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's a one good - pointing out fallacious logic is akin to assuming the "voice of God" or claiming to be the spokesperson for Logic.
I just explained the fallacious logic, I did not claim to speak for all of logic (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) or the I am GOD because took a few logic classes.
Keep digging.
OK
(#857)js1138: 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.
1. You have admitted you were wrong about the "don't believe you are telling the truth" accusation.
2. You said you were going to look back through my history of posting yet you presented nothing.
3. You claim you would stop responding to me "lest I mistake you for someone who simply enjoys misunderstanding science for no apparent reason" - and then immediately you continued to respond to me.
I was just before the Evo-Reactionaries started your Insult-a-thon.
If you guys are done with the insults, I will stop rubbing your noses in your misstatements.
Ah, yes. The Pee Wee Herman Retort "I know you are, but what am I"
You must be the big man on the playground.
You are delusional, I did no such thing. The context was logic not the nature of knowledge.
Your silly comment reeks of desperation.
In the Paleolithic era there were no spokesmodels and yet for all that enough knowledge slowly accumulated to get us into the Neolithic era.
That simply does not makes since. The context of spokesmodel was somebody claiming in a statement that they know what an entire group of people think when in fact they do not. I have no idea what you are rambling about.
VadeRetro must be running out material - he is now playing the role of "Grammar and Usage Policeman"
By Golly you are good at it - ya got me - I used the wrong word.
You have been twisting everyone's words on this thread so much that you can't even keep track of what has been said anymore.
How about this:
IF the theory of evolution is so contreversial among scientists...THEN it should be easy to find an example of said contreversy.
Either you are just playing dumb...
No. That's your specialty.
Utterly false and ridiculous. No one ever made the claim that mountains didn't exist under your window. "All Victoria's Secret Models wished they lived in the mountains of West Virginia." There is no possible way of knowing this. And who said anything about a sky or even the color blue? WRONG. I have all of the Victoria's Secret catalogs under my bed. So you have no way of knowing.
This is elementary logic. Are you sure you are VadeRetro or are you just playing dumb? I have doubts that you are even registered on FreeRepublic.
Utterly ridiculous and false. You obviously know nothing about logic or philosophy.
Whatever. I posted your entire statment, no twisting needed.
IF the theory of evolution is so contreversial among scientists...THEN it should be easy to find an example of said contreversy.
OK. Thanks for sharing. (have I ever claimed the theory of evolution was contreversial? No.)
Care to back up that statement? Or is this more of your empty rhetoric?
Are you having fun with this?
have I ever claimed the theory of evolution was contreversial? No.
So you agree with me?
I am looking at this from a philosophers point of view. It is clear from your posts that you have no respect whatsoever for logic or philosophy.
I have no idea what the hell he is saying. I think we might be talking to a computer running a simple language algorithm. Kind of like the "PostModernism" generator.
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.