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.
You are much more patient than I am, bondserv.
It's been good 'fighting the good fight' with you today. Thank you.
Schizophrenia. Before they were called psychedelic agents, LSD, mescaline, etc, were called psychotomimetics. They induce both schizo-like symptoms and also 'religious experiences' (think of the peyote cult.
I've known 3 schizophrenics halfway well. All three were **obsessed** with religion (1 Evangelical, 1 Catholic, 1 Eastern mystic stuff). The Catholic is considering going off his meds and joining a monastery where his visions will be appreciated. (Can't really blame him, the side-effects suck)
Likewise my friend. May God bless the rest of your evening!
OK. So you don't like me to mention Futuyma. Why not? You asked for school texts, in use today, using Haekel's drawings to support the theory of evolution.
One article lists 10 texts. Another lists one. The third article lists 13 texts, only one of which is by this Futuyma, which for some reason you claim I'm not to mention. Apparently now anything mentioned in seminars is suspect. Why? It that another one of your stealth rules?
And you also tell me that these are mentioned only historically. If you read the actual words within the texts themselves, reproduced in the articles, you will see the drawings are indeed used to support evolution. Maybe you have some special definition of "historical", but I'm saying none of these texts are saying these are old outdated drawings which have since been shown to be fraudulent. If you have SPECIFIC evidence to the contrary, let me know.
Otherwise, quit calling me a liar. I'm doing my best to be intellectually honest. You don't have to insult my well intentioned efforts.
God bless you, as well!
We charge any school textbook with fraud and gross misrepresentation if it:Inclusion in this list is thus, from a reading of these very criteria, not what you claim it to be. You're all seminar, no genuine. Sorry.
- Points out "gill slits" in human embryos.
- Suggests Haeckel made mistakes but was partly right. Uses Haeckel's drawings.
- Represents early embryos as looking the same like Haeckel did. [Hint: early embryos do do look the same. This is a blatant attempt to suppress evidence.]
- Says that although the Haeckel drawings were wrong, that there are still clear similarities in early embryos, when in fact there are almost no similarities.
- Uses revised drawings that don't illustrate any visual similarities in embryos, then continue to argue that early embryos are proof of evolution because of their similarities. [Haeckel is the last known case of presumably wilfully inaccurate 'revised' drawings.]
- Presents the "biogenetic law", Haeckel, or his work in any positive light without also exposing his scientific crimes. [All you have to do is credit Haeckel for his positive work in embryology--he's virtually the Father of Embryology--and not excoriate him to the satisfaction of some Luddite faction? Is that all you have to do to get included in this list?]
Then, you're pretending that this long historical narrative from Kardong does not exist (but it does):
ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY: Biogenetic Law It has long been supposed that ontogeny, especially early events of embryonic development, retains current clues to distant evolutionary events. Ernst Haeckel, a nineteenth-century German biologist, stated this boldly in what became known as the biogenetic law. Pharyngeal slits, numerous branchial arches, and other fish characteristics even appear in the early embryos of reptiles, birds, and mammals, but they are lost as these tetrapod embryos proceed to term (figure 5.38). Although lost as tetrapod development unfolds, these and many similar structures are remnants of fish features from the evolutionary past. Haeckel argued that from ovum to complete body, the individual passes through a series of developmental stages that are brief, condensed repetitions of stages through Which its successive ancestors evolved. The biogenetic law states that ontogeny in abbreviated form recapitulates (repeats) phylogeny. Haeckel certainly recognized that recapitulation was approximate. Comparing it to an alphabet, lie suggested that the ancestry behind each organism might be a sequence of stages: A, B, C, D, E.... Z, whereas the embryology of a descendant individual might pass through an apparently defective series: A, B, D, F, H, K, M etc. In this example, several evolutionary stages have fallen Out of the develop-mental series. Although the ancestry of an organism might include an entire series of steps, Haeckel did not believe that all these would necessarily appear in the ontogeny of a later individual. Evolutionary stages Could disappear from the developmental series. Nevertheless, he felt that the basic series of major ancestral stages remained the same, and thus the biogenetic law applied. Development certainly exhibits a conservatism wherein ancient features persist like heirlooms in modern