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.
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).
If these new standards have nothing to do with "Intelligent Design" or other religious crapola, then why is a Christian-centered organization like family.org pushing so hard to have them included?
Cognitive dissonance.
"Just the facts, and leave the mechanism [of change] to the imagination or belief of the individual." [brackets added]
Let's think about that as a general principle: according to your opponent, education should consist of: "Just the facts, and leave the mechanism .... to the imagination or belief of the individual." Let's apply that to something other than biology, and see what we get:
In physics, he apparently would have us teach that planets orbit the sun (fact), but would leave out gravitation (the mechanism).
In Mathematics, he'd have us teach the Pythagorean Theorem (fact), but not it's proof.(mechanism)
In Social Studies, he'd teach that a President is elected every four years (fact), but would leave out details of the electoral process. (mechanism)
In chemistry, he'd have us teach that sodium and and chlorine form salt (fact), but would omit details of chemical bonding.(mechanism)
I don't know about you, but I see a pattern developing, and it isn't very pretty. Education under your opponent's principles would consist of memorizing disparate "facts" absent any organizing principle or mechanism, which is precisely the relationship of the Theory of Evolution to biology.
If a retrotransposon, etc, is found in a cow and a whale it will also be found in all species of cow, all species of whale and also hippos.
A creationist *could* have discovered this for *isolated* bits of DNA, but the *generalization* (which has proved to be true every time it's been tested) is based on the phylogenetic tree and would be an impossible deduction for someone who doesn't accept it.
The same sort of thing for "If it's found in a chimp's and a baboon's DNA it will also be found in people".
The same sort of thing for "If it's found in a dog's and a cat's DNA it will also be found in bears".
If the pseudogene, etc is found in cows but not in hippos, it won't be found in whales either.
These sorts of examples, being based on the tree, are not accessible to non-evos.
Another example: Piltdown man was a fake.
This is true, but since there is nothing a sufficiently-powerful creator/designer couldn't do, it is impossible for a non-evolutionist to come to the correct conclusion.
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.
What, if any, are the specific benefits of learning astronomy?
Yes, just as I believe everyone in the aerospace industry subscribes to the Theory of Gravity.
Oh, I suppose you might find a few screwball exceptions in both cases - less than one-tenth of one percent. But heck, we could almost certainly find a higher percentage than that in those industries who believe in the Loch Ness monster.
I assume you mean data only. So you give the kiddies a book with maybe 600,000 species listed, and you say: "There, kiddies, that's biology!" That's your concept of education.
In an earlier thread, in response to the currently-popular creationist demand for some "practical benefits" of the theory of evolution, I presented you with a link to news of the biotech industry (new drugs, industry growth, etc.), and I said that the researchers were evolutionists, not creationists. To fend off acknowledging that there actually were practical benefits, you asked for documentation of that (outrageous?) claim, so here's where I start copying:
[Me:] Let's make it simple. If you can find one useful development (in medicine, biotechnology, forestry, agriculture, or some similar field) specifically arising from the doctrine of "creation science" please let us know. Just one will do. Consult the usual creationist websites. They wouldn't miss the opportunity to tell you about it. Now let's be careful here. I'm not asking for a list of religious people who work in such fields. I assume there are many, perhaps a big majority. I am looking for something -- anything! -- that has been derived from the teachings of creation "science." Go for it.
Then you said: "One does not need either theory to apply the facts.". Again, your familiar theme of just the facts. So I responded:
[*Sigh*] Without a theory, all one has is a list of creatures. Nothing more. In that case, how would you select an animal upon which to test a drug for humans? Why not use toads? They're plentiful and cheap. Why do we use monkeys? They're so much more expensive to obtain and house. We use them because they're so closely related to us. We get more useful results that way. See what I mean? Doing medical research absolutely demands that evolution be a part of the background -- even if no one specifically thinks about Mr. Darwin.Then you said: "Intelligent choices in this field can be made without the Theory of Evolution. Without a creationist viewpoint, too, for that matter." Once more it's just the facts. I responded:
One could make his choice using the "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" technique, but it wouldn't be an intelligent choice. From a creationist viewpoint, because all creatures were created at once, one could select anything at all. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too happy about taking a new "toad-tested" medicine, even if the creationist researcher assured me that all creatures are equally unrelated to us, so a toad is as good a test subject as an ape.It is the crowning glory of the human species that we have brains with the capacity for rational thought. We begin with just facts (which is the totality of an animal's eye-view of the world), and then we raise ourselves above the animals when we apply our powers of reason to connect the dots in an effort to make sense of the world. What are the practical benefits of being rational as opposed to blundering around in a world of data only? If you need to ask the question, I'm concluding our dialogue.To make a truly intelligent choice, one would need to find a very closely related test subject. But once we talk about "closely related" we're in dangerous territory, aren't we? Be glad the researchers are evolutionists. You may one day have your life saved by the products of their research.
