Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom

BreakPoint with Charles Colson | 1 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

[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.

[balrog666]

So RightWingNilla, you think you are the spokes-model for all of science. You have an interesting variation on delusions of grandeur

As opposed to those who "think" they speak for God?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

[BMCDA]

OK, imagine that all the pieces necessary to build a mousetrap (which is far less complex than a 747) were lying in a junkyard unassembled - would they at some point find their way together to become the trap?

If not, what does this prove?

[ThinkPlease]

Would you have a problem with it being discussed in a philosophy class--if they still taught philosophy in high school?

A philosophy class is a perfect place for ID. In my opinion.

[microgood]

I am a rational person, and I do not see anything wrong with the theory of abiogenesis. Perhaps you could explain why you consider it to be irrational.

The lack of evidence for that notion effectively refutes it.

Basically it is as provable as Creationism.

[Right Wing Professor]

A philosophy class is a perfect place for ID.

And I thought I had a jaundiced opinion of philosophy.

[microgood]

Your inability to address any of the scientific points in made in those papers is duly noted.

Your inaability to create life is duly noted.

[ThinkPlease]

"The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design"

Explicitly, no, they don't. But then, just about every "controversy" in the lesson is a Chapter in Wells' book, isn't it? A duck by any other name is still a duck. It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Of course, I ask again, did you actually read the lesson plan, or did you let someone else do the interpretation for you?

[Last Visible Dog]

Absent clear positive evidence for design, you can't infer design unless you implicitly make assumptions about what the object was designed for - i.e. what its design goals were.

Amazing.

Evolution has no clear evidence of a goal - heck evolution has no goal. Why does evolution get a pass on your little rule but other theories do not? What is that all about - data analysis is different for different forms of data meaning some assumptions are made for some data but not for others. jennyp, can I require you to prove evolution could not possibly be created by a designer? And only after you provide proof will the theory of evolution ever "get off the ground"? If not, sounds like you are working a double-standard.

Finding evidence of design in no way requires proof of an objective or purpose or understanding of a designer - science can only go where the data points.

Design means it did not happen via happenstance - no more, no less. And you are wrong/delusional/deceptive/just confused if you think evidence of non-happenstance is anything more than proof of non-happenstance and some other requirements must be met before you can even analyze evidence of non-happenstance.

Example(fictitious): we find that life on this planet was seeded by a life form from another planet via a meteor. this is proof life came from design - a design from another planet (it is even possible life on this planet was designed by life on another planet and that life came to be via happenstance). We don't know the goals nor do we know the designer - all we know is it didn't happen via happenstance. Using jennyp's logic we would have to reject this evidence entirely because we have not proved the goals or the designer. Starting to see the flaws in your logic?

Let me illustrate your flawed logic in another way: police find a dead body (stabbed in the back). That is proof of a murder. But they don’t know the reason for the murder nor do they know who did it. Using jennyp’s logic, the police would have to ignore the murder because they cannot prove a murder unless they know “what the person was murdered for”

Evidence of design is just that – evidence of design – and it has no more requirement to prove the “goals” as does evidence of happenstance.

BTW: something can conceivably be designed without purpose or goals - that alone renders your following statement null and void.

jennyp: you can't infer design unless you implicitly make assumptions about what the object was designed for

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[Ichneumon]

Orthodox Darwinists want to ban critical analysis.

No they don't.

But tell me, who was trying to ban "critical analysis" in the following?

PUBLIC ACTS

OF THE

STATE OF TENNESSEE

PASSED BY THE

SIXTY - FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1925

________

CHAPTER NO. 27

House Bill No. 185

(By Mr. Butler)

AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

What is next for Evolution-Extremists - burning books?

You obviously have us mistaken for creationists.

[Last Visible Dog]

"Critical analysis" that uses creationist literature as it's source material......

Where does it say that in the article? Not to mention if the source material is so terribly flawed it will be very obvious to the students (thus better supporting your evo-reactionary position that evolution is the end-all be-all)

Why are evo-reactionaries so afraid of critical analysis?

[Ichneumon]

[There is nothing currently scientific about intelligent design. That may change, but until then, ID has no place in a science classroom.]

Next time try actually reading the article.

Next time try actually reading the thread.

This has already been addressed.

[Last Visible Dog]

Oh, I don't know... would it look something like this, perhaps?

Golly, we already know those evil "god-lovers" will burn books - now it looks like evolutionists want to joint the party.

[William Terrell]

It would seem that those who aren't full partisan believers in intra-species evolution are, by that very fact, creationists.

That attitude doesn't argue well in favor of a fertile ground for objective scientific inquiry.

[gdani]

"Critical analysis" that uses creationist literature as it's source material......

Where does it say that in the article?

I live in Ohio & have been following the controversy closely, including reviewing the proposed plan.

In other words, my knowledge of the subject is not limited to the article posted with this thread. I'll do that sometimes. Ya know -- do extra reading then form an opinion.

[Last Visible Dog]

I agree completely! However, as part of a PR campaign to spread FUD about evolution, pointing out discredited, and in some cases vacuous, arguments against evolution is designed preciesly to push the students into the arms of ID'ers & traditional creationists. (The ID'ers don't really care who they turn to - the Discovery Institute's long term goal is to make creationism a Big Tent.)

You are confusing science and your personal opinion. Allow students to think - why does that freak you out so much. Don't give them YOUR SPIN - show them the data and let them decide what is discredited and what is not.

[William Terrell]

Gosh, a competing theory. Who would have thought it would get past the pitchforks.

[Ichneumon]

Many big words,

I'll be glad to help you with the hard ones.

so you may put your little stepping stones all together in whatever order and imagine whatever you wish,

No, you may not. That's what science is all about. You may only adopt theories that are consistent with the evidence.

but SAYING it happened in such a manner in no way proves that it did!

Science does not deal in "proofs". It deals with whichever explanations are best supported by the available evidence and tests.

It's merely ID re-packaged with a layer of scientific jargon added.

No it isn't. I'm sorry you misunderstood it so badly.

[gdani]

Gosh, a competing theory. Who would have thought it would get past the pitchforks

I have no problem with competing theories.

So long as they are verifiable.

"God made it that way" does not exactly pass scientific muster.

[Right Wing Professor]

Don't give them YOUR SPIN - show them the data and let them decide what is discredited and what is not.

So, in teaching them quantum physics, you'd show them all of the spectroscopic data for every atom, plus give them a breakdown of all the mathematics available to Heisenberg in 1924, and see if they'd come up with the same theory?

BWAHAHAHAHA!