Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?
It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.
At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.
Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.
In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."
(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)
Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.
But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.
"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."
Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.
"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.
School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.
"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.
Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."
Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"
"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.
Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.
"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."
Students will begin using the new textbooks this fall.
I’ve already admitted that I “haven’t yet found that peer-reviewed paper that explains in detail the evolution of the human ear in purely naturalistic terms.” I assume that you’re not so old that your reading comprehension skills are weakening. Kindly remember what I wrote, as follows:
I admit that I can neither think of a paper that answers your question nor come up with an experiment on my own.
As you can see, instead of waiting for my scanning the archives of peer-reviewed journals to satisfy your claim, of which I have already stated my position on, why don’t you get started on your groundbreaking paper?
The good things that would happen to you include, but are not limited to
If I were well-versed in a controversial idea that I knew to be true because of its obviousness to anyone with “half a brain,” and these things awaited me following my challenge of the status quo, then I would do it in a heartbeat.
But, Paielli, you’ve got the upper edge in this battle. I’m not as well-versed in the ideology as you are, so you are the right person to write that paper. Do it! Instead of criticizing the “crap that passes for scientific wisdom these days” and wasting your time trying to “enlighten” folks like me, better our nation by using your talents to destroy what you perceive as scientific dogma. Make your contribution to biology.
Don’t wait one more second. Your refusal to write that paper means that countless public school students will continue to be taught stuff that isn’t true. You don’t want that to happen, do you?
“I admit that I can neither think of a paper that answers your question nor come up with an experiment on my own.”
Yet you continue to argue in favor of a theory you admit is not supported by empirical data? Why is that? Ideology perhaps? Or is it just plain stupidity?
The greatest scientists of all time, including Newton, Kelvin, and Pasteur, all saw intelligent design in the universe and nature and said so in no uncertain terms. And they saw it before we had any idea of the incredible complexity of the simplest living cell, to give just one example of the great discoveries since their time.
Yet modern fools make truly asinine claims about how ID “cannot be observed.” The only people who “cannot observe” it are willfully blind fools who simply refuse to open their eyes.
Here I am wasting my time on you again. Let me make a suggestion. Take the source code for the Linux operating system, and pretend it came from some unknown distant galaxy. Then do an analysis and see if you can “prove” that it was “intelligently designed.” Then let us know your conclusion and how you reached it.
Is that a pointless excercize? Not really. If SETI ever receives an apparently intelligent signal from space, they will have to do precisely such an analysis. I doubt they will take your position that we cannot conclude an intelligent origin until we can identify the source of the intelligence.
I argue in favor of evolution because its definition, change in a population’s allele frequencies over time, has been both observed and tested in our world. Your writing indicates that you believe high school kids throughout our nation have been gypped. I’m sorry that you feel that way. So, instead of wasting time trying to point out my problems as you perceive them, why don’t you help them out by publishing the first peer-reviewed paper in support of creationism?
Disappointingly, it looks like you’re choosing to hide those gems of science in the confines of your mind. I am perplexed. You think high school kids are being taught “crap that passes for science.” If I thought that, I would be outraged, and I would try to do something. As Kitzmiller shows, lawsuits end up in failure and colossal wastes of local taxpayer dollars. But, peer-reviewed papers have a habit of shutting naysayers up. So, write the paper and do something to benefit our countrymen. It’s the American way.
The more you say stuff like, Yet modern fools make truly asinine claims about how ID “cannot be observed,” the more I think that you are the one who can change biology forever. Since it’s so obvious to you that intelligent design can be observed, write the paper and prove it to the scientific community! You can use the examples of the eye and Linus Torvald’s technological contribution to demonstrate your points. You can do it. I’m making fun of you now, but it will be you who will have the last laugh when you publish your paper. On that day, you can meet me, point your finger at my face, and guffaw to your heart’s content.
The greatest scientists of all time are human; they are capable of mistakes. Dr. Linus Pauling, the only scientist to ever win two unshared Nobel Prizes, proposed a triple-helix model for DNA. He was wrong. DNA is a double-helix. Before he died, he advocated massive doses of vitamin C as a cancer treatment, even though he published nothing in support of his claim. Do these two instances detract from his significant contributions? Of course not. You view the words of great minds as gospel and accept them without question. That is not how science works. Science changes. Have you forgotten that Pluto used to be a planet but is no longer?
I’m ending the verbal irony running gag on Paielli; it’s run its course.
Paisan, you can whine all day about how it’s so “obvious” that the ear can’t be explained by natural means alone. But, by invoking the supernatural, you’re stepping outside of science by default.
There are zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism. Unless you change that number, your creationism will be a joke in the courtroom and the science classroom.
