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.

[Mr. Silverback]

Attention server elves: All hands prepare for crevo thread, I repeat, all hands prepare for crevo thread. That is all.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Junior]

Ping.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Shryke]

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.

What "scientific" information is being suppressed?

[Modernman]

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 scientific theories.

If the Ohio B of E was really interested in teaching kids about the scientific method, this is how the new science standards would read. However, by only focusing on TOE, their creationist slip is showing.

[ThinkPlease]

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

[Mr. Silverback]

What "scientific" information is being suppressed?

Three answers:

1. None yet, but they're trying. Did you even read the portion you quoted?

2. Read the article. The people who oppose this standard don't oppose it because it says, "Thou Shalt have Ken Hamm as a guest speaker," they oppose it because it is going to teach kids that scientists disagree about evidence and conclusions drawn from it. What does it say about someone when they're afraid kids might learn that scientists don't all think the same things about the same issues?

3. Short answer: Whatever the "National Academy of Sciences and others" thinks is a thoughtcrime.

[js1138]

even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.

I've got my popcorn. Let's see all the scientific criticism of evolution.

[Mr. Silverback]

Where in the article does it say ID will be taught?

[Old Professer]

I'm going to report you to Tommy Thompson.

[gdani]

Where in the article does it say ID will be taught?

In the current plan, among the additional source material that is presented/recommended is links to creationist & ID wesbites & literature.

[Ichneumon]

Where in the article does it say ID will be taught?

It doesn't, because of course the article is trying to paint the scientists and educators as "intolerant", in an attempt to try to undermine their efforts to keep anti-science agendas out of the science classrooms. Thus it *avoids* mentioning the teaching of ID. But that's the intent of all the folks pushing for the "new" material. And you know it, so don't be coy.

An article in an Ohio newspaper states that the "suggested curricula" includes large portions of Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution", which is not only a plea for ID, but so fundamentally flawed and error-filled that the very notion of including it in a high school course is appalling.

[Seruzawa]

Only the Cult of Scientific High Priests are supposed to know that there are huge holes in evolution theory. All us unwashed peons are to simply accept the simplistic dogma, as taught in the publik skools, without question.

Huge grants are at stake here.

[VadeRetro]

... these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications.

I'm going to assume here that Colson thinks the AiG website, The Genesis Flood, and Darwin's Black Box are "top science" publications.

[gdani]

Only the Cult of Scientific High Priests are supposed to know that there are huge holes in evolution theory.

Such hyperbole works only if you care to point out these so-called huge holes.

Unanswered questions? Yes. Huge Holes? What do you specifically mean?

[roylene]

Explain to me how life can come from non-life.

[ThinkPlease]

Have you read the proposed lesson plan that is causing all the fuss in Ohio? It reads like Jonathan Wells' book, as well as including links to www.arn.org, and www.origins.org, which is a Creationist website. The article might not mention it, but that's what Colson is talking about.

[Mr. Silverback]

I've got my popcorn. Let's see all the scientific criticism of evolution.

Oh yeah, there hasn't been any criticism of current evolution theory except by radical, Bible-thumping Creationists...

Just by a biochemist at LeHigh...

...A Law professor at Berkeley...

...a guy from Baylor with doctorates in Math and Philosophy who did his postdoc at MIT, the University of Chicago and Princeton, has held National Science Foundation fellowships and taught at Northwestern and Notre Dame...

...and a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

Nope, nobody but preachers, flat-earthers, Bible College Basket-weaving Ministry grads and high school dropouts in there.

The reason evolution is coming under attack from people outside the scope of the Creationist movement is because evolution is such a bloody silly theory that rational scientific observors have reached a certain point: The point where they can no longer ignore evolutionists' religiosity in the face of the evidence.

[js1138]

I'm sorry, but your links don't seem to be working for me.