Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom
BreakPoint with Charles Colson | 1 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: charlescolson; crevolist; education; evolution; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 961-974 next last
To: roylene; gdani
To second roylene, evolution is little more than updated spontaneous generation.

And it is so 20th century.

21 posted on 03/01/2004 1:52:54 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Shryke
What "scientific" information is being suppressed?

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.

22 posted on 03/01/2004 1:52:58 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (It is always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to the cute)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: js1138
They aren't links, just photos of book covers.
23 posted on 03/01/2004 1:53:36 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
"Every year, the same four guys are turning more and more to ID!"
24 posted on 03/01/2004 1:54:08 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question

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.

25 posted on 03/01/2004 1:54:21 PM PST by narby (Who would Osama vote for???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I'm sure thet know what Darwin said and I'm sure they don't care.
It's not really about evolution, it's about denying the existance of God.
26 posted on 03/01/2004 1:54:28 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
I'm going to report you to Tommy Thompson.

Come again?

27 posted on 03/01/2004 1:54:49 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: roylene
Explain to me how life can come from non-life.

Explain to me why you think the TOE in any way deals with how life began.

28 posted on 03/01/2004 1:55:02 PM PST by Modernman ("The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: roylene
Explain to me how life can come from non-life.

I thought we were discussing evolution.

29 posted on 03/01/2004 1:55:27 PM PST by gdani (letting the marketplace decide = conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
The reason evolution is coming under attack from people outside the scope of the Creationist movement is because it is so lucrative to sell books to creationists.
30 posted on 03/01/2004 1:56:47 PM PST by narby (Who would Osama vote for???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
They aren't links, just photos of book covers.

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.

31 posted on 03/01/2004 1:57:50 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: roylene
Explain to me how life can come from non-life.

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.

32 posted on 03/01/2004 1:57:54 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
To second roylene, evolution is little more than updated spontaneous generation.

To correct Mr. Silverback, evolution has nothing at all to do with spontaneous generation" or any sort of abiogenesis. if that's your only "problem" with the theory of evolution, well then, you really have no problem with it it all.
33 posted on 03/01/2004 1:59:32 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: philetus
It's not really about evolution, it's about denying the existance of God.

Really? I didn't read that in any science textbooks I can remember.

34 posted on 03/01/2004 1:59:44 PM PST by narby (Who would Osama vote for???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gdani
You don't know? What kind of scientist are you?
35 posted on 03/01/2004 2:03:39 PM PST by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand... if you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Not dead.
My belief is that just because something can be explained by science does not in anyway mean that God was not involved. I believe God has worked through the whole process. I believe that God was involved in origins of life. I know that evolution does not explain the origins of life and I also know that evolution is not time plus chance.
36 posted on 03/01/2004 2:04:38 PM PST by roylene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Any crank can publish mass marketed books these days. Hell, take a look at your local chain bookstore's "astrology" and "new age" sections. And, just like creationists, they trumpet their degrees as if it gives some credibility to their nonsense.

Funny, no, that Denten, Behe, et al have yet to actually publish a refereed journal article pertaining to ID or creationism. Furthermore, none of those books contains a single repeatable experiment, only literary criticism of parts of a theory which they don't, or don't want to, understand.

That ain't the way science works, I'm afraid.
37 posted on 03/01/2004 2:05:13 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I'm going to assume

.......

True mark of an 'Evolutionist'

38 posted on 03/01/2004 2:06:05 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I've made some stunning predictions, lately. ;)
39 posted on 03/01/2004 2:07:54 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I would, however be inteesed in hearing arguments in your own words.

I'm sure you would...

40 posted on 03/01/2004 2:08:42 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 961-974 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson