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.

[BiffWondercat]

I guess there was no problem just having two of each on the ark? I see some dissonance in such a line of argument from the other side.

[VadeRetro]

Much of nature is too lawful to be described as "random." The formation of a salt crystal is biased toward having sodium atoms and chlorine atoms alternate along horizontal and vertical axes. It is "ordered," but not purposeful.

The creationist semantic shell game is to point to anything which looks ordered or complex and declare that such a thing could not be "random," implying that mainstream science says that it results from shaking the parts in a jar or some similar process.

Chemistry is not random. Physics is not random. The output of chemical and physical processes can often be specified in advance with great certitude because the processes are known to be completely deterministic.

[Last Visible Dog]

Looks like VadeRetro is starting to get squirrelly. I got the feeling he wants to shake his "hamster be-hind" - Time for the Evolutionist Victory Dance®

Not to be confused with the rarely seen Creation Science Victory Dance®

[VadeRetro]

Not squirrely, hungry. Back in a few hours.

[Last Visible Dog]

Much of nature is too lawful to be described as "random." The formation of a salt crystal is biased toward having sodium atoms and chlorine atoms alternate along horizontal and vertical axes. It is "ordered," but not purposeful.

Sounds good. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with your position in question. Here is your position:

VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites.

Please explain how the terms "random" and "directed" are not opposites.

[Last Visible Dog]

Please don't tell me the pictures of hamsters made you hungry....

:-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is the set of sums of two (or more) randomly generated sets of numbers also random?

[BiffWondercat]

Smaller populations often tend to amplify recessive traits that are detrimental. One copy of a recessive gene with a dominant gene may work fine, but a dual recessive
may express itself in a way that causes harm, decreases the efficiency of the organism, or not function at all.
The larger and more varied the gene pool, the better the odds are that these recessive traits won't combine.

However - some of these recessives supplied an advantage in survival at one time, but are now seen as a detriment in the modern world. Sickle-Cell anemia is one example. It protected from malaria so that trait was a great advantage when most people without the trait suffered/died as children/adolescents of malaria. I've seen some articles that suggest that some allergies and conditions are caused by the lack of once extremely common parasites that few (thankfully!) suffer from nowadays. (med/bio experts enlighten can correct me if wrong, please)

Why are there 'recessive' genes? Perhaps something/someone should weed out the bad copies?

As for not marring your cousin (euwww!), there are a few examples of royal families suffering from recessives; such as the house of Hanover's (?) hemophilia and the seemingly poor health of ancient Egyptian royals. (but that is more Blam's area)

As for the last comment: I have seen ads in the Newspaper..

"Puppies for Sale! - Part AKC (w/papers) Grand Champion Pointer - part sneaky *%&$% dog next door"

Sometimes, they decide on their own! (Snik!)

[js1138]

Trying to get the hijacked thread back on track, are you? We'll see about that.

[BiffWondercat]

If you begin with a rationale for rationality, instead of just rationalizations about it, you will be more rational. That statement is going to give me a seizure...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Allow me to paraphrase: "If you are with a basic principle for reason, in place of which fair rationalizations over them begin, you more rationally."

[Last Visible Dog]

Is the set of sums of two (or more) randomly generated sets of numbers also random?

Logic would tell me yes - but I a guessing this is some sort of trick question. All I can say is how can you get anything other than random when you start with random. This has all the earmarks of a gotcha, so bring it on.

[PatrickHenry]

[BiffWondercat]

That, and I safely assume that he has never been attacked by a flying squirrel. It changes a person, ..I..I still have nightmares of my close brush with death!

And he probably has never seen the walking catfish or read of the nylon eating microbes from Japan. (I can think of a good use for that, but it would probably be covered by the P-List y'all started up....)

Don't they have things called (illegal) 'Cock-fights'? I don't know how well they fight without feathers. And there's the flightless ones to consider I guess.

[js1138]

Is the set of sums of two (or more) randomly generated sets of numbers also random?

I don't know what the mathematical answer is, but if the practical answer isn't YES, then NSA's in a heap of trouble. Summing (XORing) pseudo-random strings is pretty much the basis of a lot of encryption strings. Actually, in encryption, only one of the strings needs to be random.

[balrog666]

Put a stake in it:

[Doctor Stochastic]

Well, the point is that randomly generated objects (numbers in the examples below) do follow laws just as exacting as those of deterministic process. Trivial example: take 2 sets of numbers from a uniform distribution on (0,1) (or the numbers on a single die, 1,2,3,4,5,6) then add pairwise. In the first case, one gets sums that cluster about 1 (with a triangular distribution) (in the second case, one gets numbers clustered about 7 which has a probablity of 1/6 whereas 2 has a probability of 1/36.) With adding more numbers, one gets a normal distribution (the "bell curve") regardless of the distribution of the inputs (technically, if the inputs have finite variance and a finite number of the inputs don't dominate all the rest.)

The point is that starting with randomly generated objects, composition gives objects that behave according to well-known rules.

Another example: in a coin flipping game (fair coin, chances of heads = chances of tails), the excess of heads over tails follows strong laws. The exceedence divided by the number of tosses goes to zero at a rate inversely proportional to the square root of the number of tosses (in almost all cases.)

Not knowing the outcome of an individual case doesn't preclude accurate knowledge of an aggragate of cases.

[BiffWondercat]

Are those "Mandelbrot" graphics just my bad eyes? I don't suppose that chaos theory can be applied to the great picture?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Xoring is a bit different. The limit distribution of xoring things is a uniform distribution on (0,1). Similarly for any finite set.

Neither string need be random; the result is no farther from uniform than either input.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Those who don't believe in the laws of random objects provide a livelihood for casino owners who do.