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.
Sorry, but "E" theory deals with EVERYTHING as it exists around us today: right RA?
There are not "huge holes" in evolutionary theory, but thanks for trying.
All us unwashed peons are to simply accept the simplistic dogma, as taught in the publik skools, without question. Huge grants are at stake here.
Silly. Is this actually the extent of your understanding on this topic?
Don't blame the TOE for poor science teaching in public schools. Just because somebody claims that the TOE covers the start of life, doesn't make it so.
So I guess there is no science out there that in any way refutes or disproves the notion that we were created by someone or something.
The existence or non-existence of a supernatural creator is beyond the scope of science.
Since evolution cannot explain how we got here, only why some of us our born without wisdom teeth, what do we have to fill this void with in education?
For some people, there is religion. However, religion (other than a comparative religion class) is not something that should be taught with taxpayers' money in public schools.
Shouldn't you be? From the New American Standard Edition:
Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
This is really one of the cornerstone arguments of creationists. Science is uncertain. Scientific theories change and/or are disproven over time. Something that is accepted today, might be gone over time. To many people, change is scary.
On the other hand, religion stays constant. One does not have to worry about ambiguity (especially if they read the Bible literally).
I can see how many people would consider change to be scary, and cling to certainty instead.
Glad to be of assistance:
The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey UniversityAnd:Abstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. RussellAnd:Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of GlasgowAbstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.
*ROFL*!!!!
Excellent point. The vast majority of the attacks on evolution come from an extremely small handful of folks.
Scientists do not debate the validity of evolution.
I think it's implied in these threads that when we talk about intelligent design, we're talking about some sort of supernatural force, whether God, Zeus or the Great Pumpkin.
Orthodox Darwinists want to ban critical analysis.
What is next for Evolution-Extremists - burning books?
No, that would be positive evidence for intelligent design. Nobody on the ID side has ever put forth positive evidence for ID. In fact, Wm. Dembski, in putting forth his purely negative theory of the Explanatory Filter, has refused time & again to speculate on either the identity or the design goals of the designers - so-called "designer-centric" questions. He prefers to limit discussion to "design-centric" questions.
Unfortunately, limiting ID-based biological research to the supposed markers of design contained in biological systems is doomed from the start: Absent clear positive evidence for design, you can't infer design unless you implicitly make assumptions about what the object was designed for - i.e. what its design goals were. And this automatically implies statements about who the designers were. On a philosophical level ID cannot even get started unless & until they're willing to engage the evidence on those terms.
Next time try actually reading the article.
From the article:
"The standards did not say that schools should teach intelligent design"
Oh yeah, there hasn't been any criticism of current evolution theory except by radical, Bible-thumping Creationists...
That's not what he said. Would you care to apologize for putting insulting words in his mouth?
Just by a biochemist at LeHigh...
Behe's arguments are seriously flawed, no matter what field he may have a degree in.
...A Law professor at Berkeley...
Oh, yeah, whenever I want to learn about the state of the art in some field of science, I *always* ask a lawyer...
Sorry, but I've debated Johnson before, his knowledge of evolution is extremely poor.
...a guy from Baylor with doctorates in Math and Philosophy who did his postdoc at MIT, the University of Chicago and Princeton, has held National Science Foundation fellowships and taught at Northwestern and Notre Dame...
Dembski's a crank, quite frankly. He attempts to redefine "information" in a way that makes no sense, and then uses his erroneous redefinition to argue things that aren't true. And again, I don't care how many degrees someone has -- if their arguments are flawed, some letters after their name don't improve the arguments. And lord knows we all know plenty of PhDs who are complete idiots.
...and a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.
Denton is another poor unfortunate whose (presumed) expertise in his own field (biochemistry) makes him overconfident in the depth of his understanding in another field (evolutionary biology). His books consistently reveal a gross misunderstanding (or less charitably, perhaps misrepresentation) of basic evolutionary theory. He also has the creationists' unfortunate habit of citing "supporting sources" that actually contradict what he attempts to invoke them to support. And so on. Denton has enthusiasm for his subject, but a poor understanding.
And yes, I'll be glad to support any of the above characterizations in great detail if you wish.
But I can't refute entire books in a single post, nor should I be expected to. Instead, why don't you tell us what you consider the top 1-3 *best* arguments or evidences from those books, and then we'll address them for you. If you dare.
Nope, nobody but preachers, flat-earthers, Bible College Basket-weaving Ministry grads and high school dropouts in there.
You said it, we didn't. Would you care to retract that straw man attack?
The reason evolution is coming under attack from people outside the scope of the Creationist movement
Since when?
is because evolution is such a bloody silly theory that rational scientific observors have reached a certain point: The point where they can no longer ignore evolutionists' religiosity in the face of the evidence.
Okay, I'll bite: What's allegedly "silly" about it, and in the face of what "evidence" against it?
Warning: If you base your replies on creationist sources instead of the primary science literature, you're in for a rude awakening as to their accuracy.
*snicker*. Is this *really* the extent of your understanding of it? If so, no wonder you're baffled as to why 95+% of scientists accept evolution, and 99+% of biologists do so.
Oh, I don't know... would it look something like this, perhaps?
Supporters: Book should stay on shelves
By MARTIN J. KIDSTON - IR Staff Writer - 02/29/04
"It took about 55 million years for the present family of horses, asses and zebras to evolve from their earliest horse-like ancestor," reads page eight of the children's book, "Horse" by Juliet Clutton-Brock.
While that statement seems innocuous enough, it was the subject of a public hearing Friday night at the Front Street Learning Center, where nearly 100 people turned out to support and criticize the book — that is part of the Eyewitness Books series — that one parent wants removed from a school library because she says it promotes evolution.
Roxanne Cleasby, a parent of an 8-year-old student attending Smith Elementary School in Helena, initiated Friday's hearing by filing a Request for Reconsideration of Educational Materials to the Helena School District.
Cleasby's request asks the district to remove the book from the library, or at least pages eight and nine, because she says it neglects to address creationism as an alternative theory to evolution.
"There remain too many questions with evolutionary theory to present it as a fact," Cleasby said. "Children and adults need the freedom to question, ponder and seek this very fundamental question of how they came to be."Limited to three minutes in which to address the committee, Cleasby suggested that the district consider exchanging the book for a different one. She spent most of her time attempting to disprove the theory of evolution.
"What made the horse so special to have its own evolutionary diagram?" she asked.
Cleasby went on to say that there is no observable evidence that the horse, as a species, actually evolved.
"It doesn't really happen that way," she said.
John Fenlason of the Hannaford Street Bible Church in Helena stepped forward as Cleasby's only supporter. Addressing the committee, he too said the book presented evolution as a fact.
"Evolution is just as much a theory and a religious view as creationism is," Fenlason said. "I don't think creationism gets equal opportunity to be discussed. Let's give both sides that opportunity."
The moderator turned the discussion over to supporters of the book. The line soon stretched to the back of the room.
[excerpt]
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.