“There are zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism. Unless you change that number, your creationism will be a joke in the courtroom and the science classroom.”
That is precisely the argument that Al Gore uses to dismiss the non-believers in man-made global warming. Have you seen his movie?
You and Al are two peas in a pod. You are both completely incapable of thinking an independent thought, and you both fall back on the politically correct interpretation of modern science as you understand it to hide your complete and utter inability to think critically.
I suggest you get the hell off of FR before you further embarrass yourself. We already know *exactly* what standard old canards you will parrot before you even parrot them, so you serve no useful purpose whatsoever. You are nothing but a complete annoyance and time waster.
Whoever your Sunday School teacher was, he did a great job teaching you how to be a Christian. "Paielli, my boy, never try to enlighten the unenlightened. Instead, insult them and laugh at their ignorance."
It's not my fault that when it comes to creationism, you prefer the American liberal's method of whining without a offering a solution over the American conservative's method of attacking the problem at its source.
I guess you're just going to have to live knowing that you haven't done a thing to stop public school kids from being taught "crap that passes for science." Must be a terrible existence.
You live in California, so you're typing this in the afternoon. Have a nice one and whenever you get that paper published, message me.
I never said I was a “creationist,” nor have I argued in favor of “creationism,” but you insist on mislabeling me because you are a pathetic loser who is incapable of debating me rationally.
You’ve also fallen for the Big Lie about human origins, namely that the only alternative to Neo-Darwinian evolution is “creationism.”
Since you like to use my name a lot, and you’ve mentioned my occupation, I’d be interested in your name and occupation. Oh, but I’ll bet you’re embarrassed to tell us that. I would be too if I were you, “my boy.”
Oh, and please quit sending me personal messages to hide your pathetic personal insults. Let’s get it all out in the open, “my boy.”
Is Google just too damn hard? ENT News, an otolaryngology and audiology journal with over 100 peer reviewers.
Thanks for the link. It’s a three-page article with a couple of small diagrams and a few references. This is an example of an article that basically *assumes* evolution and sketches a very rough outline of how it *might* have happened.
As is typical in this kind of speculation, any “evidence” that even remotely suggests the possibility of transition is taken essentially as proof positive of evolution. Also as usual, absolutely no analysis is done of the probability of the development occurring by purely naturalistic mechanisms. That’s simply assumed or implied.
And if I may say so, the article does not even “scratch the surface” of the complexity and sophistication of the ear. Think about how many tiny pieces must fit together virtually perfectly, not to mention the nerves leading to the brain, and the auditory processing center in the brain.
But of course, if we observe the obviously intelligent design, we are not being “scientific.”
You're welcome. You asked for a peer-reviewed article, and you got it with a quick Google. I have a feeling nobody here even bothered to look.
This is an example of an article that basically *assumes* evolution
It is an article within the field, just as ID articles "assume" ID happens. But what it did is show how the ear evolved.
Also as usual, absolutely no analysis is done of the probability of the development occurring by purely naturalistic mechanisms.
Have you ever thought that scientists rarely address probability because it's a dumb question in the first place? You don't see many geologists taking the biblical flood into account much either. Does that mean their work is invalid?
And if I may say so, the article does not even “scratch the surface” of the complexity and sophistication of the ear.
Well, he is talking from a different position than our understanding, being a well-published doctor of otolaryngology, head of ear-nose-throat surgery at a hospital. To him the ear is probably rather simple.
if we observe the obviously intelligent design
"Obviously" here is based on feelings. The gay crowd thinks that homosexuality is "obviously" natural and healthy, do you agree? It's obvious, isn't it? They want it to be that way, they feel they are right, so they think it's obvious.
Feelings screw up science, just look at Global Warming.
quote:
Have you ever thought that scientists rarely address probability because it’s a dumb question in the first place? You don’t see many geologists taking the biblical flood into account much either. Does that mean their work is invalid?
my reply:
What you have just clearly demonstrated is that you do not understand the procedure of hypothesis testing, a fundamental part of science.
Let’s say the hypothesis here is that the ear developed by purely natural mechanisms (i.e., with no intelligent design). The evidence is then examined, and the probability that the hypothesis is true is determined or at least estimated. When you say that probability is a “dumb question,” you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method. You are simply assuming as a premise what is in reality only a hypothesis. Evolutionists are notorious for doing this.
In this case, hypothesis testing is very difficult, but that is not an excuse to simply skip it altogether. Science is sometimes hard, but that does mean you can cut corners (or neglect to run the track at all and pretend you did).
Now, an ear, nose, and throat practitioner most likely does not care much whether the evolution occurred with or without ID. He just wants to make you healthier — not to mention avoid controversy. In that case, he can skip the “no-ID” hypothesis test, which is essentially what he did in the article. But then he cannot make a scientific claim about it one way or the other.
