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.

[Elsie]

Seven of some..........

[Elsie]

Chemistry is not random. Physics is not random.

Someone needs to brush up on his Chaos Theory!

[Elsie]

  Can't we all jis git along???

[Elsie]

...better hungry than Horney!

[VadeRetro]

Nobody is directing any selection except the critters competing to survive. If you're not *pretending* to be dumb here, you should quit now.

But then, if you are pretending, you should quit now. Why am I wasting time on you?

[Elsie]

Boo!

This NotLD picture is NOT a link!

[VadeRetro]

Chaos theory does not depend on physics or chemistry being non-deterministic, only intractable to analysis.

Lotto machines are deterministic. You just can't tell in advance what they're going to do.

[Elsie]

Why don't you hard-headed "C" types EVER get the point????

[balrog666]

Someone needs to brush up on his Chaos Theory!

Chaos is not random. By definition.

[Elsie]

I like the lottery 'players' who assume that just because a number has NOT been chosen much, they will bet on it more because they think (due to the 'law' of averages) that it MUST have to come up soon!

[Last Visible Dog]

Nobody is directing any selection except the critters competing to survive. If you're not *pretending* to be dumb here, you should quit now.

No. You are the one claiming nature does the selecting. You need to modify your view. Nature DOES NOT DIRECT ANYTHING - and I believe that is your current claim. (remember your first claim: random and directed are not opposites)

...and lose the insults.

In case you want to start playing games - here are your words:

At any given time, in some specific population, it[nature] is selecting stronger, or smarter....

Nature is not selecting anything - the selection is observed in the past tense.

[balrog666]

Why don't you hard-headed "C" types EVER get the point????

Aw, spell it out for us, bunny. And then lord it over us in your dreams. We don't care.

[Elsie]

Suckers?

[Elsie]

I think my car must be possessed or something.

The odometer of my car said "666" on the last three digits the other day.

I was so scared I almost drove off the road.

About a mile later everything was OK again, though I'm not sure why.

Weirdly, the same thing happens about three times between every oil change.

Should I trade it in?

I think my car must be possessed or something.

The odometer of my car said "666" on the last three digits the other day.

I was so scared I almost drove off the road.

About a mile later everything was OK again, though I'm not sure why.

[Elsie]

At any given time, in some specific population, it is selecting stronger, or smarter, or swifter, or better armored, or more precisely specialized in grabbing the leftovers from a shark's meal.

And, amazingly enough,

At any given time, in some specific population, it is selecting weakerer, or dumberer, or slower, or less armored, or more randomly being grabbed as a shark's meal.

[Elsie]

The computer can generate a sequence that is more randomly distributed than a person can.

o?

What has that to do with MATCHING them?

(I'm not aware of the rules here)

[Elsie]

Also, the center of gravity of most coins is PROBABLY not in the center of the coin.

[Elsie]

Why am I wasting time on you?

To hone your debating skills?

[VadeRetro]

There is no conscious, purposeful selection. For all that, the outcome is not random. The trend is toward increasing adaptation to current conditions. That's it.

No anthropic Nature, no big guy with a fuzzy beard. Some are a little better at finding a way to make it. They live and pass on their genes.

If you can misunderstand that, you're trying too hard. Can the dumb-playing.

[Virginia-American]

I flip a penny. You flip one. We take turns betting. I can choose to bet 1) they're either the same (both heads or both tails, or 2) that there's one head and one tail.