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.
That is silly. Do you really consider that critical analysis of evolution?
Not at all. I think such claptrap is as verifiable as the "science" that shows that the Earth is approx 6,000 years old & that all humans are directly descended from Adam & Eve.
Those examples are but two that the State of Ohio is using to "critically analyze" evolution.
Anyway, what's the harm in presenting the Nation of Islam's theories?
After all, you're the one who stated,"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."
I ask again -- what's wrong presenting data about the Nation of Islam's theories, new age cults' theories, info about reincarnation, etc?
Critical analysis means just that - critical analysis of evolution. That does not mean teaching an alternative. Seems many of you evolutionists have the same malady - you think finding any faults in the theory of evolution will be support from some "alternative" theory. It does not work that way. Faults in one theory is not automatic support for another. This is not a football game where one side is going to win.
"The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design"
Would it be to much to ask you to *gasp* actually review the lesson plan instead of relying solely on this one article?
Fine. Show me a scientific paper in a biology journal where the author(s) argues against the theory of evolution.
Propaganda at its best, bravo!
Pardon me - you are the one making bold unsupportable claims, not me.
First you claim to speak for all scientists and then you demand that I prove you wrong. Guess you never studied logic.
OK, so let's review...If scientists, many of whom are not Creationists, have a disagreement with the current theory of evolution, that means that the public schools cannot acknowledge that fact, because if they do they are doing the work of Creationist Sunday schools. Wow, that's some position.
Let's rewrite your lament and see how it sounds:
I think it is a travesty that people who believe in the Second Amendment refuse to educate their own children in their beliefs and instead demand that the public schools do it in civics classes.
In America, the default learning position in our public schools and colleges has been that guns are bad, especially if owned by white men. Many of us disagree with this position. If teachers are required to teach what the Founder's thought about the issue, are they "doing my work for me" or are they airing a current issue in American political discourse? Or how about this?
I think it is a travesty that people who believe in string theory refuse to educate their own children in their beliefs and instead demand that the public schools do it.
After all, no one is demanding that schools teach a religious point of view, in fact, no one is even demanding that the schools teach that any particular religious point of view even exists. They want to acknowledge that there is some well-founded dispute on this topic. Their opponents say, "No, we will pretend that the current state of science is completely different from what it is in reality." Gee, why don't we just hold civics classes pretending that there's no GOP, or history classes pretending that slavery's still in force? Why force the public schools to accept reality?
What a travesty if students learn what's really going on! What a hero you are for preventing them from learning it!
Gee, because it doesn't, dumbass? Get a grip.
I am certain IN YOUR MIND no two people can agree on just what that might be.
Certainty is for fools and retards - which are you?
I must be doing something right if the evo-reactionaries have to resort to childish name-calling.
Or I treat mental-3-year-olds like you in the context with which they are familiar.
Golly, how can one argue with an elite scientific mind like that.
Here are some example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella
I assume you are going to pretend they don't exist. My goal is only to point out the vacuous nature of your statements.
I think you have summed up this lunacy quite nicely.
Well, this thread is related to that article. Like I said, I did not read between the lines as well as you do. Does the lesson plan say they will teach ID? If so, please post the specifics.
Not at all. Only that they are not "irreducibly complex".
Aw, did you forget the last six threads already? Next time, I'll dumb it down for you.
My goal is only to point out the vacuous nature of your statements.
Really? And how did you establish any "irreducibly complex" items? Did you use the theory of evolution or a god-filled version of creationism?
Elucidate, please. Establish your (bullsh!t) premise if you can.
I'll tune back in tomorrow to see if you have posted anything worth a sh!t. (Probabilty zero - BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!)
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.