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.

[Mr. Silverback]

Sorry for not responding very fast. I had two teeth root canaled this morning and am not feeling so hot. Will be back in a bit.

Ouch! How are you doing now?

[Mr. Silverback]

Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution.

Yes, I'm familiar with that claim, although it would be more truthful if rendered thus:

"Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution, because when a published, credentialed scientist does debate it, we just claim he's not a 'real' scientist."

[balrog666]

Moribund thread placemarker.

[Mr. Silverback]

Supporters: Book should stay on shelves

That's funny, when I first looked at the headline, I thought it was going to be about the Park Service pulling a Creationist book on the Grand Canyon from the shelves of their bookstore. Apparently some idiot at the Park Service is sure that it's a violation of the separation doctrine.

[Elsie]

(which I suggest you read before you attempt more posts on this thread)

For my safety
or so that I won't appear to be so stupid in your eyes?

[Elsie]

The smaller the number of individuals of a(n)y given type, the more unlikely would be eit(h)er change or survival.

And this is why I can't marry my cousin?

If 'good' traits are found in animals, attempts are made to breed those individuals that contain the traits: NOT to dilute them out again by breeding with the larger population.

This is done by CHOICE of the human doing the breeding:ID if you will.

The odds of a trait staying in the breed is enhanced by a SMALL number of units breeding: NOT a large amount of them.

[Elsie]

Evolutionists definition of troll:

Someone who stands up to an evolutionist

[Elsie]

Elsie thinks of mutations a s hopeful monsters rather than a variation within an existing breeding population.

I do????

---

HMmmm..........How many 'variations' does it take to get from Creature A to Creature B?

[js1138]

You are confusing breeding with evolution. Breeding juggles existing dominant and recessive traits. Mutation introduces new traits.

However, in either case, the frequency of any trait is modified by selection, as with sickle cell trait, which is generally detrimental to a population, but has a net positive effect in areas infested with malaria.

[Mr. Silverback]

Can you look me in the eye, and with a straight face tell me that these sites are representative of the kinds of arguments that real, working biologists are making against aspects of evolutionary theory? Do you really believe that these sites are offering the students critical analyses of evolution, in the best sense of that term? Pedagogically speaking, would the students be well-served to be encouraged to go to those sites and study their arguments?

OK...We've got three sites from the evolution side, including one that is devoted to evolution's foremost (until his death) spokesman.

We've also got three sites that promote ID, including one (ObjectivityInScience.org) that has amatuerish site design at first blush.

And the "argument" between the sites is going to be "moderated" by a science teacher who probably graduated from a secular school with an all-evolutionist science faculty. After all, ID has no foothold anywhere among people who work in the real world of science research and education, right?

So, why are you so worried about this comparison taking place?

[js1138]

HMmmm..........How many 'variations' does it take to get from Creature A to Creature B?

The answer to that is pretty much the same as to the question of how long a man's legs need to be.

[Elsie]

Hence the willful misunderstanding about the alleged lack of mates for the new "type".

I thought a lack of mates wuz caused by me bein' so UGLY!

---

I am just a bit confused about how many variations it takes before a creature gets a fully functioning uterus, (or a fully functioning penis, for that matter) if your ancestors merely had other stuff.

[Elsie]

You are confusing breeding with evolution.

No I'm not.

You're NOT going to have one without the other; are you?

[Elsie]

Like..... how long does a giraffes neck need to be?

Or how high up on a whales neck does his blowhole have to be?

[js1138]

Actually these questions have quite long and detailed answers. You have been lurking on these threads long enough to have seen them, but since you claim not to have seen them, I have declared you hopeless. If you really wanted the answers you would follow some of the links already provided.

But you won't, which is why I didn't post my original comment to you, and won't be posting to you again on this thread.

[VOA]

bump

[Elsie]

cir·cum·loc·u·to·ry

Actually these questions have quite long and detailed answers.

Yes, they sure do.

---

When people are so assured that 'things happened THIS' way, and go to such lengths to convince others, no wonder they get frustrated by guys like me who do not see the puzzle finished from the few dislocated pieces that they present as evidence.

[C.J.W.]

"Science certainly can never be a pursuit of THE truth..."

It's no wonder that people who argue this do not get to the truth of matters. E.g., if systematic thought applied to observation indicates a non-naturalistic explanation such as design/purpose they will still say it does not no matter how irrational they have to be to do so. People with common sense call a willful misreprentation of the facts a lie. That those who have no interest in the truth might be led into lying about what conclusions systematic thought and observation lead to is not surprising, though.

"Science must assume naturalistic explanations..."

Only it doesn't. And that is a fascist notion of science which leads to pseudo-science. True science began based on the notion of cause and effect. This was based on Aristotle's notion of an unmoved Mover. Saying that all is just Nature and there is no necessity for transcendent cause and effect puts one in the position of denying the cause and effect that science is a study of because you're saying that there are uncaused phenomena in Nature. If you begin with a rationale for rationality, instead of just rationalizations about it, you will be more rational.

[js1138]

Hello, ghost of Cash.

[VadeRetro]

Actually these questions have quite long and detailed answers.

Evidently, creation science is demanding the answers to the same questions on every thread and forgetting them before the next thread.