Posted on 02/27/2004 5:55:40 PM PST by Coleus
February 26, 2004
Darwinism to Face Scrutiny
by Sonja Swiatkiewicz, state issues analyst
Ohio and Minnesota have the opportunity to make a difference in how Darwinism is taught to schoolchildren.
Ohio made history in December 2002 when its state Board of Education approved changes to public school science standards requiring students to be tested on their understanding of evidence for and against Darwinism.
Just over a year later, Ohio again stands at a crossroads of sorts, while its school board seeks to establish a model curriculum to implement 2002's changes. Minnesota, likewise, has come to a place of decision — whether or not to follow in Ohio's footsteps in the teaching of Darwinism.
The Ohio school board voted 13-4 on Feb. 10 in a preliminary vote to accept "Set A" of the model science curriculum -- the curriculum that will be sent to each district to guide teachers in how the new science standards should be implemented in the classroom. "Set A" includes 42 individual lessons that deal with potentially "controversial" topics; nine of them (those slated for grade 10 life sciences) discuss evolutionary theory.
Only one of the 42, however, seeks to include the "critical analysis" of Darwinism that is now required to be taught — and that's where the rubber meets the road.
Fiercely protective pro-Darwinists are attempting to derail the new science standards before kids in the classroom ever reap the benefits of this dramatic change in policy. Critics have claimed that the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson mandates the teaching of Intelligent Design.
In fact, the "Critical Analysis" lesson supports the new requirement that students be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Students will be taught that theories are tentative explanations that are subject to modification as continued experimentation demands; the differences between microevolution and macroevolution; and guided to examine the various lines of evidence for and against the theory of a common ancestry (macroevolution).
While the board had already indicated its support of "Set A" in its entirety, Darwinists are applying pressure to the board members to convince them to remove their support. A final, binding vote will be taken during the board's meeting March 8-9.
A few states away, Minnesota's Legislature is grappling with making initial changes to the state's science standards. Four members of the science standard writing committee have submitted a "minority" report, urging the Legislature to accept two standards that mirror Ohio's.
These two standards will lay the groundwork for Minnesota's schoolchildren to be taught critical analysis of evolution — which has been specifically encouraged by the No Child Left Behind Act conference report.
But first, the "minority report" must be accepted into the recommendations to be sent to the full House and Senate.
Those who support a balanced presentation of Darwinism, the evidence for and against macroevolution, must make their voices heard. The type of science education Ohio and Minnesota's kids receive is dependent on board members and legislators knowing concerned citizens care about the unbiased teaching of evolution.
TAKE ACTION
Ohio
Please contact the board members who voted in favor of the "Set A" curriculum to thank them for their support and encourage them to vote in favor of "Set A" on Mar. 8 or 9. Please contact them by March 5.
Richard E. Baker (Hollansburg), 937-548-2246
Virgil E. Brown, Jr. (Cleveland Heights), 216-851-3304, Virgil.Brown@ode.state.oh.us
Michael Cochran (Blacklick), 614-864-2338, ota@ohiotownships.org
Jim Craig (Canton), 330-492-5533, Jim.Craig@ode.state.oh.us
John W. Griffin (West Carrollton), P.O. Box 49201, West Carrollton, OH 45449-0201
Stephen M. Millett (Columbus), 614-424-5335
Deborah Owens Fink (Richfield), 330-972-8079, deb@uakron.edu
Emerson J. Ross, Jr. (Toledo), 419-248-8315
Jennifer L. Sheets (Pomeroy), 740-992-2151, Jennifer.Sheets@ode.state.oh.us
Jo Ann Thatcher (McDermott), 740-858-3300
James L. Turner (Cincinatti), 513-287-3232, jturner@cinergy.com
Sue Westendorf (Bowling Green), 419-352-2908, sue.westendo@ode.state.oh.us
Carl Wick (Centerville), 937-433-1352, carl.wick@ode.state.oh.us
Please politely urge the four board members who voted against "Set A" to reconsider and vote in support. Please contact them by Mar. 5.
Robin C. Hovis (Millersburg), 330-674-5000, Robin.Hovis@ode.state.oh.us
Cyrus B. Richardson, Jr. (Bethel), 513-734-6700, Cyrus.Richards@ode.state.oh.us
G.R. "Sam" Schloemer (Cincinnati), 513-821-4145, Sam.Schloemer@ode.state.oh.us
Jennifer Stewart (Zanesville), 740-452-4558, Jennifer.Stewart@ode.state.oh.us
Two members were absent for the Feb. 10 meeting, and should be politely contacted as well.