They act as if inductive and deductive reasoning depend upon the Theory of Evolution alone.
When I say just the facts, I mean people have God-given brains to figure out how they relate to each other. So, I will watch in amusement as they use their God-given brains along with God's creation to busy themselves with unearthing facts and knowledge I might otherwise never know.
And, I will also watch in amusement as they work themselves into a tizzy trying to defend the scientific equivalent of a stale dog turd.
Whatever, you haven't posted anything to defend against, just some psuedo-philosophical babble. If that was an attack, that was pretty lame. Who'd you learn from, Kent Hovind?
The existence or non-existence of a creator is irrelevant to the TOE, or to any other scientific theory. Science, by its very nature, is incapable of dealing with the supernatural. All science can do is look at natural phenomena and try to come up with an explanation as to how things occur the way that they do.
It is a strange position to take. I'm not sure how education could work if all you did was make kids memorize certain facts. It would be like having kids memorize dates of major battles in WWII, but never actually teaching them about the political, economic and ideological reasons behind the war. They'd be left scratching their heads as to why they were learning about the Battle of Midway.
Not pointless, Joe.
The difference between Divine Purpose and chance is enormous...
And what makes you so sure evolution does not demonstrate Divine Purpose? Isn't it arrogant to believe you understand the mind of God so well that you can't accept that possibility?
Nail on the head, with the operative word being TRY. The trouble is, that by removing the 'supernatural,' they have removed the answer before they have asked the question.
And the results are mostly silly, and always wrong. The answer is that God created, and the following questions should be to seek out the details.
I agree with Fester about education. Either teach dual theories, or just teach the facts without 'trying' to come to a conclusion, and let the students draw their own conclusions.
The problem is, that it's hard to determine what the 'facts' are, since the agenda has been in place within the scientific community for centuries to come up with an explanation for the universe that left God out of the equation, and scientist who are Christians, as you can see on this thread, are suspect.
As a result there have been hoaxes, guesses which are called 'facts' because someone 'reputable' has said them, and assumptions based on top of those guesses that are taught to children as scientific fact. My guess is that some of these avid evolutionists swallowed everything their teachers/professors told them without questioning its validity, and now worship the same god.
And I will also watch in amusement as Creationists continue to use scatalogy as a substitute for scientific inquiry.
I haven't said that I 'know' how God created the earth. I have said what I believe.
I used to believe that God might have started the process in motion and then let it evolve, and I understand, and have many Christian brothers and sisters who believe that.
As I have grown in my understanding of God, I have come back to a 6 day creation and a young earth as more likely. That's where I am as a believer.
But we are all dealing in what we don't KNOW to be facts. We are ALL dealing in a belief system, and are putting our trust in others (unless every evolutionist on this thread has done his own research, and researched the research already done to see if it is valid).
You are putting your faith in science. I have serious doubts that science is always the 'objective truth' that it claims to be.
But when I talked about the 'difference between Divine Purpose and chance,' I was referring to those who do not believe that God created us........human beings......in His image, but that we are just the result of chance.
There is an enormous difference in the life of one who knows God made him/her and loved him/her, and one who thinks that all of us are just a product of chance.
No, by removing the supernatural, science is admitting that there is no way, using the scientific method, to prove or disprove the existence of a creator. If we could study God in a laboratory or assign him a genus and species, then God wouldn't be God.
And the results are mostly silly, and always wrong. The answer is that God created, and the following questions should be to seek out the details.
You make that conclusion based on your faith, which is fine. However, if you want to inject that conclusion into science, you're going to need more than just faith. You'll need scientific evidence, which is not forthcoming when it comes to the existence of God.
Furthermore, why is the answer that your Judeo-Christian god created? There are several other competing religions in the world. Other than faith, what evidence do you have that your deity is the one that created everything?
My guess is that some of these avid evolutionists swallowed everything their teachers/professors told them without questioning its validity, and now worship the same god.
What god would that be?
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.