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.
Or, a different TYPE of one......
Thank you for your response, though I feel that it is somewhat of a non-answer to my challenge. I find that the use of Information theory in genetic research is not the same as showing that ID should be taught in classrooms. It is my impression that this is the main concern that people have with ID supporters, an attempt to legitimize ID theory by comparison with research done by human intelligence. I find it a specious argument, mostly as there is no way to quantify such a comparison. This is the crux of my (and many others) problems with ID, it asks a lot of questions, but then peters out when it tries to answer them in a scientific manner. It is also why I don't think it should be in a scientific classroom. It may belong there someday, but that day has still not come.
So what does ID bring to the table and what predictions does it offer science?
· Transposable LINE-1 (junk) actually serves a purpose.
· Functional parts will be reused in unrelated species.
· Intelligent and purposeful information will be found in DNA (encoded information).
· Mindlessness cannot create consciousness.
· Absolutes exist beyond mankind.
ID does make a number of predictions, that much I was aware of, especially 3-5 on your list. However, those hypotheses are not particularly easy in a manner consistent with the scientific method. Sure, people talk about irreducible complexity, but I still have yet to see it in testable terms. You wouldn't happen to have links to scientific research that is ongoing on these predictions?
Perhaps we can go over the anthropic principle discussion at a later time...I don't want this to get too long.
Actually, it is science. As has been posted here many times, assuming a supreme deity is not a very scientific proposition. Science must assume naturalistic explanations or it crosses into other disciplines. End of story.
True scientists believe that science is the pursuit of the truth, not just the pursuit of naturalistic explanation. Failing to admit this leads some to a pseudo-science like evolutionism. It is especially ironic when those who believe that science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations rather than pursuit of the truth make the argument: "Science shows us that everything has a naturalistic explanation!" And they act as if it surprising that they have found all that they are willing to look for or see. There are none so blind as those who will not see, as they say. They had already defined science to show what they wanted to see a priori to actually practicing science.
Your response is quite a ramble. Other than the initial statement, you aren't making much of a point. Science certainly can never be a pursuit of THE truth, only a form of the truth. There is no such thing as an exact science, after all, all colloquialisms aside.
Don't be a moron - I never many any such claim. You are either sloppy, delusional, or a liar.
Stop being a moron. The debate was about repeatable experiments. I made no comment about "definitive support for a theory". Keep up.
You are delusional. The debate was about repeatable experiments - this "implicit assertion" (aka bullsh*t) exists only in your mind.
Run along - you clearly don't understand what we were debating.
steve-b: 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.
So our little buddy steve-b is now claiming natural selection did not start by blind chance. So, steve-b, if not "blind chance" than what? (this ought to good...)
(this ought to BE good...)
Me: Are you certain of that definition?
You: It's an extremely useful and descriptive connotation.
Are you certain that it's an extremely useful and descriptive connotation?
[Ichneumon:] Where did you get that incorrect idea from?
[Elsie:] From 'E's.................. "..a change has occurred that enhances an organisms offspring's surviability" This is, by definition, a 'small gene pool'.
No. You clearly don't understand what a gene pool is. "By definition", a gene pool is:
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
-- from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology (which I suggest you read before you attempt more posts on this thread)
The fact that a mutation first occurs in a single individual doesn't magically make the species's gene pool a size of "one". That individual still resides within a larger population, which contains many other genes available for genetic "mix-and-match".
Are you certain that playing with words adds anything to the discussion?
You may not know me well, but you know me better than that. This is not mere wordplay. I'm making a point. Review posts 168, 175, 187, 191, 204 and 214 for proper context. I promise, they're all short, it should take you less than a minute to read them all.
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.