Virginia E. Jacobs (Lima), 419-999-4219, Virginia.Jacobs@ode.state.oh.us
Martha W. Wise (Avon) 440-934-4935, Martha.Wise@doe.state.oh.us
In addition, please contact Gov. Bob Taft and tell him you support the teaching of critical analysis of evolution. For contact information for Gov. Taft, visit our CitizenLink Action Center.
Minnesota
Please contact the chairpersons of the House and Senate Education Policy Committees, Rep. Barbara Sykora and Sen. Steve Kelley, and urge them to accept the "minority report."
In addition, please contact your own representative and senator and politely urge them to support the critical analysis of evolution when it comes to a vote.
Also, please contact Gov. Tim Pawlenty and urge his support for teaching the evidence for and against evolution. Contact information for Gov. Pawlenty is available through our CitizenLink Action Center.
I see NO one on the side of creation who wants the theory of evolution NOT to be taught. The most avid creationists want the two theories taught side by side.
But I see on this very thread, a whole LOT of evolutionists who are obviously afraid to see the theory of Intelligent Design taught.
It's been very educational for me tonight........
You cast a longshadow with your words. :-)
As opposed to what, the "self appointed defenders of religious truth"?
are so sensitive about, and afraid of the teachings of another viable, scientifically valid theory of the origins of the earth.
You misunderstand. We have no problems with the presentation of "another viable, scientifically valid theory of the origins of the earth".
What we *do* have problems with are unviable, unscientific, invalid theories of the origins of the earth being presented as *if* they were a "viable, scientifically valid theory of the origins of the earth".
This part of the "crevo" debate is all about creationists trying to get their unscientific claims forced into schools *as* science, and the people who know what science actually looks like saying, "no, that's *not* science, and thus it doesn't belong here."
If you think I'm overstating the case, feel free to present what you think are the top one or two "scientific" supports for creationism, and I'll show you why they fail as science.
Unfortunately it is not, given the strong emotions the adherents of evolution attach to their theory.
We could cut out all the scientific knowledge of evolutionists and lose very little in the scheme of things when it comes to general education. I still haven't heard you list any specific benefits mankind has gained as a result of the Theory of Evolution.
Then you haven't looked very hard. I don't have the time to dig them out right now, but if you want I'll do so later and post examples.
The most avid creationists want the two theories taught side by side.
Now *that's* funny...
But I see on this very thread, a whole LOT of evolutionists who are obviously afraid to see the theory of Intelligent Design taught.
Again, you are mistaken. See my previous post.
It's been very educational for me tonight........
Your education is just beginning.
At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it!
If all the chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times! 2
This vast amount of information is stored in our bodies' cells in DNA molecules and is coded by four bases-adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The key to the coding of DNA is in the grouping of these bases into sets that are further sequenced to form the 20 common amino acids. Together, these genetic codes form the physical foundation of all life.
We've all been exposed to the basic concepts of DNA and its double-helix structure in our high school biology classes. Perhaps you remember being taught that cells divide through the "unzipping" and subsequent replication of the double helix. In all likelihood, though, the incredible evidence of design in this process was not discussed.
A Complex Engineering Puzzle
Suppose you were asked to take two long strands of fisherman's monofilament line-125 miles long-then form it into a double-helix structure and neatly fold and pack this line so it would fit into a basketball.
Furthermore, you would need to ensure that the double helix could be unzipped and duplicated along the length of this line, and the duplicate copy removed, all without tangling the line. Possible?
This is directly analogous to what happens in the billions of cells in your body every day. Scale the basketball down to the size of a human cell and the line scales down to six feet of DNA.
All this DNA must be packed so the regulator proteins that control making copies of the DNA have access to it. The DNA packing process is both complex and elegant and is so efficient that it achieves a reduction in length of DNA by a factor of 1 million. 3
When the cell needs to divide, the entire length of DNA must be split apart, duplicated, and repackaged for each daughter cell. No one knows exactly how cells solve this topological nightmare. But the solution clearly starts with the special spools on which the DNA is wound.
Each spool carries two "turns" of DNA, and the spools themselves are stacked together in groups of six or eight. The human cell uses about 25 million of them to keep its DNA under control. 4 (As shown in Figure 3 on the previous page, DNA is wound around histones to form nucleosomes. These are organized into solenoids, which in turn compose chromatin loops. Each element in this complex, yet highly organized arrangement is carefully designed to play a key role in the cell replication process.)
Cell Replication
The details of cell replication are too complex to be described in detail here. A simplified outline is given below to illustrate the incredible process involved: 5
1. Replication involves the synthesis of an exact copy of the cell's DNA.
2. An initiator protein must locate the correct place in the strand to begin copying.
3. The initiator protein guides an "unzipper" protein (helicase) to separate the strand, forming a fork area. This unwinding process involves speeds estimated at approximately 8000 rpm, all done without tangling the DNA strand!
