Revisiting intelligent design [Ohio's schools]

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH ^ | 09 July 2006 | Catherine Candisky

[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."

[MHGinTN]

When evolution theory is taught in High Schools (or colleges), how is it taught?... Are the errors that have been dealt with -making revisions in the theory- taught, or is some specious pristine and non-assailable theory taught, leading students to believe the theory has not needed the application of what makes the process of science so valuable?

When global warming is to be taught to students, will the ravings of Algore be taught as gospel or will the many means to global warming be taught with an eye to critical thought and scientific method to be applied to the notions?

While it is impossible to teach any scientific theory at the high school level without having human bias inveigling the lessons (High School Science teacheres are more akin to benevolent despots than science saints), it is likely to be more impartial if the focus is kept on the science involved in the formulation and testing of a theory, even the theory of ID which can be taught in a compare and contrast mode. When it comes to religious issues or political issues, such lessons are best left to classes not touted as core science classes, at least below the level of graduate studies for college students ... the lack of sufficient fundamental understanding of the science lends itself to feeding young minds propaganda rather than good science and that's likely to destroy the precious value of science as surely as basing a proof upon false data will.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwiniacs have had a couple of hundred years to come up with a single fossil record that demonstrates evolution actually happened within any of the billions of species occupying Mother Earth -- and they've come up with nothing."

That's only true if you completely ignore the fossil record (BTW, there's only one fossil record).

"The "best" they have ever come up with are examples such as: certain dinosaurs have certain things in common with certain modern birds -- ergo modern birds "must" have evolved from dinosaurs."

Your ignorance of what scientists have done is not sufficient evidence to back your claim. It is pretty funny though. :)

"No fossil record?"

You're delusional.

"Well, can't be sure why that is, but it still "must" have happened that way. Some science!"

It only looks that way to you because you don't know what you are talking about. The fossil record is huge and overwhelmingly supports evolution. As does the DNA evidence. That you don't know anything about biology is not sufficient reason to make such silly statements about it.

"If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it."

I don't think you are capable of seeing any of the evidence, but here goes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Your post is one of the funniest I have read in a while though. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are the errors that have been dealt with -making revisions in the theory- taught, or is some specious pristine and non-assailable theory taught, leading students to believe the theory has not needed the application of what makes the process of science so valuable?"

That's a problem not in any way restricted to evolution; all sciences are taught that way. Some history of the development of each science would be helpful, absolutely.

[MHGinTN]

When you use the derrogatory term 'darwiniacs' (implying a kinship to maniacs) or when a supporter of evolution uses the term 'CRIDers', it is obvious there is little chance of discussion and great potential for pissing contests. The issues of denigrating science in public education AND excluding any mention of a Creator are important and only through fair discussion will these issues be resolved properly. Please refrain from labeling for insult purposes.

[Oztrich Boy]

If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it.

I don't believe you would.

[From many - one.]

"...If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it."

I rather doubt the accuracy of that statement.

[MHGinTN]

As I understand it, the fossil record supports micro-evolution but where Origin Of Species proposed gradual change with slow transitions the fossil record does not support macro-evolutionary transitions. Isn't that why Gould and others proposed punctuated equilibrium?

[HayekRocks]

GOP governor nominee Mr. Kenneth Blackwell has associated himself with the Intelligent Design Cause, as well as with other causes on the social conservative wing of the party. If he is elected governor, he will surely appoint a creationist school board. It will be a difficult decision for science minded conservatives in Ohio whether to vote for this candidate. He is behind in the opinion polls already.

I hope the Ohio GOP's nomination of a Christian fundamentalist does not mean electoral death for our party in that state.

[joesbucks]

When global warming is to be taught to students, will the ravings of Algore be taught as gospel or will the many means to global warming be taught with an eye to critical thought and scientific method to be applied to the notions?

What are those many means to global warming? Are they manmade or exlusively a part of the normal course of nature?

[PatrickHenry]

If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it.

Why? It wouldn't really make any difference, would it?

This is for the lurkers: TONS OF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.

