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 may not be ignorant nor dishonest, but your next statement is false. This makes it hard to believe your first statement.
Fine. But let's wait until someone cones up with a theory of intellligent design. Right now it's armchair speculation, a hypothesis.
In order to be a theory, it would have to account for all the observed facts that standard biology does. No problem.
It also would have to be falsifiable - ie there would have to be an observation that would show it to be false - otherwise the "theory" would be vacuous, unable to make predictions about what to expect when we perform experiments or unearth fossils.
For example: How could any theory of ID answer the following question? IF the same pseudogene is found in a single species of cow, and also in a single species of whale, where else will it be found?
The problem is that if we assume the designer is sufficiently powerful, the pseudogene could be found anywhere.
The other problem is that the answer, "every species of cattle, whale, deer, goats and sheep, and also hippos", happens to be borne out by experiment.
To clarify: the facts include: faunal succession in the fossil record and the fact that every time that DNA from different species is compared it forms a tree, the same tree that biologists already knew from anatomy, biogeography, etc.
The theory is that mutation and natural selection account for these (and other) facts.
The evidence is so overwheleming, producing the same tree from every different types of observation that's ever been made, that it is easy to be imprecise and say it's a fact. Rather like the way that the many different ways of counting atoms always produce the same value (Avagadro's number) lets us say that the atomic theory of matter is a fact.
No wonder conservatives get a bad rap. Stuff like this makes me think FR has gone to the dogs.
I'm sorry. Explain again how destruction of members of one's species promotes survival of that species?
The result will be that evolution will not be taught in school in a thousand years.
Catholics (of which I claim membership) have a higher reproduction rate than fundamentalist Christians -- and the Catholic Church has accepted the validity of Evolution. Therefore, the result will be that fundamentalist Christianity and its anti-evolution stance will have disappeared long before the end of the next thousand years.
This is a non-sequitor. Why would a non-acceptance of the Almighty lead to a life without purpose or meaning? Many of the atheists I've known over the years (and a few of them I knew back in junior high and high school) were not the nihilistic people you paint them to be. Indeed, they'd create their own purposes, such as volunteering for charity work, and set their own goals.
Now, the most "do-nothing" crowd I've ever run with are the "Apocolyptic Christians." These are typically fundamentalists who believe "God is coming soon." Therefore, they don't actually accomplish anything because God'll be here before they finish. My wife's grandmother, a staunch Seventh Day Adventist was of this bent. She tried to discourage my wife from going to college as it would be a waste of time because God would come before my wife finished. Fifteen years later my wife is completing her Master's Degree in psychology having realized that God may not be coming nearly as soon as her (now-deceased) grandmother claimed.
I have stated this as my OPINION. It still is.
If you take God's purpose out of the universe, it diminishes it.
Let me address this separately. Two people on this thread in your first posts to me have called me ignorant or a liar. That is name calling.
I'm not whining, nor are my feelings hurt, but both of your arguments against me are negated by your 'name calling'........because what you have 'stated' is not fact. Period.
Many 'facts' of evolution can be explained scientifically by other means which includes a catastrophic, universal flood. The Scripture outlines such a flood as an upheaval from underneath the earth, as well as from the heavens.
My family and I have traveled extensively, and visited many National Parks, all of which state evolution theories as facts. One such park is Dinosaur National Monument. (If you have not been there, go. It's a remarkable place). There is a massive pile of dinosaur bones imbedded in the side of a hill, piled many feet up. The 'explanation' was a local flood. There is NO way in the world that a local flood could have done what happened there, but a massive universal flood could. There is another scientifically valid explanation that is ignored.
Scientists now acknowledge that the Colorado River did NOT form the Grand Canyon, but that's not what the signs in the park say, and that's not what kids are taught in schools. There are lies, and guesswork taught as fact in our schools.
I am not saying that I KNOW what happened, but I am saying that it is valid, and logical to believe that a Universal flood could have caused many of the things explained now by evolution (and that every culture on this earth has a story about that flood.....not just Christians and Jews). It's fascinating to go to Mt. St. Helens and see the canyon carved in a matter of hours there. It doesn't take millenia to form the geological strata in canyons. It just takes lots of water.
I do have good friends who disagree with me on this, but they are able to discuss it and still maintain respect.....something that doesn't seem to be in abundance here.....
The one thing I do know, is that we were created by a Creator, who loved us before we were even born, who formed us in our mother's wombs, and has every hair on our heads numbered. And I know that he loved us enough to send His Son, Jesus, to live among us, and to suffer and die for our sins, and to rise on the third day, and sit at the right hand of His Father in heaven.
One day, I will see Him, and if it's of any importance at the time, I will ask Him how HE formed the earth........in six days, as His Word says......or over millions of years.
And as I told John last night, I promise that I won't make fun of all of you when I find out that my understanding was right, and yours wrong.
Have a good day, all. Read the Word of God......especially the book of Genesis........pray about what's there, and be open to what God has to teach you.
So it's not a non-sequitor. It's a logical conclusion in a culture that has tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to take God out of it.
JHK: Eh, stupidity over the long term doesn't confer an evolutionary advantage...
Nor has science noted a gene for religion. If it exists, it probably overlaps with the genetic basis of schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder.
You believe that you.....who depend on your own finite thinking, and the words of others who are equally limited.....are SMART, and those of us who seek the answers from the Infinite, Omniscient God, who struggle and wrestle to know the truth by seeking the One who created us with absolute perfection in design and order, and Who created the infinite universe with the sweep of His hand, are CRAZY.
That same Creator has given us, in the Scripture, a word of that kind of thinking.........foolishness.
Which scientist(s) is that? Please give the details of this assertion.
I happen to be one of "them," but heartily disagree with your assessment here. I do conceive of evolution much in the way you describe above, and I am happy to see so many busy scientists discovering what God has created and putting it to good use.
It's really rather amusing to receive a large amount of scientific knowledge at the expense of scholarly fools. Indeed, I thank God that He sees fit to use evolutionists to my advantage.
At the same time, I have not seen evolution theory contribute anything of social value to the world as we know it. Perhaps you could cite an example.
I'm leaving for the afternoon, but will provide it for you as soon as I can.
Funny that the textbook writers, teachers, and park authorities are ignoring the scientists on this matter. Could it be that when you say "scientists" you don't mean "a clear and massive preponderance of recognized, competent scientific authorities"? Could you perhaps mean "the propagandists at AnswersInGenesis and Institute for Creation Research"?
Here's a nice dissection of creationist claims regarding the Grand Canyon. (Kudos to freeper Ichneumon who compiled it.)
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.