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

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

Questions like these have been at the center of controversy for nearly a century and Ohio is about to re-enter the debate.

On Tuesday, the Ohio Board of Education is expected to approve model science lessons - including a 10th-grade biology lesson with a critical look at the theory of evolution.

The vote is attracting national attention, as Ohio public schools become the center of the debate on evolution versus "intelligent design."

Prominent organizations like the National Academy of Sciences have opposed the proposed curriculum. Endorsing the lesson plan are groups like the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit think tank. The institute's Center for Science and Culture challenges Darwinian evolution.

Ohio teachers have always been able to critically discuss evolution. But critics of the lesson plan say approval would make Ohio the first state to sanction public-school teaching of intelligent design, the theory that life is so complex that an intelligent being must have played a role in designing it.

Proponents say the lesson plan, which teachers would be expected but not required to follow next school year, simply allows a critical analysis of evolutionary theory.

RELATED STORIES • Lesson excerpt: The peppered moth • Ky. leaves teaching as a local decision EDITORIALS: • Don't let dogma censor teaching • Board violates its own standard • Letters on Ohio science standards

"There are some people who are so worried about students inquiring as to how much we know and don't know about the theory of evolution that they would rather have students not question it," said state board member Deborah Owens Fink, an associate professor of marketing and international business at the University of Akron.

Scientists say they don't dispute the need for critical analysis of scientific theories. Rather, some say, this lesson plan sounds too much like creationism, a God-based concept about the creation of life that they say violates the separation of church and state when taught in public schools. They cite Web sites and book references on intelligent design that are incorporated in the lesson plan as resources.

"It's not based in science," said Lynn Elfner, chief executive officer of the Ohio Academy of Science. "The creationists would argue the words 'intelligent design' are not there and that's true, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still a duck."

Ohio is the latest state to spar over the teaching of evolution, the theory that all species descended from a common ancestor and that changes occur naturally and over time in life forms.

Science standards and curricula on evolution have drawn fire in recent years in New Mexico, Minnesota, West Virginia, Georgia and Kansas. Just last month, Georgia's top education official dropped plans to remove the word "evolution" from the state's academic standards.

Debate erupted here in 2002 as Ohio began developing new science standards, or concepts that students in grades K-12 are expected to know and be tested on.

People disagreed on how to teach evolution, with some pressing for the inclusion of intelligent design. The state board compromised in December 2002 by including critical analysis of evolution.

In February, the board stated its intent to approve a set of lessons teachers could use to teach the science concepts. The 13-4 vote came after fierce debate and testimony from opposing groups, including the Intelligent Design Network, a national non-profit organization, and the Ohio Academy of Science.

The disputed lesson plan includes suggestions on how to guide students to critically analyze evolution. One lesson suggests a lack of evidence of major evolutionary changes in the fossil record.

However, evolutionists do use fossils as evidence oftransformations of species. They say fossils of transitional forms, like the Archaeopteryx, a reptile-like bird, show how some living forms evolved from earlier forms.

As a way to critically analyze evolution, the lesson plan encourages teachers to suggest that the Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form and that the fossil record instead shows sudden appearances of new biological forms. Critics say that belief is consistent with creationism.

Ohio school board member G.R. "Sam" Schloemer of Wyoming said the 21-page lesson on critical analysis of evolution is based on creationism or intelligent design and doesn't belong in public schools.

"There is no scientific evidence to support" intelligent design and creationism, Schloemer said. "Until Gov. Bob Taft gets involved and tells his appointed board members to forget about this, we will have it here in Ohio.

"That's in contrast to the governors of West Virginia, Texas, and more recently within the last month, the governor of Georgia, who said we are going to teach evolution and we're not going to bring in pseudoscience."

Orest Holubec, Taft's spokesman, said the governor supports the science standards and trusts the board will approve a curriculum based on the standards.

Supporters of intelligent design say the lesson plan does not refer to intelligent design.

"These standards limit themselves to simply addressing criticisms of evolution and I think that's perfectly appropriate," said John Calvert of Shawnee Mission, Kan., managing director of the Intelligent Design Network.

To suggest that evolution is the undeniable explanation for the creation of life is wrong because evolutionary theory assumes an intelligent being did not create life, Calvert said.

"When you ask the question of where does life come from, that unavoidably impacts religion," he said.

But the critical analysis unfairly singles out evolution, which is steeped in evidence and has been tested, said Marc Cron, science department chair for Harrison High School in the Southwest Local School District.

