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.
"The real issue" is why do you persist in believing that it "threatens" anyone, when the actual reasons for opposing this trojan-horse curriculum have been explained several times over?
Can't what evidence intra-species evolution has to support it stand detailed examination?
Yes, it absolutely can. But why should we subject high school students to an avalanche of evidence a) before they have the wider background necessary to fully understand it, and b) when they've got so much *necessary* information to learn in a few short years that it's irresponsible to waste many weeks of it on a game of "let's have kids examine the underpinnings of an entire complex field of biology"?
It is pretty obvious that the notion that the incredibly complex interactive systems we see around us came about by blind chance, regardless of the time involved, takes every bit as much faith to believe as the notion of intelligent designer.
"It's pretty obvious" that you don't know the field. It takes no "faith" to accept the validity of evolution. Instead it takes *understanding*, and a familiarity with the vast evidence and the related fields (information science, statistics, feedback systems, phase space, geology, genetics, etc.)
There's no need to rely on "faith" for a belief when you have evidence and knowledge.
I'll do you one better - "eternal life" was actually solved zillions of years ago, give or take a few millennia. Asexually-reproducing creatures like paramecia don't die of old age - unless something kills them, or they run out of food, they just keep on truckin', living and reproducing forever. With a little care, you can easily cultivate tens of thousands of generations of paramecia, and never observe a single dead one.
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!
Point(s) noted.
I apologize to all the participants on this thread for my uncouth postings.
Silly me. I thought empirical meant based on observation or experience.
This will probably come as a shock to you, but there are other kinds of work besides slopping out latrines.
I'd guarantee that Charles Colson has accomplished more real work in one month than you have in the last 25 years. What a punk.
I think that's a little rough. He's a convicted felon who's turned himself into an ignorant bible-basher, but I think it's a bit much to call him a punk.
You haven't told us what yours is, yet.
If you have an example of the questions it raises, maybe we can provide the answer -- or at least point you in the right direction.
All certitude, huh? Have you checked whether the sun rose this morning? It might have been sneakily replaced by a large incandescent light source. Are you sure you're still writing in English? Are you sure that when you put your foot on the gas, the car won't brake? You didn't check that carefully before doing it? When you got out of bed, did you ascertain whether the law of gravity was still in existence?
Arguing with creationists is little more than playing "Spot the Gimmick." Most of the time the gimmick is from the family of Old Familiars:
Oh great, now my good friend balrog666 is stealing my material.
:-)
You forgot the most important gimmick. If one of us delivers an incomplete or flawed argument, the entire history of science is refuted.
I said "overrated" - you might want to look up the word overrated - it does not mean "faulty" or "nonexistent". "Overrated" in a qualitative comment not a quantitative comment as you are attempting to imply. But just to prove I am a nice guy I will address your issues:
First, lets define terms:
Certitude - The state of being certain; complete assurance; confidence
Have you checked whether the sun rose this morning?
The sun does not rise or fall or do back flips - the earth rotates giving the illusion of the sun rising. I would think a professor would know this. RWP: if you have certitude about the sun "rising" - you are mistaken (that is why I said certitude is overrated)
Are you sure you're still writing in English?
Which English language? Great Britain's English language? Scotland's English language (I once saw a Scottish movie that had subtitles in English and they were speaking English albeit Scottish English). Elizabethan English? Is there a pure form of the "English language" - no. There are many dialects and one person's version of English is not always understood by another person that believes they speak (or type) English. There is no one form of the English language therefore one can not have certitude one is "writing in English" (that is why I said certitude is overrated)
Are you sure that when you put your foot on the gas, the car won't brake?
Many times, in my many years of driving, my car would not start. Pressing the gas seemed to brake the car because the car would not move. I also found that pressing the gas when the car is turn off seems to brake the car also (in that it will not go). Usually pressing the gas makes the car go but not always so claiming certitude is fallacious. (that is why I said certitude is overrated)
When you got out of bed, did you ascertain whether the law of gravity was still in existence?
Yes. Gravity still works. One problem - ascertain does not equal certitude. If one has certitude one has no need to ascertain. Certitude is a state of certainty - ascertain is to DISCOVER with certainty. (that is why I said certitude is overrated)
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.