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

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

[longshadow]

"Festival of ASCII Bats & other Creepy Creatures" Memorial placemarker

[stanz]

Bookmark for my laugh of the day read.

[qam1]

NO one has ever shown that one spiecies can actually arise from another (even with intelligent manipulation in the laboratory)

Wrong!!!!! For starters have the Carassius Gibelio to the Carassius auratus, And no intelligent manipulation the Chinese didn't have genetic enginering capabilities. We even know the transitional forms

The History of the Goldfish

|	The Gibel carp Carassius Gibelio
|	Common Goldfish (~900 A.D.) Carassius auratus
|	Fantail (1368)
|	Telescope (1592)
|	Celestal (1870)
	Bubble Eye (1908)

[templar]

I looked over the link. Other than the several references that indicated a strong tendency to return to the wild type (which would be contraindicative of being a new species) I didn't see anything that said the various types bred true in naturally occurring populations, or that they were incapable of interbreeding with one another ( a necessity to be considered different species, or new species). Could you point this out please?

[Dimensio]

What they're saying is that -both- should be taught, that neither is "invalid".

Both? Let's see...there's evolution theory...what's the other theory?

[Qwinn]

You'll note that I didn't mention flagellum, and I didn't mention blood clotting. I mentioned vision. Eyesight. The cornea, the rod, the pupil, the iris... none of which serve any other function. And if any of them were missing, you couldn't see. Please, since it's so simple, explain to me how they all evolved.

Qwinn

[Qwinn]

I don't care if it's necessarily taught as a separate theory. What I want taught is the legitimate issues and doubts that many people have with evolutionary theory.

The evolutionists, of course, don't want to see any doubt cast on it at all, because they can't believe that anyone could -honestly- doubt -their- sincerely held religious beliefs, it's just all part of some big theocratic conspiracy, or if not, they're just idiots who aren't as smart as they are.

Which sounds awfully like both the attitude and methods of liberals, if you ask me.

Qwinn

[ThinkPlease]

Can you name a theory of intelligent design with predictive power that would actually be useful in a scientific setting? I've never seen one, so if you had anything, that would be useful.

[ThinkPlease]

What I want taught is the legitimate issues and doubts that many people have with evolutionary theory.

If we did that for every science course, kids would learn nothing. What makes biology different?

[Zeroisanumber]

Idiots.

[Dimensio]

I don't care if it's necessarily taught as a separate theory.

Um, if WHAT is taught as a seperate theory!? I asked what the other theory, the second part of the "both" where the first is evolution, was at issue here.

What I want taught is the legitimate issues and doubts that many people have with evolutionary theory.

I wouldn't mind that. Name a few legitimate issues and doubts of evolution theory. Don't forget to name the "alternate" theory to which you alluded earlier, as well.

[Qwinn]

"If we did that for every science course, kids would learn nothing. What makes biology different?"

Oh, please, that's not even slightly true. What, are people arguing that the laws of thermodynamics are inconsistent? Are they arguing that there's no such thing as gravity? Are people having trouble with Einstein's theories? Oh, actually, yes, when I was a kid, Hawking was just starting to become big, and our teacher DID teach us about what was still some rather controversial points being made by Hawking that differed from Einsten...

Get my point?

What makes evolutionary theory different is that it's still basically conjecture. When I was a kid, I was taught as -fact- that Neanderthal was a direct ancestor of humans - and now we know that ain't true. We -still- haven't found the missing link. There's still a -tremendous- number of unanswered questions. What bothers me is that when I was taught it, I was -never- made aware by my teachers that there were still unanswered questions. The entire thing was taught as fact. And as it has even been admitted on this thread, it's -not- fact.

The vast bulk of other sciences -are- fact, and it's just plain silly to pretend otherwise. And before you come back with "Well, what about the Flat Earth Society?", I hate to tell you this, but people who consider ID to be a possibility aside from the religious aspect are not nearly so fringe, and it's really disrespectful, arrogant and rude to act as if they're simply insane.

