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.
What did you mean when you said this earlier:
In the meantime I will not be responding to you
VadeRetro - always here to try and stir up a fight.
What's that you say? Directed in not the opposite of random?
It meant exactly what I said. I said I would not be responding to you until I had time to research your posts. I reasearched your posts and found you were correct, you have said nothing of substance on these threads. Your arguments are vacuous commentaries on other people's writing style. You argue neither for nor against anything. Hence my apology for assuming you were promoting ID or creationism.
However, upon reflection, I realized you were only criticising one side in the debate, so I am back to my original thought, which is you do have a dog in the hunt. You just don't want to admit it.
One more time....
If I say “All Victoria’s Secret models are happy they are women” and since this position can not be seriously challenged – does that mean I know what all Victoria’s Secret models think – NO! The primary premise is false therefore all premises derived from the faulty premise are also false. You don’t know what all scientists think therefore all statements you derive from you faulty premise are also faulty even if by chance they are accurate. If your primary premise is faulty – everything derived from this premise is also faulty.
This is elementary logic.
Either you are just playing dumb or I have some serious doubts about you being a professional biologist.
699.
Let's sample a little bit from this one:
There is no conscious, purposeful selection. For all that, the outcome is not random. The trend is toward increasing adaptation to current conditions. That's it.733.No anthropic Nature, no big guy with a fuzzy beard.
After all that, what do we have from Mr. "You Can't Make Me Understand"?
You are trying to imply natural selection is not random but you wrongheadedly used the term directed which implies working toward a goal (meaning you are saying non-radomness is directed rather than observed in the past tense). What you have done is claim the non-randomness is the result of direction - if this is true, you have just falsified a core principle of evolution.From 741.
Don't get me started about how Patrick agreed with me that "random" and "directed" are not opposites and troll-boy agreed with him ...
(Too late!)
More vacuous commentary on writing style. You mistake a forum for a formal debate where you score points for style.
Fortunately, the real world cares not a bit about whether our arguments are carefully phrased. It goes on disfpite your anal-retentive obsession with perfect verbal form.
If you have something to say about evolution or ID or creationism, take a laxative and let it out.
random - no specific pattern, purpose, or objective
directed - To cause to move toward a goal
----------------------------------
(#761) PatrickHenry: "the opposite of "directed" is un-directed. A process that is un-directed may be chaotic, or random "
(#805) PatrickHenry: "Although random isn't directed, it isn't the opposite of directed."
A-HA! But by your own admission you did NOT check with the ones that are NOT in the known Universe, therefore the Theory of Gravitation is invalid!
See how easy it is?
I thought you said you were not going to respond to me?
Clearly you are not one to be trusted:
(#857)js1138: 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.
So you can't be trusted and you don't follow concepts like elementary logic. Figures.
HINT: If the statement logically fallacious - the statement is logically fallacious. You can't make a turd anything other than a turd even if you claim this forum is not for formal debate. I guess you see this as a forum for male bovine fecal matter.
BTW: do you really think you are the spokesmodel for the real world? Golly, fallacious logic seems to contagious on this thread.
I never said that. Can't you read English?
That's hardly all that's going on with this troll. Notice the rise I got out him in his 728 after I said "... no big guy with a fuzzy beard"?
Kind of reminds me how the you-can't-call-me-a-creationist "secular skeptics" of evolution wind up spouting all the ICR stuff.
I'm agnostic. He's ignorant!
Oh I do love rubbing you nose in this stuff. I know what "meantime" means, do you know what "lest" means?
(#857)js1138: 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.
If you are now responding to me I guess that means I am not one "who simply enjoys misunderstanding science for no apparent reason".
Keep digging
What makes you spokesperson for Logic Inc.? You seem quite willing to assume the voice of God. Or would that be presume?
VadeRetro - always here to try and stir up a fight.
If the "God's" took away VadeRetro's ability to type insults, he would not be able type anything.
This clown also has the nerve to call other people trolls.
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.