[From many - one.]

Thank you for your support of civil discussion. It is sorely needed on these threads.

Can you elaborate on the offensiveness of "CRIDer" since I thought it was simply an abbreviation for supporter of special Creation or Intelligent design.

[JOE43270]

"Well, I just don't think the ID'ers/creationists are as bad as all that, though they are pretty bad."

Feel how you want, just don't turn your back on them.

[JCEccles]

Grady said she views her proposal as a compromise to ensure that differing views are considered when teaching such hot-button issues.

Grady has zeroed in on the problem that Darwinists have never had the spine or integrity to openly acknowledge in their hysterical jihads to protect the one true "science." It is simply this: Darwinism, like global warming, is ultimately a device specifically designed and driven to advance leftist ideology and theology (atheism). The science-based aspects of Darwinism are a mere stalking horse. It is the theology that really matters.

The public schools have been converted into seminaries to refine and inculcate the atheist liberal faith into the minds and habits of the most impressionable.

[From many - one.]

Poppycock.

A swarm of undocumented assertions.

[JCEccles]

Darwinism is such a brittle, hollow faith. its supporters dare not subject its claims to scrutiny but spend all their energy looking over their shoulders so they can spy any challenge while yet afar off and get the courts to declare the challenge unlawful.

Call your farce what you will, but don't call it science.

[From many - one.]

More undocumented assertions. That's 2 for 2 on this thread.

[JOE43270]

"Call your farce what you will, but don't call it science."

I think you mistook what I was saying. I don't call it science either. Like I don't call what has been taught as history either. I was just referring to what was being talked about.

[MHGinTN]

Well, the term CRIDers is a not so veiled comparison to critters, a term used to place animals below the level of humans. Thus the implication is that those who would delve into creationism or intelligent design are lower than the humans who defend evolution.

Dogma is not usually helpful when contemplating a theory in order to discern where that theory may have weakness or be in error. Seeking to denigrate posters tends to be a defensive maneuver usually applied when trying to maintain dogma rather than carry on a civil discussion. I really would like to have a civil discussion someday on the notions of intelligent design, creationism, and evolutionary processes. Today isn't the day I could devote lots of time to such an exchange, but I could block off a large portion of this evening, if anyone is interested. [crickets chirping?]

[vetsvette]

Through your ad hominen attacks, you've just demonstrated yourself to be an interloper from DU or some other wingbat site defending his "religion" - something you've simply taken on faith. I'm not interested in arguing against your religious faith.

I looked at your reference and wasn't even a little impressed. You see, I also have a terminal credential in one of the hard sciences and lesser degree's in two others, so I do understand the scientific method. A description of the method by another PhD. trying to demonstrate that his religious belief is science, doesn't interest at all.

Darwin argued that modern species "evolved" from different and more primitive species. Now, given the billions of modern species and a huge fossil record to work with, a logical person would believe that there is, somewhere in the fossil record, a demonstration of this amazing phenomenon. All I asked from you was just one example and you've not presented it. You give me instead, a fellow believer's treatise on scientific method.

You remind me of a moonbat that called in to a radio talk show a while ago. She was ranting that the President has told "thousands of lies to the American public." The host asked politely for just one example. After a few minutes of mumbling, her only answer was that "there have been so many that I can't think of one."

Okay -- where is the one fossil record example that demonstrates a modern species "evolved" from a different, more primitive, species. Saying that "the entire fossil record supports that conclusion makes me think that maybe you're that radio caller in disguise.

[bobdsmith]

This is a particularly good example of gradual change over time in the fossil record, luckily preserved because unlike other creatures, there is so much plankton around and it fossilized nicely over time:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram.html

Most transitions involve larger gaps however. Eg ancient whale species have back legs, less ancient whale species have reduced hindlimbs, and modern whales have only vestigal structures reminent of their ancestors. Lots more gaps in there despite the sequence of development.

Or ancient horses having 3 toes, and modern horse feet are a fusion of 3 toes, with various fossil horse species intermediate between.