groups. Ontogeny, however, is not so literally a repeat of phylogeny as Haeckel supposed. A contemporary of his, Karl Ernst von Baer, cited examples from embryos of descendant animals that did not conform to the biogenetic law: chick embryos lack the scales, swim bladders, fin rays, and so forth of adult fishes that evolutionarily preceded them. Furthermore, the order of appearance of ancestral structures is sometimes altered in descendant embryos. Haeckel al-lowed for exceptions; von Baer did not. Von Baer said that these exceptions and "thousands" more were too much. He proposed alternative laws of development. Foremost was von Baer's proposal that development proceeds from the general to the specific. Development begins with undifferentiated cells of the blastula that become germ layers, then tissues, and finally organs. Young embryos are undifferentiated (general), but as development proceeds, distinguishing features (specific) of the species appear. Each embryo, in-stead of passing through stages of distant ancestors, departs more and more from them. Thus, the embryo of a descendant is never like the adult of an ancestor and only generally like the ancestral embryo. Other scientists since von Baer have also dissented from strict application of the biogenetic law. What can be made of all this? We should recognize that embryos are adapted to their environments. Anamniotes usually make their homes in salt, or fresh water. Amniote embryos grow in an aquatic environment as well, the amniotic fluid. Thus, similarities between embryos might be expected. But, as von Baer pointed out, what we observe at best is correspondence between the embryos of descendants and the embryos of their ancestors, not between the descendant embryos and the ancestral adults. Haeckel was certainly mistaken to see a correspondence between descendant embryos and ancestor adults. Organs are adapted to their functions. As a fish embryo approaches hatching, its "limb" buds become fins, a bird's become wings, a mammal's become paws or hooves or hands, and so forth. There is, however, an element of conservatism in ontogeny, even if it is not an exact telescoping of evolutionary events. After all, the young embryos of mammals, birds, and reptiles do develop pharyngeal slits that never become functional as respiratory devices. Is this recapitulation? No. It is better to think of this as preservationism for reasons not too difficult to imagine. Each adult part is the developmental product of prior embryonic preparation. The zygote divides to form the blastula; gastrulation brings germ layers to their proper positions; mesoderm interacts with endoderm to form organ rudiments; tissues within organ rudiments differentiate into adult organs. Skip a step, and the whole cascade of ensuing developmental events may fail to unfold properly. In mammals, the notochord of the embryo is replaced almost entirely in the adult by the solid vertebral Column (figure 5.39). For the young embryo, the notochord provides an initial axis, a scaffolding along which the delicate body of the embryo is laid Out. The notochord also stimulates (development of the overlying nerve tube. If the notochord is re-moved, the nervous system does not develop. The adult supportive role is taken over by the vertebral Column, but the notochord performs a vital embryonic role before disappear-ing; namely, it serves the Young embryo as a central element of embryonic organization. A notochord that persists in the mammalian embryo should not be interpreted as a sentimental memento of a distant phylogenetic history. Instead, it should be seen as a functioning component of early embryonic development. Structures and processes intertwine to produce the conservatism evident in development. They are not easily eliminated without a broad disruption of ensuing events. Anatomical innovations, new structures brought into service in the adult, are usually added at the end of developmental processes, not at the beginning. A new structure inserted early into the developmental process would require many simultaneous replacements of many disrupted developmental processes thereafter. Evolutionary innovations thus usually arise by remodeling rather than by entirely new construction. The forelimbs of ancestors that supported the body and allowed the organism to romp over the surface of the land are renovated into the wings that carry bats and birds aloft. We need look no further than our own human bodies to find similar examples of evolutionary remodeling. The backbone and legs that carried our distant ancestors comfortably on all fours hold us upright in a bipedal stance. The arms and hands that can control the delicate strokes of a paintbrush or the writing of a novelist come refashioned from ancient forelegs that carried a hefty trunk and helped our ancestors dash from predators. The past is hard to erase. When parts are already available, renovation is easier than new construction. (Vertebrates, Kenneth V. Kardong, 1998, ISBN 0-697-28654-1, McGraw-Hill, p 190-192)Then you're pretending that this long historical narrative from Futuyma does not exist (but it does):
