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.
Well when you have no evidence to back up your position what else have ya got? Your only option is to hopefully confuse the issue with lots of verbiage (to borrow a phrase from an extinct poster).
The problem is you used the statement to rebut another person's argument. That means you used an illogical and invalid statement to rebut an argument - I am sorry you don't like the fact that I pointed this out.
Working for the last ten years as a professional biologist, I have never once encountered any debate or contreversy whatsoever over the validity of the theory of evolution among scientists.
Nicely put.
So you are a professional biologist, that is very interesting (I am serious). What aspect of biology do you work in? Do you work for a university or do you work in the private sector - what is the focus of your work? (this is not a gotcha or any other game - I am truly interested)
Sounds good to me.
The problem is PH first said Un-directed is the opposite of directed and un-directed can be random. Later PH said random is not the opposite of un-directed. John Kerry would be proud.
Let's illustrate:
A = Directed
B = Un-directed
C = Random
First PH said:
A is the opposite of B
AND
B = C
Therefore
C must be the opposite of A
Later PR tried to claim:
C is not the opposite of A
Therefore
B could not equal C
PH's statements were contradictory unless you are claiming determined equals directed and if so none of PH statements would make any since.
PH was trying to defend a fellow Evo-Reactionary and in the process he made a conflicting statement - that was the entire point.
Unanimity is indeed too strong a term. So long as Behe is alive here will be no unanimity. One would be hard pressed, however, to find an active researcher who doubts evolution.
Before you get in a know about how anyone doubting evolution would be fired, consider this: Scientific paradigms fail not because someone comes up with a better idea; they fail when incompatible evidence is found. Evidence, when first found, is neutral. Any competent scientist, regardless of personal bais, can look for disconfirming evidence without losing a job or prestige. This is done all the time in every field of science.
Yeeeeeeeeees!
This one's good too: Cat's in the Kettle (at the Peking Moon)
I have made no such claim - I wish you people would stop doing this. Somebody else made that claim. That is why these debates get so frustrating - some of you continuously claim other people made comments they did not make and too much time is wasted explaining the error. I think you would be better off with the following rule:
If you can't provide a quote to support your claim - don't make the claim.
Evidence, when first found, is neutral. Any competent scientist, regardless of personal bais, can look for disconfirming evidence without losing a job or prestige. This is done all the time in every field of science.
That is the ideal. But all humans have to do with the fact they have personal biases and overcoming personally biases is not as simply as you seem to be claiming. Another way of dealing with bias is picking and choosing the evidence that one choices evaluate.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight – I don’t believe there is a giant conspiracy amount scientists.
VadeRetro - always here to try and stir up a fight.
You must understand that I don't believe you are telling the truth here. It will take some time for me to go back over your history of posting. In the meantime I will not be responding to you, lest I mistake you for someone who simply enjoys misunderstanding science for no apparent reason.
Even Behe accepts evolution. He doesn't think it accounts for absolutely everything. But he ain't no creo.
Because he said un-directed is the opposite of directed and un-directed can be random. If random is un-directed it ipso facto has to be the opposite of directed.
Let me get this straight - are you trying to imply un-directed can be random or deterministic and deterministic can be directed - won't that mean you are claiming un-directed can sometimes be directed?
BTW: determistic is an OR in the statement.
The fact that the content itself hasn't been seriously challenged speaks volumes. I mean after all, if it is such a huge contreversy as the author is suggesting, it should have been simple to find at least one paper in the scientific literature which supports his contention.
this is not a gotcha or any other game - I am truly interested
Now why would anyone here suspect have been playing games?
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.