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.
Here's the problem with this view of science. This is a link to a very good on-line biology book. In this section, which address the origin of life, it says concerning the supernatural:
since science is an attempt to measure and study the natural world, this theory is outside science. Science classes deal with science, and this idea is in the category of not-science.
Fine and healthy to a degree. OTOH, what if the supernatural exists and the insistance on providing naturalistic explanations for certain events leads to an incorrect understanding of reality?
Science, historically, has accepted the existence of God. Francis Bacon condemned atheism.
So the ultimate answer has traditionally been "God did it."
Now, there are things long accepted that a bright person might want to challenge that goes against a prevailing religious tenent -- and may in fact reveal that, that tenent is demonstrably wrong. A concern that this person will be perscuted is founded and thinking, reasonable people must be willing to come to the defence of this person.
But that's a problem of the human condition. Whenever anyone attacks dogma -- religious, economic, political, or scientific -- one is going to be persecuted.
Patrick, have you followed the thread of this discussion and do you remember what my original point was?
For some reason, even with several readings, I see this as a circular argument.
I don't see how. We know that copying errors and other mutations exist. We know they can be inherited. We know that the pattern of mutations in living things is consistent with the already-known phylogenetic tree. So what's the hypothetical intelligence doing?
More to the point of a circular argument, where did I assume that natural processes were sufficient? (the conclusion I came to). Until someone observes phenomena (in this realm of discourse) that cannot be attributed to errors + inheritance, the conclusion stands.
If the designer ever had in mind a way to communicate with its produce, it would have to employ constraints that would allow communication to take place. The first choice in any design is whether to make something of it - either on paper or in reality. Further choices may result in a design beyond the capacity of the end result to comprehend.
I don't understand.
Let me reiterate at this point that I really do not believe the Theory of Evolution to be unreasonable or extravagant.
OK
But if you bring Occam's Razor into the picture, the possibility of an almighty, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal God brings a trump card Occam's razor cannot overcome. Think about it.
This makes no sense at all. Occam's Razor says to favor the theory with the fewest assumtpions. The deity you're postulating is an assumption; in fact it amounts to an infinite assumption. How does such an assumption trump anything?
Are The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Creation "two theories that have the same explanatory power?
I should have been clearer: I was specifically referring to explanations for the observed regularities in the distribution of mutations across species. Both explanations cover all observations, thus have the same explanatory power.
Are they both testable? What predictions does the creation hypothesis make? What observations would be inconsistent with it? It's my contention that if you hypothesize "almighty, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal", then nothing is precluded, and there is no testable theory.
"All mutations fall into a tree pattern"
E: Confirms the theory
C: Wow, isn't the creator logical!
"Not all mutations fall into a tree pattern"
E: Theory's in trouble, wonder what else is going on
C: Wow, isn't the creator logical!
The same way evolution helped James Jesus Angleton track down Kim Philby. :-)
But learning really took off when "God did it" was recognized as inadequate. No wonder! You can't learn anything by saying "God did it."
Look at the incredible amounts of effort creationists spend undermining naturalistic explanations of nearly everything. The whole point is "If we can poke a hole in the naturalistic explanation, then it's a miracle. If it's a miracle, God did it!"
You'll never learn another useful thing that way.
No, but you can learn just about everything by asking the question "How did God do it?" and that's what Western science and culture is founded on.
Look at the incredible amounts of effort creationists spend undermining naturalistic explanations of nearly everything.
Reason will prevail. It is a tenent of faith. :-)
The whole point is "If we can poke a hole in the naturalistic explanation. . ."
Well, what's wrong with that? If a hole can be poked in something it should be.
I will say something that some will find depressing then I'm going to hit it. There is a limit to the mind of man. We cannot explain the source of the Big Bang -- unless we invoke God. And if we should, we cannot explain the source of God. So, when it comes to these things, relax.
HUH?? How many Chimpanzees do you find on top of Mt. Kilimanjaro?
Actually the reason for the split between Chimps and Hominids is probably the most straight forward one in evolution. A couple of million years ago the rift mountains in Africa rose splitting/cutting off two populations of our common ancestor. One population was left on the west, wet rain forest side and they became the Chimps which are very good at living in a forest (swinging in trees, etc.) while the other population was left on the east side which during and after the mountain building slowly dried out becoming a grassland in which that population slowly evolved into the hominids which are better suited than chimps at living on a Savannah (walking upright which enabled our ancestors to walk farther between scarcer food/water supplies .
But we do know. Evolution.
I confess I don't remember your original point. That is probably because, as an evolutionist, and thus one who lives in a wretched state of sin and rebellion, I sometimes have less than perfect recall. From the tone of your post, I get the impression that you find my comments to be off-point and a waste of your valuable time. Indeed, your time is so valuable, and my commentary so useless, that you will not even make the effort to inform this miserable sinner of the nature of your original point. That is as it should be.
As a result of my failure, I shall remain in darkness and ignorance, forever tormented by the knowledge that I was unable to keep up with you, and I have thrown away the golden opportunity to gain wisdom by continued dialogue with you. I shall not trouble you again.
"The theory that explains every possible outcome explains none."
The nature of scientific prediction is the preemptive exclusion of all but one outcome for a given set of circumstances. A "theory" that is consistent with ALL possible outcomes excludes NONE. A theory that excludes NO outcome is thus incapable of making any prediction in a meaningful sense. And if it makes no predictions, it can't be falsified, which is a prerequisite of scientific thoeries; hence, a "theory" that is consistent with ALL possible outcomes is NOT scientific.
And if a theory is non-scientific, what business does it have being thrust into the science class room?
How many people do you find living there? You do find people living all around it as well as in the rain forests in West Africa.
The reason I brought that up is because in Post 657 you wound up supporting it.
I remain a skeptic :-)
This is similar to the Biblical Razor.
IF there are two theories that have the same explanatory power, go with the one that shows God is the meanest, most vengeful, kick ass dude around. For example:
The twin cities with a bad reputation get destroyed:
A) God needed to say "I told you!"
B) An earthquake.
A big flood kills lots of people:
A) A naturally occurring land mass damn gives way and causes a big shift of water from a sea into a lake. A large area get flooded and lots of people are killed.
B) God was getting irritated with some people who did not toe the line, so he decides to kill just about everyone.
Kinda reminds me of THIS little number (from "Paint Your Wagon"):
THE GOSPEL OF NO NAME CITYYee-haw! (It's a great movie BTW, assuming you ignore Clint Eastwood's attempts to sing.)
You wanna see sin of the wickedest kind?
Here it is!
You wanna see virtue left behind?
Here it is!
Sodom was vice
And visa-versa
You wanna say where the vice is worser?
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
You wanna live life in the rottenest city?
Here it is!
Women and whiskey, night and day?
Here it is!
You wanna embrace the golden calf?
Ankle, and thigh, and upper half?
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
No name city
No name city
The Lord don't like it here
No name city
No name city
Your reckoning day is near
No name city
No name city
Here's what he's gonna do
God love this town
And swallow it down
And goodbye to you
Will you go to heaven?
Will you go to hell?
Either repent, or fare thee well
God will take care of no name city
Comes the end, and it won't be pretty
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Here it is!
I mean, here it is!
Amen!
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.