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 boards 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 Darwins 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 dont 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 Gradys 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."
I thought it was objective.
Heck, I thought CRIDer was too. A simple acronym. "OOooohhh, it reminds me of critter..."
Niggardly does come to mind.
You just can't please some people....
GREAT. How does that work MTN -- we put in the slash to indicate merely both schools of though? Are you cool with that?
Because I was one of the first to use CRIDer (I don't think I invented it but I sure adopted it and use it extensively), I can sure start using Cr/Ider. Similar but more deferential.
Whaddya say?
I sent my 5 year old to kindergarten once covered with BandAids. So I get a call.
"Why's your kid covered with Band Aids?"
So I say "Have you looked under any of the?"
"Uh, No".
"Well why not? He likes Band Aids, but there's nothing under any of them".
Needless to say I made sure, despite tears, he didn't wear any Band Aids after that unless he really needed them.
Because, despite being corrected many times (could it be in the hundreds by now?) on every thread he visits, JCEccles evolved from:
That is a great story! It has a depth that I actually have to think about a bit...
I personally am rather fond of "fossil thumpers," which was coined by f.christian as a response to "Bible thumpers."
Now class, who is it that said that a knowing mis-statement repeated enough times becomes The Truth? Was it a good person doing God's work?
Sheesh, you Cr/Iders. How do you reconcile your purposeful mis-statements (I would never say "Lie") with the tenants of He whom you would follow? The Enemy of God and Christ is the Prince of deception. Mis-statements, which have been corrected in the past and repeated, are deception. I leave it to you to do the math.
The late, lamented f.christian. Fossil Thumper is pretty clever and I will sure put it in in place of "Evo" to describe myself if I am pontificating.
"Fossil smasher" may work for the other side...
Something like this happens occasionally with plants. Chromosome duplication.
However it can't possibly account for a large percentage of speciation, or cells would be the size of planets.
The speciation we actually observe happens rather slowly by our standards, although it could be an eyeblink by geologic standards. It takes 50 years or so to make a dog variety or to produce a tame fox.
These can involve rather dramatic changes in morphology.
The funny thing about you insulting me in this way? You ping me repeatedly to threads that I have no interest in even though I asked you to stop.
The whole of FR is NOT YOUR PERSONAL PINGLIST.
Be nice!
The supernatural cannot be tested by natural means.
You need to stop harrassing those who believe in God.
"You need to stop harrassing those who believe in God."
You need to stop trolling. I am not harassing anyone. When you creationists step into the arena and make empty claims that evolution is a pack of lies, you are going to get a response. Every single thread is the same. Creo's want evolution to be proven. When compared to the amount of evidence you have for creation, it is proven. And until you can find any evidence to the contrary besides faith, you are going to feel harassed. I have no problem with people believing in God. Just don't try to make laws that force America's schools to be indoctrinated. Religion has left a path of destruction around the world. That is not harassment, that is fact.
Sir, this a conservative forum. Please don't come here and insult our intelligence with pseudo science garbage you've obviously copied from one of those absurd charlatan anti-evolution websites. If you're going to inject yourself into a science debate, please at least read a real science book before pretending that you know anything about the subject.
Newbie, you need to think before you post.
I am not harassing anyone.
It is obvious from your posts that you have a personal animus against religion and demanding that people provide "proof" of God is harrassment, unless you are actually ignorant of the fact that God cannot be proven.
When you creationists step into the arena and make empty claims that evolution is a pack of lies, you are going to get a response.
WTH are you babbling about? If someone has a problem with science, use science and logic to refute it.
And every assumption you made about me is wrong.
Religion has left a path of destruction around the world. That is not harassment, that is fact.
Religion has done some good things as well.
I'm glad it tickled your fancy. Would you like a Band Aid?
Vetsvette, I need your help. Since you have an opinion on these supposed fossil ancestors of humans, and since you "have a terminal credential in one of the hard sciences", please fill out this survey of creationists. The evos clearly are blinded by their materialistic, godless presuppositions about the origins of man, and only creationists can give us a clear answer to the question: Just what kinds of fossils are these, anyway? I've got you down for G being "just an old human", but what about the others?
Thanks!
Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!
Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:
Fossil | Just an ape | Ape-like transitional |
Human-like transitional |
Just a human | Not related at all to apes or humans |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
C | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
D | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
E | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
F | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
G | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
H | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
I | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
J | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
K | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
L | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] | [_] |
The Responses So Far:
Person | A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp) |
B, C Australopithecus africanus |
D Homo habilis |
E Homo habilis |
F Homo rudolfensis |
G Homo erectus |
H Homo ergaster |
I Homo heidelbergensis |
J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis |
L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mainstream scientists | ape | ape-like trans | ape-like, human-like trans | ape-like, human-like trans | ape-like, human-like trans | human-like trans | human-like trans | human-like trans | human-like trans, human | human |
The creationists... | ||||||||||
Bowden, Malcolm | ape | human | human | human | human | |||||
Brown, Walt | ape | ape | ape | ape | human | human | human | |||
editor-surveyor | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | human | human |
Gish, Duane (1979) | ape | human | human | human | human | |||||
Gish, Duane (1985) | ape | ape | human | human | human | |||||
Luskin, Casey | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | human | human | human | human | human |
Mehlert, A. W. | ape | ape | human | human | human | |||||
Menton, David | ape | human | human | human | human | |||||
Michael_Michaelangelo | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | ape | human | human |
MississippiMan | ape | ape | human | |||||||
Taylor, Paul | ape | human | human | human | human | |||||
vetsvette | ape | human | human |
IIRC, I'm still hoping you'll fill out the Ape or Human survey too. Real science needs your input!
Why is there no option for "monkey"? Do not many creationists believe that the theory of evolution states that humans came from monkeys?
Why is there no option for "monkey"? Do not many creationists believe that the theory of evolution states that humans came from monkeys?
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.