Skip to comments.
(Ohio) State panel backs disputed lesson, infuriates supporters of evolution
Cleveland Plain Dealer ^
| 2/11/04
| Scott Stephens
Posted on 02/12/2004 7:43:32 AM PST by ThinkPlease
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
The lesson plans--Appendix A, especially, reads like Jonathon Wells wrote it word for word out of his latest book. I suspect there will be a lawsuit incoming if this passes, and it will get overturned however. Some of the references listed therein reference God explicitly, which is a no-no.
To: PatrickHenry
Vasiliy, I need one ping. One ping only, please.
2
posted on
02/12/2004 7:44:20 AM PST
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: All; biblewonk
"It's a sad day for science in Ohio," said Patricia Princehouse, who teaches biological evolution at Case Western Reserve University. "This opens up the reputation of Ohio scientists to ridicule nationally and internationally."Tsk, tsk, tsk... Lady, was it not a sad day for "science" when they brought your religion into the classroom?
3
posted on
02/12/2004 7:54:58 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
To: newgeezer
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Lady, was it not a sad day for "science" when they brought your religion into the classroom?
Riiight. Your perception (about science being a religion) is sadly, wrong.
4
posted on
02/12/2004 7:59:12 AM PST
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: newgeezer
Tsk, tsk, tsk... Lady, was it not a sad day for "science" when they brought your religion into the classroom? That's for sure.
5
posted on
02/12/2004 8:03:21 AM PST
by
biblewonk
(I must try to answer all bible questions.)
To: ThinkPlease
Riiight. Your perception (about science being a religion) is sadly, wrong. Riiight. Your perception (about evolution being a science) is sadly, wrong. Especially evolution as it is usually taught in the public schools.
6
posted on
02/12/2004 8:23:21 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
To: ThinkPlease
the board voted 13-4 to declare its intent to adopt the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson next month. In itself, not a bad idea. Teaching critical analysis of anything, including accepted scientific theory, can only be a good thing. If not for that, we'd still think Newtonian physics ruled everything.
much of the language in the lesson plan came from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution, a seminal text in the intelligent design movement
However, this shows their true intention to create a backdoor for creation myths taught as scientific theory.
Not that I mind creation myths. I think a class on them would be quite interesting.
To: newgeezer
What, is there a parrot in here?
Considering I work with evidence of an old Earth regularly, claims otherwise have always been specious. The lesson plans here are no different. Same old song and dance.
8
posted on
02/12/2004 9:05:53 AM PST
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: ThinkPlease
Considering I work with evidence of an old Earth regularlyYour beliefs are based on a set of assumptions, in which you place your faith.
Same here, just different assumptions.
9
posted on
02/12/2004 9:08:44 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
To: newgeezer
Your beliefs are based on a set of assumptions, in which you place your faith.Not the same thing, however you might try to spin it. You spin better than Kerry will be tonight on the evening news.
10
posted on
02/12/2004 9:29:08 AM PST
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: ThinkPlease
No spin on my part, only denial on yours.
11
posted on
02/12/2004 9:36:31 AM PST
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary. You have the right to be wrong.)
To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
12
posted on
02/12/2004 10:44:59 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: ThinkPlease
Princehouse and other scientists complained that much of the language in the lesson plan came from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution, a seminal text in the intelligent design movement. Who was it who said, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGHHH?"
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping!
To: ThinkPlease
To: VadeRetro
Who was it who said, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRGHHH?" Joseph of Aramathea, according to Monty Python.
To: antiRepublicrat
But he would have said it, not written it.
To: VadeRetro
But he would have said it, not written it. Then it would probably be Lancelot's reading of Joseph's writing.
To: newgeezer
It's a violation of the Establishment Clause to teach "God" in public schools. So said the SCOTUS in Aguilar and other cases. That's the law of the land.
Evolution, being neutral as to God, doesn't violate the Establishment Clause.
To: newgeezer
Your perception (about evolution being a science) is sadly, wrong. How is the theory of evolution not scientific?
20
posted on
02/12/2004 11:08:06 AM PST
by
Modernman
("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson