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.
The destruction of scientific inquiryis the main purpose of the Creationists and their soul-mates, the PostModernDeconstructionists. More than one post on these threads has stated that if scientific results disagree with some privately held religious belief, the scientific result must be discarded.
It should be noted that physics, chemistry, astronomy, mathematics, and geology as well as biology are also under challenge.
That, and you give up too easily ;)
Almost all Adirondack rocks are Middle Proterozoic in age. The oldest metasedimentary rocks were deposited in shallow seas beginning about 1.3 billion years ago. Metavolcanic rocks of the same age show that volcanoes were active at that time. Some Adirondack metasedimentary rocks contain grains eroded from a much older landmass. Most of the metaplutonic rocks, including the metanorthosite, granitic gneiss, and olivine metagabbro bodies in the Central Highlands, were formed from magmas that were intruded about 1.15 to 1.1 billion years ago.All these rocks were then buried as much as 30 km below the surface during the Grenville Orogeny. The crust was severely deformed and thickened, and the rocks at depth were intensely metamorphosed. Deformation and metamorphism peaked between 1.1 and 1.05 billion years ago. Over the next several hundred million years, erosion stripped away more than 25 km of rock, and major faults were formed. The region was then covered by shallow seas, in which sediments accumulated through the Cambrian and Ordovician Periods. Sediment accumulation probably continued into the Pennsylvanian Period. Most of these sedimentary rocks have been removed by erosion, but traces can be found in grabens. From the Middle Ordovician into the Tertiary Period, there was no significant tectonic activity in the Adirondack region. Sometime in the Tertiary, the Adirondack dome began to rise, possibly because of a hot spot near the base of the crust. Erosion then carved the region into the separate mountain ranges we see today.
I'm having a flashback here.
Perhaps not in your world, but education as a whole is definitely concerned with these things. We look at all these fossils, make all these connections and then what? All I've been able to derive from it is a big "SO WHAT?"
Please tell me what else is in it. Surely it must be awfully valuable for folks like yourself to ride in on a white horse and defend this stuff to the hilt against any other possible world view.
See that's your problem, Gman.
The Grand Canyon could have been formed in a nano second by the hand of God. You continue to leave the Creator out of His creation.
There is a very close parallel with some of the evolutionists on this thread, and the liberal elite. They have an arrogance (that is almost stunning in some cases), and they really believe that those of us who attribute a Creator to this universe are just plain stupid. (It is not dissimilar to the treatment of the leftist elite to men like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush).
They dismiss out of hand the word of scientists who believe in creation, just because they are people of faith. It somehow invalidates the research done by these scientists to have faith. They ridicule and mock us for our belief, several to the point of implying that we are mentally unstable (schizophrenia?? LOL!) Not even the NY Times or CNN would be that blatantly anti-Christian.
These guys may be conservative in other areas of their thinking, but they are part of the intellectual elite in this area.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for all your contributions to the cause of truth.....
Had you considered that several million years IS a nano-second to God?
Baffling legitimate scientists for years? Well... No, it hasn't. Very plain and simply, no the Grand Canyon is not baffling any legitimate scientists. The science and history of the Grand Canyon is very well documented with proven hypothesis and lots of indisputable backup information.
I looked at your page and sorry, I don't see where it makes a lot of sense. I'm no expert on the Grand Canyon, but it doesn't take one to see that your diagram makes what appear to be baseless assumptions. In all, I don't understand why creationists refuse to consisder the possibility that God doesn't operate on the same 24x7x365 timeline that we do. Dontcha think you should give God a little more credit than confining Him to our earthly, human time parameters?
So far, it's worked every time. See something along the lines of "High School biology texts in this country still use Haeckel's drawings to prove evolution." Ask "What book is that?" Get a link citing Futuyma's college-level book discussing Haeckel as a figure in the history of science.
It's unbelievable, isn't it? Hey! Why don't we just deny ALL science while we're at it? I mean, that Newton thing where an apple falls from a tree and demonstrates gravity? Says who? Can you SEE gravity?
No use getting excited though. It is as it is and it will not change.
Most of the creationist posters on these threads also have those doubts (they'll deny it, of course, but their choices of sources and their arguments belie their claims). However, most of them are also older and their faith is much more brittle; they cannot accept new precepts without endangering their faith in God. After a certain age, it becomes an either-or proposition.
Instead of wasting your time on a scientific subject, you should spend your time soaking up Mel Gibson's "Passion." The movie was designed to appeal directly to what makes people like you tick - raw emotion.
Very interesting. Now let's see if we can make some observations about the posts of some creationists in this thread. You, for instance. In post 110 you said: "The Scripture is my ultimate source, and everything 'scientific' must be weighed against it." That got my attention, because I'm fascinated by the interplay of science and scripture, so in post 115 I addressed you for the first time:
Very good. Tell me, what do you think of the anti-scriptural theory of the solar system? [And I gave some quotes from scr ipture.]Your response in post 120 wasn't very forthcoming:
Get back to me when you stop saying that the sun rises and sets...... Oh.....and that passage in Joshua. I believe it. In the meantime, please don't post to me with any more feeble attempts to entrap, OK?My response in post 133 was very polite, saying:
I wanted to know your thinking about those scriptural geocentric passages. Sorry if that embarrassed you.Your response in post 136 was a genuine surprise:
Embarrassed?? LOL! You can misinterpret Scripture all you like, but you'll certainly not 'embarrass' me..... I've said it to others.......you don't have to answer to ME, you have to answer to your CREATOR. I'd give that some serious thought if I were you.....There are two aspects of that post which I consider bizarre. First, you state -- wrongly -- that I'm misinterpreting scripture. Then you present this vague notion that I'm getting in trouble with the Creator. I ignored your false accusation about misinterpreting scripture when I pointed out the 2nd of these two matters in post 139.
That should have been the end of it. You didn't respond to the geocentric scripture passages (except to accuse me of misreprenting scripture), and then you hinted that I'm hellbound. Strange, but hey, I meet strange people here all the time. But then you wrote post 146:
How very good you are at misinterpretation of my words. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were doing it deliberately. :o)Again, I'm falsely accused of misrepresentation. Not only misreprenting scripture, which was a prior accusation in post 136, but now I'm accused of misrepresenting you. And again, there's that vague suggestion that I'm getting in deep trouble with the Creator. Also, the geocentric universe is alleged something I've "fabricated for the purpose of trickery." All in all, a remarkable posting -- from someone who accuses evolutionists of arrogance.Once again. You don't have to answer to me. Only to the Almighty God. No presumption on my part of how you stand with Him......I only have a few words on a monitor to form an opinion, and it is finite anyway. I have no idea what's in your heart.
As to the 'geocentric universe presented in Scripture'.......the three examples you gave prove nothing of the kind. I can't 'accept' something that is fabricated for the purpose of trickery.
In post 149 I denied your accusation of fabricating things, and (sensing that you knew nothing of the issue, and desiring to spare you further embarrassment) I provided a link to the heresy conviction of Galileo regarding the geocentric issue.
That seems to have turned the tide, but just a little bit. In post 152 you turn, but not 180 degrees. Now it's not me who's accused of misrepresenting scripture, or setting a trap for you. Now you say: "What you're dealing with is a MISinterpretation of Scripture in the 17th Century, based on incomplete understanding." Ah yes, it's all starting to dawn on you. But you can't admit that you were all messed up at the start of our dialogue. Oh no. You go on to say:
You and I will only go around in circles if this discussion continues. You don't believe in Scripture, and I do. You choose to misinterpret for the purposes of argument, and I won't be dragged down into it.Well. I know us evolutionists are arrogant. You've said so. But look at your conduct there. You don't want us to go around in circles. (Like, which of us was doing that?) And you accuse me of not believing in scripture. (But later, when challenged, you couldn't back that up.) And you again accuse me of misinterpreting. And once more you hint that my "mocking" is getting me in trouble with God.All of us, including you, are going to have to account for our words and deeds before an Almighty and Sovereign God......the Author of the words you mock. Just be careful.
In post 160 I finally pointed out your habit of making grim warnings. (I thought the constant warnings you were posting were making you look foolish, and I wanted to spare you any further embarrassment.) And now that you were up to speed on the Galileo matter, I was finally able to ask you: "If the church, with all its theological expertise, could be so wrong about such an important matter, do you think it might be possible that you too could be wrong in your interpretation?"
In post 170 you said some reasonable things. But in the very next post (171) you lapsed again when you said: "Let's at least try to be accurate in our mocking shall we?? No one threatened anyone with anything.". In post 202 I quoted you making a couple of those warnings-threats, whatever they were. Just to let you know that I wasn't imagining things.
In post 204, one of your creationist colleagues leaped in (way over his head) and claimed that Since God is but a fairy tale in your world ... And in post 207 you said I was too sensitive about your "threats." Fair enough. (I wasn't actually feeling threatened; I was only pointing out what I consider an absurd debate tactic.)
In post 210 I told your collegue that he had no clue about my thoughts about God. I wasn't talking to you. But you jumped right in, didn't you? Oh yes. In post 213 you climbed back up to the top of your form:
Perhaps you should learn to communicate more clearly, Patrick. You keep giving us 'clues' and then telling us we have 'no clue.' Are you deliberately baiting us with things you don't believe to evoke a desired response? Or are you a miserable failure at saying what you really mean?Your postings went steadily downhill from there, and I've already spent too much time on this. But I was motivated to recite this sad little chapter in crevo history because of your comment that "There is a very close parallel with some of the evolutionists on this thread, and the liberal elite. They have an arrogance (that is almost stunning in some cases) ... .
Now I will bring this posting to a close with a summary. I don't know you. I can't analyze you. The postings you've made are very odd. You take the approach that disagreement with your interpretation of Genesis is virtually disagreement with God, and will result in serious troubles. Frankly, that's troublesome. Very troublesome Further, anyone who asks you difficult questions (as I did regarding the geocentric universe in scripture) is accused of misrepresenations, mocking, setting traps, etc. There are technical psychological terms for such conduct.
I may not be reading you correctly. But if I am, you should make some serious efforts to re-think your approach to these things. I say this in the spirit of Christian love.
It's the "ugly girl" syndrome, writ large: everybody knows about the fat, ugly girl who can't get into the disco by herself, so she pals up with a hot looking friend to get access. She really hates the good-looking gal, but knows that she's her meal-ticket to get into the party.
It's all about access, and "teaming up" with Evolutionary theory is Creationism's way of getting into the party (classroom). And, just like the fat, ugly girl, both despise the one who got them in the door.
That is certainly a broad statement.
I happen to know there are cold, hard, scientific facts. If that were all that was involved this whole thing would be a non-issue. But it is how the facts are interpeted and applied that counts. Science does not take place in a vaccuum. Neither does education.
You do a tremendous disservice to those who apply scientific facts while keeping in the background the knowledge that a Creator is involved. And, as I said earlier, I will watch in amusement as those who give no thought to God labor on my behalf.
Meanwhile you have failed to give one single instance where an evolutionist has contributed something to scientific knowledge that a creationist could not discover and lay out, too.
Really, if there is no specific benefit to the Theory of Evolution I certainly question what place it has in any classroom, let alone in public schools. Apparently a good many people have the same concern.
As scientific a theory as Last-Thursdayism. In fact, that basically is Last-Thursdayism.
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.