Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom

BreakPoint with Charles Colson | 1 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

[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.

[Dimensio]

You don't know? What kind of scientist are you?

Perhaps we're not members of the Science High Priests. You, however, seem to have gotten your hands on some leaked information. Come on, you could create a horde of converts here, just tell us about these holes in evolution theory!

[Right Wing Professor]

I am fairly certain I am typing English but can I claim with certitude I am typing English –

Gabh mo leithscéil, a dhuine uasal. Mura féider leat abairt mise cén teanga a bhfuil tu a usáid, ni féidir liom cén teanga duitse freagairt.

Ou peut être: excusez moi, monsieur. Si vous ne peut pas savoir quelle langue vous utilisez, je ne sais pas rêpondre.

Oder veilleicht; wenn Sie nicht mir sagen können welche Sprache Sie benützen, dann kann ich nicht bestimmen wie zu antworten.

[Dimensio]

I have no trouble with folks disagreeing with ME.

If they disagree with what the Word SAYS, then that's another matter.

It's not so much that they claim to disagree with the Word, but that they disagree that your interpretation of the Word is the correct one. Of course, most creationists seem to think that they've already completely figured out their God's plan and message, without error or ambiguity. Odd that so many "certain" people have such diverse beliefs...

[Right Wing Professor]

Vous ne pouvez pas. Sorry; it's been a while.

[Dimensio]

I'll let others handle criticisms of the authors within actual biological fields, at least for now.

Why would I trust a law professor to be qualified to speak on evolution? Would you trust an open-heart surgeon to do engine work on your car? You're also not going to get lots of credibility in the field of biology from someone whose majors were Math and Philosophy.

[Right Wing Professor]

I will make it simple for you: does the sun rotate around the earth?

Braitheann sé. In chéid staid tagartha?

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

He's a convicted felon who's turned himself into an ignorant bible-basher

I don't believe I've ever heard Charles Colson bash the Bible.

Don't be so hard on yourself, professor, not everyone is called to do.

[Last Visible Dog]

Gabh mo leithscéil, a dhuine uasal. Mura féider leat abairt mise cén teanga a bhfuil tu a usáid, ni féidir liom cén teanga duitse freagairt.

L'argument pour l'argument est un dispositif employé par des personnes avec des problèmes d'amour-propre.

[Right Wing Professor]

Doch. Und die Kenntnis eines Probleme ist die erste Treppe es zu lösen.

[Last Visible Dog]

But. And the knowledge problems is to be solved the first stairs it.

OK...

N'oubliez jamais, des anchois font un douche faible

[Dimensio]

If anybody wants proof you are liar, go to #195 (my supporting evidence) and #129 (Ichneumon lied about the context of my statement on evidence of design).

I don't normally respond to you, because you've made it clear in the past that you're a troll, but post #195 does not contain links to evidence, it contains links to encyclopedia entries regarding the bombardier beetle and the flagellum. The entries are just factual descriptions; neither of them are attempts to support intelligent design. Your "supporting evidence" was merely pointing at organisms and saying "See, intelligent design!". That's not evidence, as you have not provided anything that tries to justify claims of intelligent design (in fact, you didn't provide anything that even claimed intelligent design in the first place).

Post 129 is a placemarker by Patrick Henry.

[Dimensio]

Bonvoro alsendi la pordiston, lausajne estas rano en mia bideo!

[Mr. Silverback]

Why would I trust a law professor to be qualified to speak on evolution?

Three words: Rules of evidence...

Four more words: ...and the evaluation thereof.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

Uh-huh.

So you're saying that the "primordial soup" and such wasn't advanced by evolutionists?

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

Please tell me how evolution is backed up by repeatable experiments.

[William Terrell]

From my reading, anytime an effort is made to teach intra-species evolution as merely a theory instead of fact, there are protests from biologists, anthropologists, environmental "scientists" and other disciplines.

As long as you get the communication, language has done its job, don't you think? Evidently my sentence was perfectly understandable.

I'm am not a creationist, as that subject is taught, nor am I an evolutioner, as that subject is taught. I find it ironic that over hundreds of FR crevo threads, the main effort of creationists is to prove evolution wrong and the main effort of evolutioners is to prove creationism wrong. They have both succeeded admirably.

All that's left is for you to accept the fact that millions of "micros" add up to a "macro."

This is a statement is what I would call a leap of faith. Species adapt to local changes in environment by altering some minor aspects of noncritical functions. It doesn't logically follow that those mechanisms allow changing into a totally different species.

If intra-species evolution is not based on blind chance, as it more famous advocates claim, then what? Intelligent design? You may believe that intra-species evolution is merely a tool of God to advance his population of biological servo-mechanisms on Earth, but the concept of intra-species evolution was for the purpose of allowing atheists some explanation of present diversity with out believing in a Supreme Being.

When you advance their construct, you advance their cause by allowing them to deny your cause. That is, if you come at evolution from a spiritual base.

[Mr. Silverback]

...as do thousands of biologists who accept the fact of evolution.

You must be pretty bulked up to hurl that elephant. How many reps do you do a day?

[Last Visible Dog]

I don't normally respond to you, because you've made it clear in the past that you're a troll

Let's see – you are on the sidelines sniping – and you have the nerve to call me a troll.

#195 does not contain links to evidence

You may not like my links but that does not mean they are not links to evidence - that makes you wrong on this point

The entries are just factual descriptions

yeap.

none of them are attempts to support intelligent design.

I was not trying to support intelligent design - you are clearly a troll and you are not very good at it.

Your "supporting evidence" was merely pointing at organisms and saying "See, intelligent design!".

Sorry troll, I never claimed they were examples of intelligent design. (that means you are very confused or lying)

(in fact, you didn't provide anything that even claimed intelligent design in the first place).

Nor have I in any way tried to support the concept of intelligent design. (you are not a very good troll)

Post 129 is a placemarker by Patrick Henry.

Thank you for catching my typo, troll – the correct number #75

[William Terrell]

"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?

From my reading, anytime an effort is made to teach intra-species evolution as merely a theory instead of fact, there are protests from biologists, anthropologists, environmental "scientists" and other disciplines.

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"?

Do not teach theories of the origin of mankind at all until the students have the background necessary to understand and critique the evidence therefor.

"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.)

It's pretty obvious that you don't either. The foundation of evolution is that all the interactive diversity we see today started by blind chance. If that notion is invalid, any evidence extrapolated from those fields is invalid.

Each of those fields exist within a rigid framework of intolerant physical laws, would themselves would have to have come about by blind chance.

That notion is absurd, and requires a preexisting desire to have it so, then the search for particles of evidence that support it, just like creationism.

If you like to see some difference in the two approaches, have at it. I judge that proponents of both approaches are spiritual brothers to the moron who brought kudzu to the South.

[Mr. Silverback]

Funny, no, that Denten, Behe, et al have yet to actually publish a refereed journal article pertaining to ID or creationism.

Forgot something, and please give it serious consideration: Journals like Scientific American or Nature wouldn't ever publish a Behe article because ID "isn't science," but the way you can tell that it isn't science is that ID researchers haven't published in those same journals. Circular reasoning.