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.
That is your problem and since you have provide zero supporting evidence this is merely a unsupported accusation - a baseless insult.
It will take some time for me to go back over your history of posting.
It will take you even longer to twist and distort my statements to get the outcome you desire.
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.
Don't let me stop you from taking your ball and going home.
I guess that leaves us with Noam Chomsky as the one highly respected holdout.
It's worse than that in Creationoid-World; misuse a single word, and all of Evolution is instantly refuted. POOF!
See how easy it is?
Behe's real problem is with abiogenesis. I think he would be happy with the idea of the "intelligent designer" seeding the earth with a single cell (more or less complete with all of his purported IC gizmos) from which all of life evolves from.
But of course common descent doesn't go over too well with most of the folks who parrot him around here.
Ahh so that's what creation science is all about!
Challenged? The statement is false. Since you have not interviewed all scientists that statement is rendered false.
If I say "All large breasted women like sunlight" and then claim that since there is no serious challenge my statement is factually correct - would you consider that valid? Does that mean I really know what all large breasted women think?
it should have been simple to find at least one paper in the scientific literature which supports his contention.
Guess you never studied logic - you made the affirmation and it is your job to support it. You can not claim it is factual without any supporting evidence and it will remain factual until somebody else can disprove it.
Do you use that logic in your biology work - something is factual because you say so and it will remain factual until somebody disproves it.
Golly that would be funny if somebody had actually made that claim. Problem is, you are the only one making that claim.
It is currently raining, and will continue to rain throughout the weekend in New York City. Meanwhile it is very hot in most places at the equator.
(We now return to our regularly scheduled word games).
...has not been seriously challenged by you or anyone else on this thread...
And eggs are used to make an omelet. I guess that makes me the "egg" spokesperson!
Oh, but I could be wrong; after all I didn't interview every egg in the world......
(And Yes I DID interview every single moon, planet, star and galaxy in the known universe).
It is unfair to say that LVD enjoys misunderstanding science for no apparent reason. He misunderstands EVERYTHING for no apparent reason.
The sky is no longer blue outside my window, but there are still mountains underneath it. In my opinion.
Hah! What definition of "seriously" are you using? "Challenged?" Define that!
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.