"I think that infers an intelligent design agenda," he said. "Why only have a scientific debate over evolution. Why not over plate tectonics? Why not gravity?"

Some teachers are leery of the proposed lessons, while others say they will continue to address students' questions as they arise.

Bob McMillan, biology teacher at Mount Healthy High School, said he starts his evolution lessons every year telling students he will stick to his area of expertise.

"I feel ill-equipped to teach theories that are not scientific in nature," he said. "If you want to learn about creation, then you need to see a priest, a pastor, a minister or someone more qualified to speak about it."

However, he teaches evolution as a theory and encourages students to critically analyze the theory. He tells students that people have other beliefs on the origin of life, including creationism.

Down the hall from McMillan, Edward Hornsby Jr., a physical and earth sciences teacher - and Evangelical Christian - said he doesn't preach his beliefs to students.

"Students need to be able to choose for themselves. I'm here to inform them but I don't want to push my beliefs on another person," he said.

"I tell them (evolutionary) theory has evidence to support it, but it's not 100 percent fact," he said.

Rick White, an advanced placement biology teacher at Finneytown High School said, "Some of the people making decisions, even at the state level, don't have a clear idea of how science works. In science, theory is something we take very seriously. It has withstood some testing over time. Evolution fits that definition very nicely. There's a huge amount of data suggesting life forms do change over time."

"Evolution and intelligent design should both be taught, said Sydney Bostwick, 17, a Norwood High School junior. "It is up to the teachers to teach and inform the students, and it is up to the students to decide what they choose to believe.

"If you only teach evolution, then it's like nothing else exists and that isn't true. After all, science is always changing and what we believe now might not be true 10 years from now."

Other students think intelligent design and religion-based theories on the origin of life should not be allowed in science classrooms.

"The main difference between science and religion is that religion is based on faith and personal belief, while science is based on fact and theory," said Daniel Zimmer, 15, a freshman at Sycamore High School.

"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."

For Darwinism to work, laws are just observed repeating patterns in the data.

Nah! Many laws can be derived, as they aren't fundamental but secondary effects. Any good physics text will be full of such instances.

Even laws that for a time seem basic can later turn out to be secondary. All conservation laws (conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, conservation of charge, etc.) turn out to derive from symmetry properties of the universe, as demonstrated by Noether's Theorem. This is cause-and-effect at the physical law level.

I answered your question in 363. Don't blame me if you're too stupid to understand the answer.

You changed the subject - you did not answer the question.

The question is a yes or no question. You don't want to answer it because it throws a giant monkey wretch into your belief system. You want to answer "yes" but you know you cannot justify your answer and if you answer "no" you understand all the questions it rises in your belief system (IMHO).

Answer the question evasion-man.

Do you think laws CAUSE things to happen?

Yes or no.

Either laws CAUSE things to happen or they are merely observed patterns in the data that repeat.

(I think what you have found is it is impossible for laws to cause things to happening but acknowledging this will make your chosen theory a bit less tidy)

Nope. That kind of reasoning will get you thrown out of the public schools. Natural laws are by definition, constant over time, regular and knowable. No one knows the mind of God, and Christianity explicitly says you can't.

Oh wiseguy.

Do laws CAUSE things to happen?

Yes or No.

" How does a law cause something to happen.

Nature behaves accoring to it's nature. Man's knowledge and understanding of that is called physics. Man gains knowledge of the features and processes and refers to those natural occurings as laws.

"Do laws have mass? or powers?

No. "Where do these laws that cause things to happen reside?"

The properties and forces of nature reside within the essence of whatever it is that is contenplated.

"What type of force do these laws exert to cause change."

That's a rather open and ambiguous question. The on topic answer is, it depends on the energy scale what force predominates. Gravity is also present.

"Who created the laws? When were the laws created?

No one. They were always there.

"If these laws that cause things to happen are applied to all things than these laws must be everywhere at the same time. So the laws cause things to happen but they cannot be seen or observed other than their actions - these laws apply to everybody and everything and are everywhere at the same time.
Your laws sure sound like what religions call God."

The laws have no intellegence, no comprehension, no focus, no capacity for love, ect.... Nature just behaves according to how it is. Nature just is.

But isn't Darwinism almost treated as a religion—the way its dogma is idolized and protected from any challenge by its status-quo defenders?

No. This is a strawman set up by creationists.

