Fred Astaire (figuratively speaking of course)
Now back to the subject at hand....do you still stand behind this comment you made:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
Do you STILL think "random" and "directed" as not opposites? If so, please explain this bizarre position.
The topic is not whatever you want it to be. The "random" or "directed" dichotomy is fraudulent and will be challenged every time.
Look at him dance! So it is fraudulent to ask you to explain your own statement (did you study at the John Kerry school of debate?)
Once again - these are YOUR WORDS:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
However, only an idiot Luddite would try to use a dictionary to claim that natural selection must be either random or God's Hammer.
Stop acting like a moron. Nobody but you has made a comment like that. But YOU did make this comment:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
I would not be rubbing your nose in it like this if you had refrained from the insults. But now I will have mercy on you and allow your silly comment to fade away.
Oh lookie - he is asking his friends to help him get out of the hole he just dug for himself.
Pat, my man, I think you are right on the money - but you might want to ask VadeRetro what the HECK he was talking about when he made this statement:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
He does not seem to want to answer the question when I ask him.
....oh wait
....I said I was going to let VadeRetro's silly comment fade away.
(please ignore the preceding message)
I consider the glove thrown.
You're saying it's me playing dumb. I'm saying it's you. Hey! Let's go to the videotape!
Your entry onto this thread. Loud and fraudulent. "You obviously have us mistaken for creationists" was part of the response.
To RWP's post 47, you attempted this obfuscatory tap-dance and got throughly roasted for it in the replies.
In dealing with those replies, your brazening act with RWP went on at greater length than I care to reproduce. What you tried with gdani was interesting, though. No acknowledgement, you just clammed up in preparation for the next phase: amnesia.
"So RightWingNilla, you think you are the spokes-model for all of science." Not necessary to his statement and not claimed by him. Do you know any other tricks?
That earned you a "Don't be obtuse."
Here's a delightful bit of intentional misconstruction! (Ichneumon must have been very busy to have let you slide by with this.) Post 170.
(Quoting SJ Gould)Gould is proposing bookburning? You can point to where he does that, I suppose?
Yes. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory...
Ah yes, the blood oath. First ban all opposing data, burn all books containing opposing data, and then require all to swear an oath to the theory.
I could go on, but I'll stop with your 163 and quote from the last reply to you:
The disingenuousness of that line has already been addressed, multiple times, including by myself.No, that wasn't me. I do not figure in any of the above. If the situation is symmetrical, you should just as easily be able to show me playing Twist-and-Shout and getting called on it. I await with interest.Again, I must suggest that you bother to actually read the thread before you jump in. Either that, or work on your reading comprehension, and/or stop playing these rhetorical games you seem to enjoy so much. You're not fooling anyone, and your attempts at being "clever" are more annoying than amusing.
If he's right on the money, please explain how I'm not.
But seriously folks, there is an important point contained in the statement made by PatrickHenry (and I have heard this from many people) – the phrase is “the result of natural law”. Is that an accurate statement? Does natural law cause things to happen or do we observe things that have already happened and create these laws? In the evolution paradigm, natural laws can not cause things to happen therefore nothing can be the result of natural law. It would be more accurate to say “as defined by natural law”.
The reason why this is important is this is the key to many doubts that exist about evolution – unlike the rhetoric of our evo-reactionary friends, many people that have doubts about evolution do not think necessarily that “goddidit” or believe in “Creation Science” or even “Intelligent Design” - many feel there is just evidence that pure happenstance does not explain it all. (Evolution by definition has to be pure happenstance).
Babble! Babble! Babble! Wave hands! Tappity tap!
I made no such comment. What, are you turning to lying now?
You are delusional or you don't know what the word obfuscatory means. My statement was very much to the point.
BTW: how give a rat-behind about your personal opinion of a debate?
What definition is that? That's not at all what the theory of evolution says.
Oh so now you claim it is brazen to quote from the article that is the topic of this debate - what a bizarre statement - in the same vein you did say earlier you think it is fraudulent to ask to you support your own statement.
BTW: who gives a rat's-behind about your personal opinion of this debate? You are pissed I nailed your butt to the wall.
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.