It's Offical: On Tuesday,Ohio Board of Education expected to put "doubt" in evolution

The Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | Sunday, March 7, 2004 | Jennifer Mrozowski

[Servant of the 9]

I hope none of those Ohio Highschool Grads hopes to get into a first class out of state college.

So9

[Qwinn]

"Evolution should be taught in school because it is backed by science. Religion should not enter into it. Saying that you shouldn't teach evolution in school because your religion says differently is like saying that Shakespeare shouldn't be read in school because you disagree with his plot lines."

What a straw man. I don't see anyone claiming evolution shouldn't be taught. What they're saying is that -both- should be taught, that neither is "invalid". As an agnostic, I have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact, I consider it the quintessential agnostic position.

And that's what government should be. Not a theocracy. Not atheist. It should be agnostic. It's answer to the question should be "We don't know, but here's the most widely accepted theories." It should not dismiss -either- possibility.

Way back when, only intelligent design could be taught, not evolution. That was intolerant and biased. Now only evolution can be taught, not intelligent design. That is every last bit as intolerant and biased.

Qwinn

[Faith]

Big Buckeye Bump!

[Rudder]

Intelligent design is only an idea and one not at all based in science. Why then should it be included in a science curricula? So we can excercise more tolerance? According to your thinking every idea should belong in the science curricula. I'm glad you're not training to become a scientist, because you'd be very busy learning about the universe of all possible ideas.

[Qwinn]

"Intelligent design is only an idea and one not at all based in science."

That's your opinion. I find that the argument of irreducible complexity, among others, -is- scientific in nature and rather difficult to dispute, actually. I'm not saying I'm convinced, but to say it has no basis in science or logic and children cannot be exposed to the idea is simply prejudice and censorship.

Qwinn

[Rudder]

Difficult to dispute, but still not based in science. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact, there simply are no scientifc data that support intelligent design. To qualify, data must be generated via the scientifc method. It sounds like you're confusing technical information with scientific data when you 'find the argument is scientific in nature.' If it wasn't generated by the scientific method it's not science--there are no shadows of gray like, "scientifc in nature."

[Qwinn]

Everything you just said can also be applied to the theory of evolution. Unless you build a time machine and observe evolution in process, or you can actually produce trans-species evolution in experimental conditions, or you can actually work out an evolutionary path that can adequately explain how the cornea, rod, iris, pupil and all the other mechanisms that make an eye work happened "spontaneously", evolutionary theory is no more based on hard science then intelligent design. As such, both are equal of consideration. Neither is more established as fact than the other.

Qwinn

[Rudder]

Wrong again. Using the criterion that something must be establish as fact is not the same as using the criterion that for the theory to be scientific it must be founded upon data which were generated by the scientific method. ID is not established as fact and neither is evolutionary theory. ID is not based upon scientific data but evolutionary theoy is. There's no bias or prejudice here and that's a cheap shot. Teaching cooking in a music class would be inappropriate, just as teaching a non-scientifc idea would be in a science class.

[Qwinn]

But what you are implying is that evolutionary theory must be taught -with no room for doubt-. No other explanation may be taught. That is, for all intents and purposes, teaching it as -fact- when you have already acknowledged that it is -not- scientific fact. Now, the only other alternative I know of to evolutionary theory is intelligent design. You ban an acknowledgment of that alternative (which is certainly scientifically possible), and thus you are -violating- the spirit of the scientific method. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. By not allowing intelligent design to be studied in a scientific context, you are working toward making sure that no other theory than evolution can ever be explored from a scientific perspective. That's as fundamentalist an approach as any "Bible-thumper" who refuses to "corrupt" kids with non-religious teachings.

Qwinn

[John H K]

How did life begin? Did everything start with a big bang? Did God create the universe?

None of these have anything to do with evolution, of course.

[templar]

That's not just my opinion, it's a fact, there simply are no scientifc data that support intelligent design.

I believe that is the main ciritcism of evolution as well. NO one has ever shown that one spiecies can actually arise from another (even with intelligent manipulation in the laboratory) or that, in the largest sense, life can come from non life. Evolution is speculation based on some scietific facts the same as intelligent design is. For something to be considered scientificly factual, it must be observed taking place and no one has ever observed the appearance of a new species taking place.

