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.
RighWingNilla made this comment: "Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution" - he was trying to speak for all scientists. No tricks.
VadeRetro, you are losing it big time.
Now you are lying again. In that message ThinkPlease FIRST admits I am correct.
VadeRetro, you are making a fool out of yourself.
Now you are lying again. Did I claim Gould was doing anything - no!
I am sure you can.
You made an illogical silly statement and you are trying to cover it up by attacking me. Very childish. The lying makes you look really bad.
I agree, they aren't opposites. As I said, "directed" and "un-directed" are opposites.
At 206, you actually deny challenging RightWingNilla's point in the first place (that evolution is not controversial among biologists). Didn't want the burden of proof.
Brazen.
But LastVisibleKerry can agree with you while disagreeing with me.
Unbelievable!
You are thick as the proverbial brick
This is why you are NOT on the money:
VadeRetro: "Random" and "directed" are not opposites. (from message #624)
So, you are certain all certitude is overrated.
And people wonder why philosophy isn't taken seriously anymore...
How original. Did you think that Kerry comment up all by yourself?
That comment does not even make sense. You are turning very irrational.
Really. So you think forces other than happenstance direct evolution? What are these forces? If you think I am wrong, simply state the forces other than happenstance that direct evolution.
The laws of physics and chemistry.
Nice of you to try and help get your little buddy out of his hole but now you have dug a hole for yourself - this was your said earlier:
PatrickHenry: I assume that "directed" means the result of deliberate action of some kind of conscious "director." I suggest that the opposite of "directed" is un-directed. A process that is un-directed may be chaotic, or random (I suppose there's a mathematician's distinction), or it may be determined (that is: the result of natural law). A determined process is not at all the same as one which is directed. Thus endeth my two cents worth of commentary.
One more time:
PatrickHenry: "the opposite of "directed" is un-directed. A process that is un-directed may be chaotic, or random "
So Pat, are you now claiming your earlier statement was wrong or is the one you just made wrong?
Make that:
this is what you said earlier:
You made a false statement. You then continued to insult other people. I rubbed your nose in it a few times. You are now pissed and flailing about illogically. This moment is ALL YOURS.
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.