Actually, I find that true for ID. It is at most an untested hypothesis. In science, the most the ID movement can be is an attack on the Theory of Evolution, and attacks are good in science. Attacks come from within the scientific community all the time, since that is the way of science.
However, ID pretends to be a competing theory in the agenda to teach religion in schools, which makes the movement dishonest. "Research" from parties proven to be dishonest and having a hidden agenda (formerly, it was exposed) is easy to dismiss. Yet scientists still take the time to play whack-a-mole with whatever pseudo-scientific claptrap the Discovery Institute puts out.
Well, you started out making sense in your first paragraph, but you quickly lost it in the second.
So, are you suggesting that if the ToE is disproved, it should still be taught anyway as the only “scientific” theory of human origins? That’s what you seem to be saying.
And if the “agenda” of the Discovery Institute discredits ID itself, does the atheistic “agenda” of Dawkins and Karl Marx (who endorsed Darwinian evolution) equally “discredit” the ToE? Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of basic scientific principles.
As for playing whack-a-mole, that is exactly what I feel like I am doing whenever I get sucked into one of these evo threads. The same old canards come up over and over again, and I have to keep whacking them down. I suppose I should have learned my lesson by now.
“Actually, I find that true for ID. It is at most an untested hypothesis.”
One more point. When you assert that ID is an “untested hypothesis,” are you aware that mathematicians claim to have proven that the first living cell is *extremely* unlikely to have come together by random chance? That’s a result based on classical hypothesis testing, and ID passed with flying colors. (I don’t have the reference(s) handy, but I know they exist.)
But even if you don’t believe their analyses, I hope you are aware that the origin of the first living cell has certainly not been explained by modern science.
Whack-a-mole time again.
Aside from the fact that is completely outside of the ToE (a common ID mistake), no I haven't seen a mathematical proof, only speculation.
I hope you are aware that the origin of the first living cell has certainly not been explained by modern science.
Gravity hasn't been completely explained for sure either. Do we abandon that?
You teach the best that science has to offer. Even a ToE with some holes in it is better than nothing. Come up with a better scientific theory and I will gladly see it taught in science class.
Phlogiston theory remained dominant for a while after it was disproved, but it finally died after Lavoisier introduced caloric theory to replace it (which was itself replaced by the theory of heat, also with some overlap).
And if the “agenda” of the Discovery Institute discredits ID itself, does the atheistic “agenda” of Dawkins and Karl Marx (who endorsed Darwinian evolution) equally “discredit” the ToE?
The "agenda" was the search for knowledge. Although it built on the work of earlier people, Darwin's basis of the ToE took off when Darwin, a highly-religious man, saw a pattern during his voyage on the Beagle . He so believed in God that his Bible quoting garnered ridicule during the voyage. Later, the theory he developed from this work won on its merits despite many attacks, not resorting to a planned program of subterfuge and dishonesty.
The same old canards come up over and over again, and I have to keep whacking them down. I suppose I should have learned my lesson by now.
The same canards come again and again because what you see is the hammer coming down to whack your mole. Care to trot out the 2nd Law of Termodynamics again? There's a really big hammer ready for that one.
Keywords evolution ear come up with a Washington Post article from last year that covered fish ears, which is interesting but won't advance the discussion because RussP has no interest in fish ears.
Sounds like you’re describing yourself. Have you forgotten that you started off our discussion with a barrage of insults and appeals to ignorance?
In any case, you are no different in style from the American liberals who defend racial preferences. The Supreme Court banned quotas, so now racialists can’t use that term. But, they can still use “goals” and “targets” and “critical masses.”
The Supreme Court ruled that creationism is not science. So, the creationists can’t use that term to push their agenda. But, they can still use “intelligent design.”
Since you don’t like my calling you by your last name, I’ll refer to you by your username. Also, I like to keep my identity separate from my account. My FR page does not link to my personal web page. It just displays a brief summary of my political beliefs.
Your only argument is that “intelligent design” is so obvious that anyone can see it. Care to explain why this argument has produced no peer-reviewed papers? You’ve already played the Al Gore card, twice, in fact. Please play a new card.
Really, though, were you ever trying to convince me to become a creationist? Unlike dschapin, you started off by slewing vitriol in my direction. You've reinforced my belief that the only way creationists can have their beliefs construed as scientific is if science includes the supernatural. But, every time the supernatural is studied, crap happens. Procedures are loosened. Controls are not used. All sorts of bad stuff. Just ask James Randi.
The School Board debates Evolution. Once they are done with that they will move on to String Theory and Hawking temperature.
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.