The relation between embryology and evolution was developed at length by one of Darwin's most enthusiastic supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel coined the words ontogeny (the development of the individual organ-ism) and phylogeny (the evolutionary history of species), and in 1866 issued his famous BIOGENETIC LAW: "Ontogeny re-capitulates phylogeny." By this, Haeckel meant that in the course of its development, an individual successively passes through the adult forms of all its ancestors, from the very origin of the first cell to the present. Haeckel thus sup-posed that by studying embryology, one could read a species' phylogenetic history, and therefore infer directly phylogenetic relationships among organisms. Repeated in biology textbooks ever since, Haeckel's "law" is one of the most famous maxims in biology. But by the end of the nineteenth century, it was already clear that the law rather seldom holds. The real development of organisms differs in several important ways from Haeckel's simple scheme (Gould 1977): 1. Adult features of ancestors seldom appear as inter-mediate stages in the ontogeny of a descendant. von Baer's law is more often closer to the truth: different descendants of a common ancestor are likely to share early embryonic characters with one another and, presumably, with their ancestor. For example, although the embryos of mammals, "reptiles," and fishes all have gill pouches, in mammals and "reptiles" neither these features nor any others even fleetingly acquire the form typical of adult fishes. 2. Various features develop at different rates, relative to each other, in descendants than in their ancestors. Thus the ancestral morphology as a whole does not make a coordinated appearance during ontogeny. We shall shortly treat this subject under the topic of heterochrony (another word that Haeckel coined). 3. The pre-adult stages of any organism must grow and survive; to do so, they require stage-specific adaptations suitable for the particular environment of the species. Thus the horny beak of tadpoles, the innumerable adaptations of the larvae of insects and other invertebrates, and the deciduous egg tooth used by birds to break out of the eggshell are newly evolved features in these several lineages. In the extreme case, intermediate stages in the ontogeny of an ancestor may be lost completely from the ontogeny of a descendant; for example, direct-developing sea urchins such as Heliocidaris erythrogramma arrive at the adult morphology without passing through the planktonic larval stage that is typical of the ancestral ontogeny. 4. Haeckel's biogenetic law postulates that phylogenetically new features are added to the end of the ancestral ontogeny (TERMINAL ADDITION). The strongest blow to Haeckel's law was dealt by the discovery of paedomorphic species (from paedos, "child") -species in which the juvenile morphology of the ancestor is retained throughout life. In these cases, there has been terminal subtraction of stages of the ancestral ontogeny. The best-known examples are axolotls, members of the salamander genus Ambystoma in which metamorphosis does not occur, and larval features such as gills and the tail fin are retained throughout reproductive life (Figure 23.2). In the ancestral ontogeny, displayed by most species of Ambystoma, the aquatic larva metamorphoses into a terrestrial adult that lacks gills and the tail fin. There are, to be sure, many cases in which certain features of an ancestor are recapitulated in the ontogeny of a descendent; for example, the metatarsals of a bird, as we saw above, at first develop separately (the ancestral condition) be-fore becoming fused together. Still, the biogenetic law is honored more often in the breach than in the observance, and it is certainly not an infallible guide to phylogenetic history." (Evolutionary Biology, Douglas J. Futuyma, Third Edition, 1998 ISBN: 0-87893-189-9, p 651-653)It's what I said. Most of the supposed instances of Haeckel's drawings in modern books aren't Haeckel's drawings at all. When they are included, they are in a historical context. And Haeckel is being used as a cover to suppress genuine evidence--real facts about the real world--inconvenient to Holy Warrior idiots.
You said your son's seventh-grade biology textbook has Haeckel's drawings in it, straight-faced cited as support for evolution.
I find that increasingly unlikely. After all, there are plenty, and I mean plenty, more recent drawings, more recent photos. I linked you a web page with some of the genuine, current, scientific evidence. You went out ang got Futuyma, just like some other seminar idiots.
Your son's biology book, my ass!
I do not believe that your son's "7th grade biology text" is the first year college text written by Futuyma which in any event discusses Haeckel only in a history-of-science context. I don't believe you don't know this.