Besides, to say that the events described in Genesis 1–11 are only to be discussed under the "religion" heading IMO really limits knowledge being taught in schools.

How so?

While Genesis certainly talks about God, it also chronicles actions that happened

As it happens, I had a high school world history teacher who used the Bible as part of his history class. Of course, you have to understand that you can't assume that everything in Genesis is historical fact. After all, there's certainly no evidence of a global flood happening, much less one that lasted for fourty days and fourty nights. There's also no evidence of an entity known as "God" creating the "heavens and the earth" as described in Genesis.

I would rather use the definition of "science" put forth by actual scientists rather than one found in a dictionary.

I tend to think of science as defined by 1a. You Darwinist folks seem to insist on limiting its scope to 1b.

That's because that's how actual science works. Whining because you don't like the definitions doesn't make you right, it makes you look pedantic (and I know pedantism).

Why is that? What are you afraid of?? Why do intellectuals have such a hard time admitting that some things are beyond our (human) ability to explain and control???

Who said that we were afraid of such things? The problem is that we can't explain them with science for the very reason that they are outside of our control. If it can't be tested reliably, then there's no way to apply the scientific method, and if there's no way to apply the scientific method, then there's no way to formulate a scientific explanation. As such, those things fall outside of the scope of science. It's not an issue of fear, it's an issue with our physical limitations.

I am guessing you are very familiar with the process of being thrown out of school - you speak with such authority.

Yes. That is the primary function of Darwin Central, of which I am 43rd High Potentate and holder of all honors and privileges ascribed thereto.

But since you don't have a dog in this hunt, I can't tell you any more.

Do you think laws CAUSE things to happen?

The laws of science describe general classes of cause and effect. Archimedes's law of the lever describes what happens when you oppose forces on opposite ends of a lever. Levers behaved lawfully before anyone noticed the law or gave it a name. The causes and effects are out there; humans categorize.

["Been here and done this with you" mode]
I don't feel like explaining this all night, so how about I just refer you back to this post if you should read it wrong?

Nature behaves accoring to it's nature. Man's knowledge and understanding of that is called physics. Man gains knowledge of the features and processes and refers to those natural occurings as laws.

So the laws of physics cause things to happen. How exactly do the laws make things happen?

If laws don't have mass, how do they make things happen? Telepathy? Radio Gnome Invisible? (if anybody gets that last comment - you are cool)

The properties and forces of nature reside within the essence of whatever it is that is contenplated.

What is the form of these forces?

Once again, this description is sounding more and more like God.

That's a rather open and ambiguous question. The on topic answer is, it depends on the energy scale what force predominates. Gravity is also present.

Describe ONE of these laws and the process it uses to make something happen in the context of evolution.

No one. They were always there.

The laws always existed. Clearly that is a belief, not a scientific fact. Still sounds a lot like God.

The laws have no intellegence, no comprehension, no focus, no capacity for love, ect.... Nature just behaves according to how it is. Nature just is.

So laws follow strict rules and cause things to happen yet they have no mass and no intelligence - they have always existed and are everywhere at the same time - they exist in everything but since they have not mass they really don't exist. Some may call this God - some may call this magic - it ain't science.

There is a reason that I do not converse with Dataman. I consider it a very good reason. It stems from a discussion where he posted four references that he claimed were evidence that people put "origin of life" as part of the theory of evolution. Upon researching three of the citations (the fourth was a book, and I would have tracked it down had his other three shown any hint of merit), none of them actually claimed that evolution theory covered the origin of life.

He insisted that he had satisfied the challenge put to him.

So your answer to the question is no, laws do not cause things to happen (The law you state is a description of forces, not an example of a law causing something to happen)BTW: you explaination is big on effect but lacking in cause.

Evolutionist seem to be uncomfortable with a world based on happenstance so they try to dress it up with laws. Unfortunately the laws are just observation of things that have already happened and not forces that cause things to happen.

I don't feel like explaining this all night, so how about I just refer you back to this post if you should read it wrong?

With an attitude like that, why do you bother hanging around a debate forum?

"The laws are a description of intrinsic regularities in nature. The regularities in nature are as intrinsic to the structure of the Universe as the matter and energy. in fact, the matter and energy may well be a result of the regularities."

Ok. If laws are a description they clearly cannot cause anything to happen. I will put you down as "no" laws do not cause things to happen.

You say "regularities in nature" may have "created" matter and energy. Ok. How do "regularities" (observations) create matter or energy?

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.