Qwinn

[Dimensio]

What makes evolutionary theory different is that it's still basically conjecture.

You need to educate yourself on the subject. If it were just conjecture, then it wouldn't have the status of theory.

[longshadow]

In other words, Ohio is creationiod territory.

What's next on their agenda; pi : = 3.0 ?

[ThinkPlease]

What makes evolutionary theory different is that it's still basically conjecture. When I was a kid, I was taught as -fact- that Neanderthal was a direct ancestor of humans - and now we know that ain't true. We -still- haven't found the missing link. There's still a -tremendous- number of unanswered questions. What bothers me is that when I was taught it, I was -never- made aware by my teachers that there were still unanswered questions. The entire thing was taught as fact. And as it has even been admitted on this thread, it's -not- fact.

My point is that science is not dogmatic, unlike what other people would have you think. Repeat after me: There Is No Such Thing As A Scientific Fact. 100 years ago, people would say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are immutable, but now, it appears that that is not the case at low temperatures and at small distances. Rules are being broken all over the place that were thought to be "Scientific Fact" a century ago, but don't actually apply at very high and very low energies.

Listen, most of the things that get brought up by Wells in his book that got added to the Ohio lesson plan is a complete crock. Did you know that 3 people with any sort of scientific credentials were a part of the process, and 2 of those were card carrying members of the Discovery Institude...and that nearly all of the development of the plan itself was done under wraps and not a public process until very recently, when it was too late to change it? Yeah, Ohio got hoodwinked big time.

95% of the "evolutionary questions" comes from Wells' Icons of Evolution, which is an ID screed. It tries to raise questions that researchers in modern day biological researchers have left behind 40 years ago or more. It's so bush league that it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is resorting to stacking the deck to get their way/ If ID is so scientific, where's the theory? What's the predictive power of ID? If it's so compellingly better that evolution, how come there are no big ID research groups forming to develop large scale projects examining it?

Because there's no science behind ID. The reason evolution gets taught in school is because its the best theory out there. It's the reason you learned about Einstein in the 1970's, because it was the most compelling scientific theory of the time. Every theory (even the ones you consider "fact") has problems somewhere, it's just a question of what you want to present in class to get the most important concepts across to them. In high school, the flaws in any theory are never the most important concepts, not in the freighterload of material that has to be covered in such a short period of time.

The vast bulk of other sciences -are- fact, and it's just plain silly to pretend otherwise. And before you come back with "Well, what about the Flat Earth Society?", I hate to tell you this, but people who consider ID to be a possibility aside from the religious aspect are not nearly so fringe, and it's really disrespectful, arrogant and rude to act as if they're simply insane.

The vast bulk of other sciences are NOT fact, and I think it's fair to ask the question that I asked earlier? After all, we talk about the composition of other planets as if they were fact. Why don't we sit down and tell the kiddies the arguments of why Europa has liquid oceans or not? Or where the Sodium Atmosphere of the moon comes from? Or any other of a number of Facts That Aren't Evolution? What do you think?

[Nebullis]

Most board members want to let students debate evolution in science classrooms.

Good grief. There goes education.

[VadeRetro]

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.

It's about what science knows. Evolution is controversial outside of science, not within. The objections to it are not about science.

For instance, science has moved past the question of whether fire is the result of oxidation or the rushing out of a substance called phlogiston. It's oxidation, period. There are things we don't know, but that's not one of them. It would be criminal to misrepresent that ancient question as being a current controversy.

The people who want to lie to the kids in Ohio are not promoting education.

[Nebullis]

"critical analysis"

The creationists have found a new catch phrase.

[longshadow]

The creationists have found a new catch phrase.

Not surprising, when one considers that catchy phrases are about all they have to offer. The old ones get a bit ragged around the edges after they've been over-worked....

[rdb3]

Big, Biblical, Buckeye BUMP!

I'll second that.

Here's a thought. Couldn't the denial of creationist teaching in science be in violation of the XIV Amendment? If so, shouldn't that be Ohio's argument here?

Show 'em my motto!