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."
That's easy! This one is also a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
I never saw that association at all. Thanks.
I'm up for an extended discussion later today, pending resolution of some health issues. If I can't provide an immediate answer, I'll let you know it will be delayed.
I had a lot of courses in grad school in evolution and related subjects. Two seminars (or three; it was a long time ago) dealt with "problems" in evolution.
Not a one of the things the creationists are always dredging up was included. Rather, the seminars were devoted to theoretical interpretations of data, and how different researchers had different approaches.
You can't teach this kind of thing in high school. Neither the students nor the teachers generally have the background.
I use the term CRIDer as a shorthand for Creationists and ID proponents, It is not dismissive. Call me an Evo, I have no problem.
The term 'Darwinist' is an epithet.
Big difference.
I use the term CRIDer as a shorthand for Creationists and ID proponents, It is not dismissive. Call me an Evo, I have no problem.
The term 'Darwinist' is an epithet.
Big difference.
Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)
Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)
Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)
Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)
Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)
Information: No tools found in same layer (4)
Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)
Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)
See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24
Anyone care to post a "single fossil record"?
Lots more where those came from:
Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.
1. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?2. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation? Or even a competing explanation?
Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.3. If the intelligent designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design? (Note: "intelligent designer" isn't capitalized because ID is alleged to be science, not theology.)Related question for those who would claim that a thing with a "purpose" demonstrates design: What distinguishes a design that has "purpose" from something that has no purpose? How does one see "purpose" in a duck, or an ape, or a rock? If everything has a purpose, how is design different from mere existence?4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify ID?5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the variety of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct? (And no, the Fall doesn't explain it, because ID is supposed to be science, not theology.)
6. If complex organisms demand an ID explanation, why doesn't the designer (obviously a complex entity) require an even more intelligent designer who created it, and so on, ad infinitum?
It's no answer to raise the theologian's argument that God is exempt from the normal demands of scientific explanation. If ID is an idea that belongs in the science classroom, it must submit to scientific discipline.7. The rapidly-growing biotech industry, which is profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, employs thousands of scientists. Why don't they employ "creation scientists" or ID theorists to exploit their insights? (If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it.)
Note the number of this specimen, KNM-WT 15000. This stands for Kenya National Museum, West Turkana area, specimen #15,000. There are a lot of fossil producing areas in Kenya. There are a lot of countries in Africa which produce fossils. There are a lot of countries on other continents chich produce fossils. That means there are hundreds of thousands of fossils kicking around.
I can post more if you want, but I don't want to use up all the bandwidth.
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38
In view of the interpretation by MHG (and possibly others), I think it might behoove us on the science side of the issue to refrain from using CRIDer unless we intend to give offence. The interpretation is reasonable.
In highly emotional arguments my preference is to grant the other side all possible perks and stick to the primary issue; in this case that science comes down unequivocally on the side of evolution.
So what does the evidence really show? Are any aspects of it as well-established as the press generally claims?
Also, I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear and thought it was great. What do those familiar with the literature say? Did he accurately portray the evidence?
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.