Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom
BreakPoint with Charles Colson | 1 Mar 04 | Charles Colson

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: charlescolson; crevolist; education; evolution; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 961-974 next last
To: RadioAstronomer
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?

581 posted on 03/03/2004 11:55:56 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
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."

582 posted on 03/03/2004 12:03:44 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Moribund thread placemarker.
583 posted on 03/03/2004 12:11:52 PM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
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.

584 posted on 03/03/2004 12:15:19 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
(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?

585 posted on 03/03/2004 12:24:40 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.

586 posted on 03/03/2004 12:30:18 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Evolutionists definition of troll:

Someone who stands up to an evolutionist
587 posted on 03/03/2004 12:31:48 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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?

588 posted on 03/03/2004 12:35:51 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
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.
589 posted on 03/03/2004 12:36:47 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
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?

590 posted on 03/03/2004 12:37:40 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
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.

591 posted on 03/03/2004 12:39:22 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.

592 posted on 03/03/2004 12:41:01 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You are confusing breeding with evolution.

No I'm not.

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

593 posted on 03/03/2004 12:43:31 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Like..... how long does a giraffes neck need to be?

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

594 posted on 03/03/2004 12:46:01 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
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.
595 posted on 03/03/2004 12:48:59 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
bump
596 posted on 03/03/2004 12:49:03 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

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.

597 posted on 03/03/2004 1:13:30 PM PST by Elsie (When the avalanche starts... it's too late for the pebbles to vote....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"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.

598 posted on 03/03/2004 1:15:31 PM PST by C.J.W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: C.J.W.
Hello, ghost of Cash.
599 posted on 03/03/2004 1:16:22 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.

600 posted on 03/03/2004 1:19:00 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 961-974 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson