Posted on 01/21/2004 7:08:08 AM PST by PatrickHenry
DARBY – The push to broaden the Darby [Montana] science curriculum and encourage teachers to challenge evolution as a biological origin isn’t over.
Countering a proposal to include biological origin theories other than evolution in science class, opponents Wednesday will argue to maintain the long-established theory of evolution as the genesis of biology.
Sponsored by the Ravalli County Citizens for Science, the public meeting Wednesday at the Darby Junior High gymnasium at 7 p.m. will include a presentation by Allan Gishlick of the National Center for Science Education.
With a resolution on the table that would change school policy and possibly thrust Darby into a national spotlight, school board trustees decided to hear a presentation against the “objective origins” policy before making a decision at a special meeting next week.
The policy calls for students to “assess evidence for and against theories,” and “to analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.” Although the policy doesn’t spell out what other theories would be included in science curriculum and courts have emphatically prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools, the objective origins curriculum inevitably will include discussions of intelligent design – a theory that assumes a designer of the biologically complex world but stops short of declaring who or what that intelligent designer might be.
Opponents of the intelligent design idea say that the theory holds little scientific merit and is a round-about way to bring creationism into education.
Last month, school officials in Roseville, Calif., decided not to add anti-evolutionist materials to the district science curriculum, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee. Darby is the first school district in Montana to take up such a decision, according to Montana School Board Association officials.
Darby school board trustees are generally split on the decision, but at least two trustees have said they support the objective origins curriculum. Trustees were approached about the policy in November by Curtis Brickley, a Darby parent and minister who used a high-tech, multimedia presentation to introduce more than 200 Darby residents to the objective origins science policy.
Wednesday’s presentation by people opposed to straying from the Darwin’s theory and teaching intelligent design in school will outline the science behind teaching evolution not just as a theory, but as scientific fact. Since 1859 the theory of evolution has been the benchmark in public science curriculum.
Brickley argues that scientific debate exists regarding Darwin’s theory and students need to examine all of the facts. He says that restricting science academic standards to evolution censors information from students and in order to teach objective, science-based curriculum, schools must offer other theories.
[Bold font not in original article.]
This has been my position on ID all along. ID in schools is meant to establish a beachhead for creationism.
...Yesss! Free debate, ...in the schools, where only one orthodoxy can present its materials!!!
"Free debate" ---Stalin-style!
I'm not sure high schools have the capability to teach kids about evert existing theory in every scientific or scholastic field. Given the limited nature of high school education, the schools should stick with teaching the accepted theory in each field and leave the bigger debates for colleges. If the greater scientific community accepts a new theory in a particular field, the schools should teach that theory.
Personally, I think that only People with advanced degrees in hard science from schools that have vetted all non-evolutionists from their degree programs have any business debating this. Otherwise it won't be a full and high-level debate.
Not just in biology either. In chemistry class they teach matter is composed of atoms, and don't even look at alternative theories. In physics they teach Newton's laws as established fact. In French, they maintain that 'le mouton' is a sheep and not the alternative that it might be a cow.
Education is an authoritarian enterprise. The teacher knows better than the students. At least, that's the ideal. Your local school may vary.
One problem with these "debates" is that the evolutionists, of course, understand evolution, but the Creationidiots aren't talking about evolution at all, but about theories of the origin of life.
Evolution is simply how speciation occurs; over millions of years as species evolve. Says NOTHING about how life began. You can believe God, Allah, Zenu, space aliens, or L. Ron Hubbard in a previous life created life on Earth, and be an evolutionist.
Personally, I don't think discussing theories about the origin of life is necessary or all that valuable in High School, as there are a variety of (scientific, of course, not religious) ideas.
However, Evolution is SO basic to biology it HAS to be taught in high school.
LOL!!
Party-pooper! ;)
Theories regarding the origin of life are no more important to understanding Biology at the High School level than the theories of the origin of water are to understanding Meteorology.
The problem at the very start (as always) is definitions.
You're right that ID isn't a "scientific theory." Neither is the idea that from inorganic materials, life developed and evolved, baby-step-by-baby-step to we'uns.
Evolution is a theory about "natural history," not science. ID is a theory about "design," not science. The problem with origins is that you have so many different disciplines that have a bearing on the questions(s) that everybody wants to make it "their own." People want to call it "science" because in the popular mindset that makes it authoritative, and above questioning. (Like "religion" might have been 600 years ago).
But science is what you do by experimentation and observation. History (and natural history) is what you surmise from the relevant artifacts and data accumulations. And, due to the nature of evolutionary theory (vast change over great amounts of time) we'll have to wait a long long time for the first "scientific" evolutionary experiment. ID has its own set of problems, but the point is....so does everyone else.
There's nothing wrong with saying: "There's so much that we're just clueless about.". If the biology texts and teachers started from that, it would be cool. My high school biology indoctrinator started with the attitude that "this is a slam-dunk, and God is an A-hole." He was highly regarded by his fellows.
So you've finally rejected your indoctrination? Good to hear!
Exactly. But the evolution lobby insists that "without evolution biology doesn't make any sense."
My creationist uncle farms 1,000 acres very successfully. How is this possible? No way could biology make any sense to ---him!
And what about the eye doctor who teaches a Sunday School class at my church and says "I'm no expert on 'evolution of protozoa,' but I'll tell you this: As an expert on the subject, the eye did not evolve." How could he be so successful at eye surgery, when biology doesn't make any sense to him?
I just get so tired when I keep seeing the evo-tribe constantly over-reaching. Okay, I don't have an advanced degree in hard science, and the degree i do have is from a non-atheist school. I'll shut up and go away now.
"Geez, reading this article, I have to point out yet again EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE."
From the index of my kid's beautifully illustrated biology text ($90!):
UNIT 4: Evolution
Chapter 1: The Origin of Life
---maybe you should reconsider your statement that "evolutionists understand" that " Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life."
Only one side of this debate has any materials to begin with. There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of that supports ID. If you know of any, please present it here in a format that would be accessible to your average high school student.
The author, Massimo Pigliucci, is associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology a the University of Tennessee. In the shadow of John Scopes, as it were.
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.