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.

[VadeRetro]

Did it get lonely talking the walls at DesUni?

[js1138]

I think someone wants to play resurrection.

[RightWingNilla]

"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."

Besides Behe (who BTW accepts evolution and common descent), who else are you refering to?

[RightWingNilla]

I think someone wants to play resurrection.

I feel a disturbance in the force....

[PatrickHenry]

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

Now look, monkey-boy. You have your science and the creationists have theirs. Who says creation science has to play by your rules? That's fascism! What business is it of yours if creation science doesn't do research, can't be falsified, and has no results to show for its efforts? Just teach it in the schools and let the children decide.
</creationism mode>

[VadeRetro]

Odd that MarkOfHumanFeet seems to have decided to leave FR back on February 21.

[VadeRetro]

What business is it of yours if creation science doesn't do research, can't be falsified, and has no results to show for its efforts?

And obviously will never teach us anything new unless "Goddidit" is anything new.

[js1138]

That was at least a classy screen name. I miss it.

Just kidding.

[C.J.W.]

"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....."

I didn't say that. What believers in an ideology of evolutionism are doing is breaking down and merging basic natural law categories such as animal and human, male and female, etc. I mention the fact that it is little wonder that when even conservatives believe such things that civilization is on the decline as represented by acceptance of sexual perversion. All of the classically understood sexual perversions were only defined so on the basis of natural law. All of the distinctions which define them so are broken down in the ideology of evolutionism: male and female (breaking down this distinction is the basis of the perversion homophilia)
life and death (breaking down this distinction is the basis of the perversion necrophilia)
animal and human (breaking down this distinction is the basis of the perversion zoophilia). And so on.

It was a side note to mention the fact that when even conservatives do not believe in the distinct categories that define perversion that social acceptance of perversion is more common.

[PatrickHenry]

Why are you afraid of the truth? Why do you have to resort to storm-trooper tactics to suppress competing theories?
</creationism mode>

[CobaltBlue]

Lawyers aren't sworn in unless they're witnesses - and lawyer's arguments are not supposed to be treated as factual by juries - and certainly are not treated as factual by judges. ;^)

[VadeRetro]

Little moi?

[js1138]

So all you are really saying is that evolution is a perversion, and that arguing for evolution is just like arguing for perversion?

[PatrickHenry]

[C.J.W.]

"What would you prefer I do to "demonstrate" any inaccuracy?"

Simply say how my summary of certain hypotheses of evolutionists are inaccurate. You made the assertion.

"Trees Down Scenario: Given an arboreal ancestor of a flying lineage, flight must have proceeded from the trees into the air. A semi-bipedal leaping and gliding animal could have evolved flight -- leaping off of trees would provide the acceleration and speed necessary for flight.
Gliding is most useful in the trees, so if that ancestor was a glider, then it must have co- opted its gliding structures into wings; it must have started to flap its gliding membrane. If the ancestor was not a glider, then its wings must have developed from another function of
the arms. These two hypotheses have been discussed since the 1880's."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

My summary of this notion: "Once upon a time a population of avian ancestors jumped out of trees and killed themselves enough times that they eventually grew wings and flew away."

What is innacurate? Why did you suspect that I invented this notion of things jumping from trees eventually growing wings and flying away? Do you sense that it is fairly inane?

"'... or the other explanations proferred to explain differences between kingdoms?'

Such as?"

Another similar explanation, "Once upon a time a population of fish that were mammalian ancestors threw themselves onto the land enough times, killing themselves, that they eventually grew legs, the mammalian lung, the mammalian heart, etc.etc..... and walked away."

Yes I know that those who believe in the ideology of evolutionism arrange a sequence of aquatic, semi-aquatic to land here. Not surprisng that placing the environment in sequence that way makes it easier to conjure images of sequence in the face of observation of Nature as typological. Also of note, going in reverse is more difficult with the mythological narrative of, "Once upon a time, a group of mammals that were whale ancestors threw themselves into the sea enough times, killing themselves, that they eventually grew all of the soft anatomy typical to aquatic mammals and swam away.")


"People insist on attaching normative arguments to a descriptive theory."

There is a universal sense that all is not as it should be. This statement is self evident and evident in the self. Also anyone with any common sense also believes in the basic categorical discriminations of civilization and ought to be concerned with the impact of "descriptive" mythological narratives that go against civilization. Especially when such narratives are made up to suit a conclusion that's already been decided on a priori.

How do you get it to italicize quotes of the other person?

[atlaw]

"All of the classically understood sexual perversions were only defined so on the basis of natural law."

I'm aware of the neo-classical and post-modern sexual perversions, which are defined in the Perversion Code, Section 2.4(b)(iii), of the 1978 Federal Register, but I can't presently recall the classically understood sexual perversions. Can you provide a list?

[C.J.W.]

"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..."

And what is qualifies as a "selection" of Nature, does Nature "select" things randomly or are you relying on some sort of deification of Nature in which it "selects" things rationally, purposefully, etc.?

In neoDarwinism it is *random* mutation that creates everything that Nature supposedly "selects" from. So the new biological creator, is at heart, random. This is not the philosophy of the Stoics who found purpose, rationality, etc., revealed in Nature. This is the philosophy of the fundamentally irrational. There is a lot of sniveling about how anyone who disagrees with this type of irrational nonsense "just doesn't understand evolution." or is ignorant, etc. As if continual condescension is supposed to be an argument. The real problem is that there is nothing there to understand except the consistent misunderstanding of those who begin their reasoning without a rationale for rationality.

[C.J.W.]

"I can't presently recall the classically understood sexual perversions. Can you provide a list?"

Homophilia, zoophilia, pedophilia are some of the main ones. There is quite a list right on down to gerontophilia and most deal with incorrect/confused categorical discriminations being made. I.e. confusing the categories child and adult, etc.

[balrog666]

lawyer's arguments are not supposed to be treated as factual by juries

I certainly don't treat them as factual ;^)

I preferred the definition at #446.

[VadeRetro]

My summary of this notion: "Once upon a time a population of avian ancestors jumped out of trees and killed themselves enough times that they eventually grew wings and flew away."

What is innacurate?

Your summary. Argumentum ad dumb-dumb-um.