Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Almost 150 years ago, Charles Darwin knew something that the scientific establishment seems to have forgotten -- something that is being endangered today in the state of Ohio.
In Ohio, high school science students are at risk of being told that they are not allowed to discuss questions and problems that scientists themselves openly debate. While most people understand that science is supposed to consider all of the evidence, these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications.
In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design. They mandate something much milder. According to the standards, students should know that "scientists may disagree about explanations . . . and interpretations of data" -- including the biological evidence used to support evolutionary theory. If that sounds like basic intellectual freedom, that's because it is.
The Ohio Department of Education has responded by implementing this policy through the development of an innovative curriculum that allows students to evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution.
And that has the American scientific establishment up in arms. Some groups are pressuring the Ohio Board to reverse its decision. The president of the National Academy of Sciences has denounced the "Critical Analysis" lesson -- even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature.
Hard as it may be to believe, prominent scientists want to censor what high school students can read and discuss. It's a story that is upside-down, and it's outrageous. Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion.
Debates about whether natural selection can generate fundamentally new forms of life, or whether the fossil record supports Darwin's picture of the history of life, would be off-limits. It's a bizarre case of scientists against "critical analysis."
And the irony of all of this is that this was not Charles Darwin's approach. He stated his belief in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin knew that objective science demands free and open inquiry, and while I disagree with Darwin on many things, on this he was absolutely right. And I say what's good enough for scientists themselves, as they debate how we got here, is good enough for high school students.
Contact us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) to learn more about this issue and about an intelligent design conference we're co-hosting this June.
The Ohio decision is the leading edge of a wedge breaking open the Darwinist stranglehold on science education in this country. The students in Ohio -- and every other state -- deserve intellectual freedom, and they deserve it now.
And it is so 20th century.
That white people don't have souls ans are not human, but are products of a science experiment 5000 years ago by the black scientist Yakub.
That'd be fine. Except a genuinly "fair" balance of "evidence" would completly swamp the creationist/ID position.
Point out the discussions within science by looking at something genuinely controversial and actually relevant. Like whether or not their was water on Mars.
Come again?
Explain to me why you think the TOE in any way deals with how life began.
I thought we were discussing evolution.
I'm not erribly impressed by microscopic images of book covers. I would, however be inteesed in hearing arguments in your own words. since you are firm in your opinion, you are surly able to present the case for yourself.
Feel free to provide references in the form of links, but anyone who feels qualified to refue the work of tens of thousands of biologist working over 200 years should be able to make the basic argument without quoting.
Two things: Evolution does not address the origin of life. It only deals with changes in already living populations. So this cannot be considered a "hole" in the theory.
Secondly, define "life." I'm not being facetious. As one gets simpler and simpler, the dividing line between life and non-life gets blurrier. Are self-replicating molecules (of which there are a number) living? If not, why not? They grow, consume and replicate, which is typically the working definition of life.
Really? I didn't read that in any science textbooks I can remember.
True mark of an 'Evolutionist'
I'm sure you would...
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.