[AndrewC]

I hope none of those Ohio Highschool Grads hopes to get into a first class out of state college.

If I were a wagering man, I would bet the farm against you(in fact, I would be hocking my gold fillings).

[Rudder]

Wrong again. I do not suggest that evolutionary theory be taught exclusively, but that the alternatives should be restricted--in science classes--to those which are founded in science. Intelligent design has never utilized science to suggest it is a possible alternative. There has been no reason, based upon scientific data, established to put ID in a "scientific context."

Because to you, a non-scientist, it seems like science...that does not make it so.

I welcome all other alternatives which have scientifically-tested hypotheses as their basis.

[Qwinn]

The only "scientific data" that supports evolution is the similarity in genomes between some different species. That's about it. There is no other observable evidence (templar put it pretty well a few posts up).

The "scientific data" that supports ID is no less - the actual existence of a structure as complex as the human eye. Evolution fails to provide any answer as to how such a complicated structure could possibly come into place without a non-random, deliberate influence. It would require several different and otherwise purposeless organs to spontaneously come about by random chance in such a configuration as to actually be useful. The odds of such a thing happening by random occurence arguably 1 in infinity. Easier to believe that every person on the planet throws a deck of cards up in the air and they all land in a neat pile in numerical and suit sequence. I frankly find the odds of intelligent design to be far less improbable. As such, yes, there is logic behind it.

Oh, and you keep claiming I'm "not a scientist". Amusing. How do you know I'm not? We do all know about assumptions, right? Or is your contention that no Christian can possibly be a scientist? Cause I'm just agnostic, and for you that's enough to consign me into your little "illogical" box. I can only imagine that you feel Christians are practically insane.

For the record, I majored in Computer Science and minored in Mathematics.

ID isn't itself a "scientific theory", so much as it is a pointing out of a tremendous flaw in the theory of evolution itself. You claim that you'd be willing to accept other "scientific" alternatives, but face it, there are none. Either it all happened by random chance, or there was a deliberate intelligence involved. To believe the former requires a leap of faith. So does the latter. The fact that you purport that one is "scientific" and not the other is only a reflection of where your own faith lies.

Qwinn

[Rudder]

NO one has ever shown that one spiecies can actually arise from another (even with intelligent manipulation in the laboratory) or that, in the largest sense, life can come from non life. Evolution is speculation based on some scietific facts the same as intelligent design is. For something to be considered scientificly factual, it must be observed taking place and no one has ever observed the appearance of a new species taking place.,

At least I try to check my spelling.

First of all, evolutionary theory does not even attempt to explain the origins of life (Darwin's Book: On The Origin of Species.

Ever seen a mule? What is your definition of a species?

[greenwolf]

"Saying that you shouldn't teach evolution in school because your religion says differently is like saying that Shakespeare shouldn't be read in school because you disagree with his plot lines."

What people are saying, is that evolution shouldn't be taught because it's junk science.

[_Jim]

For something to be considered scientificly factual, it must be observed taking place

THIS ranks up there, in my book, along with statements like "sail too far and you'll fall off the edge".

Everything need NOT be directly observed to conclude its existance; such was the case for quite awhile with 'matter' and the conclusion it was ultimately composed of unseeable (at the time!) atoms ...

[Qwinn]

Now that I could agree with.

Far as I'm concerned, you can teach evolution -and- ID, or you can teach neither of them. Either you accept that they're both faith-based, or neither of them is - but you can't have it both ways.

Qwinn

[templar]

At least I try to check my spelling.

So do I. Aging eyes and small computer type faces make it difficult to catch misspellings sometimes. Spell check seems to be responding very slow for me today and is a pain to use for every post. Does it make it too difficult for you so that you can't understand what I'm saying?

First of all, evolutionary theory does not even attempt to explain the origins of life

Then why does everyone that is taught evolution in school end up with that idea? I don't think Origin of Species is used as a textbook anywhere.

Ever seen a mule? What is your definition of a species?

Ever seen a mule family? You know, Mama Mule, Daddy Mule and Baby Mule? A mule is a hybrid. A species is a naturally existing population of animals (plants) that interbreed with each other to reproduce offspring that have the ability to interbreed with other offspring of the same population and produce their own kind. A mule is sterile, there are no naturally occurring populations of mules, it doesn't qualify.