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.
Problem is you compared critical analysis to a student proclaiming with certitude that 2+2=5. If that is your idea of critical analysis...well...
I come form a philosophical background so I believe all certitude is overrated.
Are you speaking in your capacity as a lawyer, or as a scientist?
Currently I speaking in my capacity as a Love God but I don't know what that has to do with anything. I have been and will always strive to be a student - if a professor does not understand the difference between starting certitude and providing critical analysis - I would drop the class.
You really don't make any since. If the evidence is so weak all that will happen is students will be exposed to weak opposing evidence that will help and support their understanding of the subject. What is so wrong with presenting this data? Why shouldn't students understand all that is out there?
No they wouldn't, because mechanical/electronic components do not spontaneously interact. Organic chemicals do.
That's why the scenarios examined in the papers you apparently didn't read are realistic ones, and also why you shouldn't let Fred Hoyle do your thinking for you by borrowing his goofy "747 in a junkyard" example.
Why not teach them what the Nation of Islam thinks -- that the caucasian race is the product of a scientific experiment by Africans that went awry?
I mean, if we're going to expose them to biblical creationism as science why not present ALL origin stories -- native american, new age, reincarnation, etc, etc?
What's the harm?
Exactly what data are you going to show them. The data supporting geological and biological theories has been accumulating for several hundred years. There is not a library in the world that could hold it all, at least in printed form. There is no one alive who has the time to read it all.
Having everyone analyze all of the raw data is not what science is about.
Good, then tell that to all the creationist websites/pamphlets/books which keep providing (alleged) arguments *against* evolution in their lists of "evidence for creation".
For example, in the creationist website listed in post #45 on this very thread, under their page entitled "Scientific Evidence for Creation", they include such head-scratchers as "Scientific Problems With Macroevolution" and complaints about "Carbon Dating".
Get back to me when you've done that. Thanks.
Critical analysis - n : an appraisal based on careful analytical evaluation
Critical analysis has meaning outside of "postmodern" so I see no need to add this variation.
Um, ok.
2a. Evolution is not an X / Y graph ie: time / chance
Did anyone say that it was?
I hate to break this to you but you do not speak for all scientists and it is very weird that you are attempting to do so.
You may think so, but hundreds of prominent scientists, if not thousands, disagree. The 'facts' are a moving target my friend. What is today's 'certainty' is tomorrow's 'great question'.
And before you flame away, Genesis, in the original Hebrew, does not conflict with either evolutionary change of species or age of the earth.
That may be part of God's plan, however He did not deem it necessary to write a paper like those put forth with such great claims by scientists who do not accept Intelligent Design.
So what is it that YOU are so certain about? Or is it just your bias speaking?
Thousands? I don't think so. But since you seemed to be so plugged in to the ID, perhaps you can help me. In the three or four years I've been on this site, I've had a standing question to ID supporters. Since they think ID should be taught alongside evolution in science classes, it should be scientific. Can you describe to me the theory of intelligent design, and show me experiments subject to the scientific method that determine the predictive power of ID as well as or better than the ToE.
To date, no one has done so. My research into ID sites like arn.org, as well as other ID sites have proved similarly fruitless. Therefore, the only choice that remains is that ID is an unscientific theory, and therefore should not be taught in a science class. If ID becomes a fruitful line of scientific endeavor, then I'll change my tune.
If there are 'thousands' of prominent scientists working on this, then surely there has to have been something useful to have come out the research program, right? Where is it?
Religion has no part in science. I do not visit a doctor for a religious question or problem, so I do not understand why people feel the need to listen to a religious expert in matters of science. It's very illogical, don't you think?
Who on this thread claimed they were speaking for God? Guess you spend too much time laughing and are unable to keep up with the thread.
Yes. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Sample:
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, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
You must have a Master's Degree in Reading Between the Lines and possibly a Minor in Seeing Things That are Not Really There...or I could be wrong.
The problem is that "you 'C' types" keep failing to notice that there are fundamental differences between 747 components and organic molecules, resulting in vastly different characteristics of behavior.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Certainly. And if you could explain what exactly you mean by "this", I'll be glad to.
This thread is about an article - I am responding to that. If this thread was about a lesson plan, then I would respond to it. I have not studied the fine art of Reading Between the Lines so I do not see things that are not there.
Actually, that's not a plausible scenario for the origin of sexual reproduction, but thanks for demonstrating your level of understanding on this topic.
When I was growing up religious organizations had their own "Sunday Schools" or other forms of religion classes. Now it seems these organizations want public schools to carry the burden of the religious education of their kids.
That was from 1925. That is 79 years ago. Way before my time. Currently these people are all dead (or close to it). Now back to the present - currently in this context it is evolutionists that are trying to ban critical analysis not the "creationists"
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.