4. The DNA duplex kinks back on itself as it unwinds. To relieve the twisting pressure, an "untwister" enzyme (topo-isomerase) systematically cuts and repairs the coil.
5. Working only on flat, untwisted sections of the DNA, enzymes go to work copying the strand. (Two complete DNA pairs are synthesized, each containing one old and one new strand.)
6. A stitcher repair protein (DNA ligases) connects nucleotides together into one continuous strand.
Read and Write
The process described above is only a small part of the story. While the unwinding and rewinding of the DNA takes place, an equally sophisticated process of reading the DNA code and "writing" new strands occurs. The process involves the production and use of messenger RNA. Again, a simplified process description: 6
1. Messenger RNA is made from DNA by an enzyme (RNA polymerase).
2. A small section of DNA unzips, revealing the actual message (called the sense strand) and the template (the anti-sense strand).
3. A copy is made of the gene of interest only, producing a relatively short RNA segment.
4. The knots and kinks in the DNA provide crucial topological stop-and-go signals for the enzymes.
5. After messenger RNA is made, the DNA duplex is zipped back up.
Adding to the complexity and sophistication of design, the genetic code is read in blocks of three bases (out of the four possible bases mentioned earlier) that are non-overlapping.
Moreover, the triplicate code used is "degenerate," meaning that multiple combinations can often code for the same amino acid-this provides a built-in error correction mechanism. (One can't help but contrast the sophistication involved with the far simpler read/write processes used in modern computers.)
A Common Software House
All living things use DNA and RNA to build life from four simple bases. The process described above is common to all creatures from simple bacteria all the way to humans.
Evolutionists point to this as evidence for their theory-but the new discoveries of the complexity of the process, and the fact that bacterial ribosomes are so similar to those in humans, is strong evidence against evolution. The complexities of cell replication must have been present at the beginning of life.
A simple explanation for the similarities of the basic building blocks can be found if one realizes that all life originates from a single "software house." He is awesome indeed!
That book does contain such drawings. They are in a historical as in "history-of-science" context and problems with Haeckel's renderings are mentioned therein. Furthermore, it's not a high school textbook at all, but first-year college. It was 40 years ago, but I didn't study biology in the 7th grade and we didn't get into embryology at all when we did have biology in the 9th or 10th grade. Your claim looks funny to me.
If you have a documented instance of a US high school textbook relying upon Haeckel's drawings to make points about the current state of embryology, it will be the first such known to me.
The theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote.
Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone."
Rom 1:19-25
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
There are no other theories. ID and creationism are hypotheses and lack any evidence to back them up.
I don't have a masochistic streak. One day in the company of scoffers is quite enough, thank you....
I will be calling Ohio legislators on Monday, however, and urging them to allow diverse theories to be taught in schools, and not just one side of this fascinating debate. It's called education.....
Thanks, Coleus, for the ping. This has been quite the adventure.
There is no evidence that Jesus, the man, shared the knowledge of His father. Indeed, Jesus pointing out that "none but the Father" knows certain things is indicative of this. Jesus may have had insights during His tenure on Earth, but He made it abundently clear He did not know everything on God's mind.
Amen, indeed!
There's a lot of creature worship going on here........
Newer texts are omitting these pictures, but schools don't get new books every year. Most schools don't even get new science texts every decade. I don't even want to think how old the science textbooks are in the poorer school districts. Meanwhile, our standards should allow teachers to point out that these drawings are no longer considered reliable.
Here's one representative sample, comparing 10 Texts Printed in 1998-9
And that's a lot of self-righteous, grossly insulting condescension.
Is that what passes for "education" and a rational debate of ideas, in your view? To accuse people who disagree with you of following Satan?
Or is it just that that's easier than having to come to terms with the fact that they may disagree with you based on the evidence, and not because they "worship the creature"?
Read the passage in Romans that bondserv posted. You are struggling to fit the Word of God into your own worldview, but it doesn't work.....it is worshipping the creature above the Creator.
It is at least consistent that the skeptics here, who think the Bible is a piece of fiction, believe in evolution as their religion. It is less consistent, IMO, to say you believe in God, and His Word, as you do, and twist the obvious (i.e. that Jesus understood what His own Word meant) to suit your own opinions.
The creature worship I was referring to is the arrogance that comes with believing that humans can understand the vastness of creation, while in defiance of God.
The only way to even BEGIN to understand this incredible universe is to seek to know the ONE who made it.
Wells downgrades texts for any reference--not just Haeckel's drawings--to embryology in support of support evolution. In so doing, he attempts to obscure a lot of inconvenient real scientific points.
Genuine Embryological evidences for common descent.
You're not helping yourself here.
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.