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.
Ah. Perhaps.
I thought it was a conservative forum.
It is, but using yourself as a yardstick to measure conservatism (or just about anything else) is a sure-fire route to disappointment.
If even conservatives believe in something like evolutionism then it is little wonder that homosexuality is such an issue in Americana.
Err, well, there's your non-sequitur quota for the day.
But before going on a tangent to the disagreement, then what is your summary of the Tree Down Theory...
Sorry, I don't know the "Tree Down Theory" - as I suspect it's something you've invented, I think I'll probably do a poor job of summarizing it, let alone "defending" it.
... or the other explanations proferred to explain differences between kingdoms?
Such as?
You didn't back up your assertion by demonstrating any inaccuracy.
What would you prefer I do to "demonstrate" any inaccuracy? I can recommend some introductory texts on the theory of evolution, if you like.
Perhaps you can explain sexual dimorphism as well and break down the categories of male and female?
Explain in what sense? Why dimorphism exists?
These outcomes are not really the issue but I believe concern about these normative outcomes is what motivates people in descriptive debate.
Well, there's the problem, isn't it? People insist on attaching normative arguments to a descriptive theory. "Should" doesn't enter into the realm of evolutionary theory, any more that it does in any other scientific endeavor - the theory concerns itself with what is and was, not what should be. By way of analogy, the laws of physics tell you what will happen if you throw a baby out of a window, but those same laws are entirely silent on the matter of whether throwing babies out of windows is a good thing or a bad thing - for that, we must look elsewhere.
Well, stranger, you certainly know how to jump in here and incite a full-blown flame-war. I strongly suggest that even if you think the advocates of evolution are queer, you ought to keep that to yourself. If you persist in posting that accusation, things will degenerate swiftly; and if experience is any guide, your career around here will be brief. So please try to get yourself under control. Debate verifiable facts all day, but cut out the silly stuff.
Nonsense. To take the most obvious example, nobody understands quantum mechanics (some people with advanced mathematical training can manipulate the equations to produce results that can be verified, or not, by experiment, but that is not at all the same thing).
As your entire argument rests upon this false premise, it falls.
The notion that all life and ecological systems, including plant life and insects, started and the process guided by dice throws is what I consider an extraordinary claim.
Your willful ignorance certainly does not help matters. The fact that evolution is driven by natural selection, not mere random chance, is one of the points of science that is simple enough to be understood by anyone possessing enough intelligence to be allowed out without a keeper and enough honesty to be allowed out without a parole officer.
(A period, not a question mark. You have left yourself no wiggle room to deny it.)
If you aren't claiming, at least implicitly, that only the latter can provide definitive support for a theory, there is no reason other than water-muddying to bring up the distinction at all.
This statement is clearly irrelevant without the implicit assertion that only a "repeatable experiment" is an acceptable form of evidence for a scientific theory. That assertion has been cut to ribbons. Ergo, this statement is irrelevant. QED
It most certainly does. If Galileo had claimed to see mountains on the moon, but nobody else looking through a telescope saw them, the repeatability criterion would not have been met. Ask the ghost of Perceval Lowell what that does to your credibility....
American Non-Sequitur Society: We Don't Make Sense, But We Do Like Pizza.
Neither does the progression from one species to another need the actual computations, only the evidence that one led to another.
Nontechnical articles that explain the process of a system to a nontechnical person abound and do a very good job. Hiding in technicalese has always been a method of covering up shoddy science.
A lot of highly technical people in sciences such as biology and other relevant sciences are totally against the notion of intra-species evolution, and they can read and understand the technicalese, and see its flaws. Not only see its flaws, but point them out to a layman so he can understand them.
Natural selection. The process of natural selection is claimed to have started by blind chance. Read you own evolution gurus. If it did not start by blind chance, it being a organized stricture that governs an orderly process, then it must have been created by some intelligent source. If the latter, your premise fails.
Let me say again, both evolution and creation, as these concepts are taught, fail equally. I don't subscribe to either one.
The very same 'small gene pool' that "E" types claim has started each and every change in the line, that we find in today's 'modern' animals. Where did you get that incorrect idea from? |
Sure it is........
No, it isn't, and to repeat this assertion is as dishonest as referring to the "Bush Recession" after being informed that the economy started heading south in mid-2000.
I'll have to agree.....
It's on the order of the bombadier beetle some folks are talking about here.....
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.