I predicted you would throw Futuyma's book up to me because that's what some dumb-ass AiG seminar is telling people to do.
Obviously the most avid creationists want the two theories taught side by side because creationists know its pushing the limits of reason to say creation science is as sound a science as evolution. Knowing that creationists abhor everything about evolution because evolution is contrary to their personal and singular views of the Bible, it then becomes obvious that the end-game really will be to replace evolution with creationism. Creationists just want acceptanace now. Later it will become some sort of skewed "truth" at the expense of the health and standing of American society as we know it.
Most texts are cited as supporting the author's contention that Haeckel committed fraud. Only two texts were cited as proof that textbooks continue to use Haeckel fraudulently, those of Kardong and Futuyma. Neither is using Haeckel in the way you claim.
It's hard to believe you don't even know what your own links say.
There are all sorts of shades of variance in how much evolution creationists believe in (from belief in the evolution we ALL know is fact within species, to God created a blob and let it go on its own).
There is no one group plotting to replace the teaching of evolution.......except perhaps in your imagination.
As I said.....this thread has been an education. A little paranoia, fear, and hyper-sensitivity, and mockery, mixed in with a stellar defense of 'objective' and 'unemotional' science..........LOL! Very interesting, indeed.
I'm sorry you don't like my sources. I'm just screwing around on Free Republic. This isn't my whole life or anything.
You know what. It's time to check out some other threads. Good night. Thanks for the lively debate.
I have responded to this although the response was somewhat elliptical. People with logical (as opposed to emotional) minds would have understood. Since you did not get it, I will simplify.
Science is not concerned with emotional ideas like "specific benefits to mankind." Science is about finding the raw, logical, unemotional truth of our physical universe. Your question is totally irrelevant to the validity of the Theory of Evolution.
I really do not expect you to ever come closer to understanding this issue. You live in your emotions. You simply have no basis for listening and understanding.
I love the way creationists like to portray everyone else as aggressive as well as defensive while creationist are poor victims with an innocent alternative view that is just as valid as evolution.
Jeez... not a whole lot I can say about this. However, I fully believe that the end-game is to replace evolution with creationism. And you know, that's pretty selfish since many Christian sects accept evolution fully as God's design. But unfortunately there are those that think they alone have been Divinely inspired and are on a mission to rid the world of the blasphemous evolution.
The Grand Canyon is 6000 years old. Gimme a break.
Is that sort of like trolling?
My own take is that anti-evos actually have a conscience, and it just won't shut up. That little voice that keeps saying "it really looks old, maybe it is"..."if both Martin Luther and the Pope were wrong about the solar system, maybe I'm wrong about evolution".
Check my profile page by clicking on bondserv. Then do some personal research for yourself. The Grand Canyon has been baffling what you would call legitimate scientists for many years.
Thanks, jennyp. That reads as a leading piece of propaganda for ID. The lessons are a progression of insinuations, first the definitions, some very misleading (i.e. theories as suppositions), then the equal correspondence of pieces of evidence pro and con evolution, then the absurd emphasis on micro and macro evolution, followed by a bizarre insertion of scientific snafus before a discussion of several lines of evidence for evolution. They are designed to cast doubt on anything a student might hear about evolution. Not only does this outline give a biased teacher a license to teach creationism, it forces science teachers to cast unfounded aspersions on a theory that is foundational to the whole field of biology.
This dishonest indoctrination may well have its intended effect on the take-home message for students: nothing scientists discover is worth learning.
What theory of ID?
Specifically, what observations would falsify it? IF there are none, it's not a scientific theory - it's vacuous, unable to make predictions.
Does this alleged theory have the phylognetic tree? IF not, how does it account for the *fact* that if a pseudogene is found in one species of whale and one species of cattle, it will be found also in all goats, deer, sheep, cattle, cetaceans and hippos. Why doesn't ID predict rhinos instead of hippos? What do whales have to do with deer anyhow?
No, it's not that normal people are 'afraid' of a rival theory being taught (as I showed above there is no such theory), it's that we're grossed out at the prospect of pseudoscience being taught because of affirmative action. I react to the ID-ists exactly the same way I react to Afrocentrists. For the same reason.
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.