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.
preferrable to being "probed" by space aliens....
;-O
I assumed that you would have enough brain cells to realize that those were pictures from Amazon, and that you could obtain those books there or at your local library or bookstore. It appears that assumption was wrong, you don't have enough brain cells to process that activity. BTW, it's interesting that you're enough of an authority on Behe's work to equate acknowledging it with teaching Creationism, but you have to go look it up when I post a picture of it. When someone says, "Such and such is wrong because my Church says so" and scurries off to do research, that's dogmatic religiosity. When someone says, "How dare you teach that in the schools, you Bible-thumpers" and scurries off to do research, that's...um...hmmm, looks like dogmatic religiosity!
Unlike you and your cohorts, I feel no need to control access to information about this debate. Stop projecting, please.
saw the author was a "Lawyer at UC Berkeley." What a wonderful reference to use on a conservative web site.
Yes, and we've all loved Stephen Jay Gould's work as a conservative icon for years. And I'm sure if the guy worked for Wheaton, Moody or Liberty, you wouldn't be saying "Well, he teaches at one of them Bible-thumper schools, so that's a crappy example," right?
Are you certain certainty is for fools and retards? If so, which are you? (you are not very good at this game)
Explain your moment of conception...
Actually no one knows or, among scientists, even postulates what existed before the BIG bang, let alone the beginning of life. The fact of evolutionary changes in living organisms and its attendant theory of evolution does not presume to suggest any human being knows how life came from non-life.
For all we know, non-life came from life.
Nope. You are flat-out wrong. I have made no such claim.
Now we have abundant evidence this is the case among laymen and crackpots.
If you have abundant evidence - please present some.
But the burden of proof is on you to show me that such a contreversy exists among biologists
Nope. You lied. I never made that claim. The burden is still on you to support claims like this one:
RWN:Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution.
Not a strawman.
Not invalid.
You will have to do better than that. Please elaborate.
There was this egg and ...
Now about that abiogenesis...
The lack of evidence for that notion effectively refutes it.
You are mistaken. There is a great deal of evidence for abiogenesis. The genetic and biochemical evidence is rather complex, but in short the nature of the most primitive types of cells is what one would expect if those cells had arisen through biochemical abiogenesis via natural means. For one example, they are chemoautotrophs which rely on FeS products within their proteins. Even today, the Krebs cycle, which our mitochondria use to produce the energy we live on, is based entirely on acid reactants which would have been highly useful in mineral-based anabolic life -- the kind predicted by abiogenesis. And so on. Opportunism by the earliest forms of replicating chemicals would constrain the types of life that could result from an abiogenetic process -- and life as we know it matches those constraints in countless ways, which is strongly supporting evidence for abiogenesis.
Basically it is as provable as Creationism.
*cough*. If that helps you feel better, go for it.
And you are going to explain exactly WHY you personally think these examples are not irreducibly complex. You don't expect use to take your word on it.
Elucidate, please. Establish your (bullsh!t) premise if you can.
Well in this context my premise is you are blow-hard that hangs around evolution debates making silly comments, distrusting debate, and spewing insults (I have already provided examples). Another good example is your claim "Only that they are not irreducibly complex" which was made without one teeny tiny shard of supporting evidence.
Your inaability to create life is duly noted.
You're only digging yourself deeper. If you lack the ability to refute the papers, you should stop trying just ridicule them (or me).
Since you and I are among the few who can knowledgeably make this comparison, I have to respectfully disagree. It really depends on which alien you get. Most are quite sensitive to human feelings.
Uh, yeah. An article about the proposed lesson plan.
Does the lesson plan say they will teach ID? If so, please post the specifics.
As has been mentioned several times in this thread, the lesson plan uses links to creationist & ID websites & literature to illustrate it's points.
Anything less subtle would invite an immediate lawsuit that would doom the entire ID plan, as has been done every single time creationism in the classroom has been challenged.
The entire proposed lesson plan, if you could pry your fingers from the keyboard & actually do some research is posted in several areas on the Internet.
Are you certain certainty is for fools and retards? If so, which are you? (you are not very good at this game)
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!
Busted out laughing so hard the whole room looked at me!
Hey Visible, ask him if he's "certain" that Isaaac Asimov really existed, or that "dumbass" is witty repartee. That should be good for some laughs!
Don't be silly - providing links does not mean they will teach ID in biology class. I do not use the term "reactionary" for nothing.
Whoa! Hold yer horses! I was merely making a speculative assertion, not speaking from experience!
Don't be obtuse. The lesson plan shenanigans in Ohio are the only present day evo/crevo debates going on Ohio. If Colson's not mentioning it explicitly, it's only because he expects his readership to know what he's talking about. It's not my fault you left your decoder ring in your other pants.
I'm glad that you've had such a pleasureful experience, but I gotta warn you ... there are terrestrial gayboys who like to dress up as aliens (they call it "extreme cross-dressing"). I think you've been had, if you get my meaning.
This is an Internet debate forum - the topic of the debate is an article. I do not feel compelled to "do research" - you may be doing your doctoral thesis on this topic but I am not. You imply you have done the research - good for you - now could you provide the specific verbiage from you research that support your claim.
NOTE: in debate, the one that makes a claim is responsible for providing supporting evidence - you can't make a bold claim and then demand others provide your supporting evidence.
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.