Posted on 07/09/2006 4:41:41 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
State Board of Education panel may look at guidelines for classroom discussion of science controversies
Less than five months after evolution won a round in the State Board of Education, some board members want to reopen the debate.
Colleen Grady, a board member from the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville, wants to add guidelines to the state science standards for teaching on such topics as evolution, global warming, stem-cell research and cloning.
Grady said she views her proposal as a compromise to ensure that differing views are considered when teaching such hot-button issues.
"We would provide a template so schools would be comfortable discussing controversial issues," she said last week.
Grady sits on the board’s Achievement Committee, which is expected to discuss the proposal when it meets Monday in Columbus. A vote on whether to recommend the proposal to the full board is not scheduled but possible.
Talk of revisiting the issue has raised concern among scientists who have long fought efforts that they say undermine Darwin’s theory of evolution. Now, they argue, some board members want to subject other areas of science to heightened scrutiny.
"This is so transparent," said Steve Rissing, a biology professor at Ohio State University. "These are not controversial areas of science."
In February, the board voted 11-4 to eliminate portions of curriculum guidelines for 10 th-grade science and an accompanying lesson plan calling for the critical analysis of evolution.
Critics argued that "critical analysis of evolution" was tantamount to calling for the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, the notion that some life forms are so complex that a higher intelligence, maybe God, had to be involved. Both, they argue, are religious beliefs unsuitable for the science classroom.
Committee co-chairman Jim Craig, of Canton, said he was aware of recent discussions of the issue, but nobody has shown him a proposal.
Getting a majority of committee members to agree on any recommendation will be difficult, he said. While Grady and a few others are pushing her proposal, others on the committee say that no more changes are necessary.
"I don’t think either side wants to get back to the point where it was," Craig said, referring to two meetings this year that were dominated by sometimes-bitter debate.
Deborah Owens Fink, a board member from Richfield who is supporting Grady’s proposal, said modifying existing language should be less controversial than ideas the board has considered in the past.
Specifically, Grady proposes taking existing language in 10 th-grade science standards — "Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning response to criticism and open communications are integral to the process of science." — and adding to it: "Discuss and be able to apply this in the following areas: global warning; evolutionary theory; emerging technologies and how they may impact society, e.g. cloning or stem-cell research."
Quite true, but that's really a rebuttal to the Flood geologists, not ID. Although they're all the same, really. It's just that the ID gang like to pretend they're not.
The reality of differentiation of species and fixed existence of new species (stable change in appearance but not change from one species into a new one), supports a 'punctuated' approach to explaining the process but doesn't sufficiently explain the how for me ... that's the problem I'm having with the reality. [For those want to denigrate me over my confession, know that you will be ignored and certainly not pissed back at. So, if you're so inclined, enjoy.]
With so many excellent fossil collections (in total, the single fossil record) covering such an exemplary charting of species, why hasn't a single transitional species fossil shown up to date? And a fossil of whale with hindlegs isn't what I would call a record of a transitional species unless hundreds of such can be found from similar and diffuse age strata ... anomolies aren't a good way to prove an assertion and it remains possible that whale fossils with hindlegs may be no more than anomolies rather than transitional examples. Is there a way to lend credibility to the notion that hindlegs on whales in the fossil record (for example) are in fact transitional species? What would act as a 'proof' for this? ... And what the heck is wrong with teaching kids by this manner of questioning and answering with data instead of by superstition or the 'want it to be so' impetus? [Maybe that can get this back to discussing the thread topic???]
"If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it."
Millions of pieces of evidence. Peruse these threads, there are things being posted all the time. And if you have 1 single solitary piece of evidence for God, lets have it.
When an electron goes from one energy level to another it doesn't do so gradually, it jumps when some 'preset' threshold of energy is reached. I suspect a similar thing occurs with species, but I'm sent for six to see how it could happen. Patterns, macro processes, are the way Nature appears to express. I'd like to comprehend the large pattern process involved in species differentiation/evolution of life on planet Earth ... I think I apprehend the genetic process involved in expression of species and even perhaps the 'cause of different expression for organisms'. Perhaps I've gone too far already in trusting civil discussion ...
Do you have a substitute term? Crevo is not the same as CRIDer (at least in their mind). Although we know Creationism and ID are the same, they keep the fiction they are different. I need an encompassing term that addresses both.
This strikes me as the "niggardly" outcry. Are we on the science side of things so afraid that the mythology side will take umbrage when we use a descriptive term that is a concatenation of "Creationist" and "ID Proponent"?
I give up ...
Its an honest question -- do we have something?
How about IDECer? VIDCer? VIDCRo? VELCRO?
Are you identical to your parents (who are identical to one another)? If not, it is Evolution in action.
If so, please report to Believe It Or Not ASAP! You could win some bucks.
"If not, it is Evolution in action." Hardly ... but it is evidence of sexual reproduction, indirectly of course. BTW, even when a poster is somewhat obnoxious, how does it serve discussion to impugn the parentage?... I wouldn't dare suggets some identification term for creationists or intelligent designers now because it might be misinterpreted as siding with someone given to pissing contests. As I posted, I give up on seeking a civil discussion on these threads ...
And yet there is a strong following among creationists which has identified homo erectus fossils as "monkeys".
Anti-evolution activist. The ID and creationist factions within the anti-evolution coalition.
And what is FR about?
Are trying to be insulted? The fact you are different from your parents is Evolution in progress. Evolution explains the underlying dynamics. DNA exposes the data points.
I am being completely civil. But I will not suffer fools lightly.
FR is about being ignorant on purpose? In the face of overwhelming evidence?
Wow, someone needs to tell Jim.
Science roots out its frauds. Religion celebrates theirs. Does "Scientology" ring a bell?
I'm going to take a stab at answering your question.
I think, if I interpreted your post correctly, that you consider species "stable" until something happens. It isn't quite that way.
It might help to focus a bit on the environment. The reason is that in a benign environment a population has no particular need to change, so although tiny variations occur they never get a foothold. None of the variations necessarily confer any survival advantages, nor do they do significant harm. But they do create a pool of potential.
Now go back to the environment. It changes over time due either to global factors or local...a lake fills in, an ice age comes...
So, within that population all of a sudden some of those tiny variations suddenly become beneficial (while others become deleterious).
Rinse and repeat.
There is another factor. As a population grows, its original perfect fit environment just runs out of space. Once again one of those tiny variations may just do it and open up a whole new environment for the critter. But there may be no competition in the new environment. No other similar critter is living there yet. So now all kinds of variations get to survive. Rapid speciation can occur in several directions.
OK, that's my best shot for now. Let me know if it clarifies anything.
I appreciate the sentiment, but in keeping with the PC theme of not insulting our adversaries (else I would just use "ignorami") I need a more objective term. I thought CRIDer was just fine: Creationist+ID Follower with no subjective implications aout their feelings on science. But some here think it is insulting so I am asking what is the proper PC term.
All of us Evos are just fine with "Evo" (I think). But it is "Darwinist" that is used an an epithet. And improperly to boot (sort of like calling a Mexican and Aztec, but what the heck, right?).
Cr/Ider?
IdCr?
Anti-evo?
"4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify ID?"
Yes. God comes down to the world - proves, beyond anyone's doubt that He is God, and then denies designing anything. Does that help? :-)
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.