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

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

[Dimensio]

Couldn't the denial of creationist teaching in science be in violation of the XIV Amendment?

How, exactly, is keeping religion out of science a violation of any part of the US Constitution?

[drq]

No relative of mine.

[rdb3]

How, exactly, is keeping religion out of science a violation of any part of the US Constitution?

---

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

It is my contention that the purposeful exclusion of the creation argument (which is inherent in the Judeo-Christian ethic) in scientific texts abriges the rights of those who adhere to the creation ethic. This is a violation of Equal Protection.

I don't believe that evolution should not be taught. But to be consistent with the Constitution in my view, both arguments should be laid side by side. With the knowledge that it is the tax payers who fund the schools, how could this not be fair?

Show 'em my motto!

[Dimensio]

It is my contention that the purposeful exclusion of the creation argument (which is inherent in the Judeo-Christian ethic) in scientific texts abriges the rights of those who adhere to the creation ethic.

That's something of a stretch. Is it a violation of a Hindu's religious rights that scientific texts don't contain their particular creation story?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[general_re]

Until then, the dual use is a drain on the organism and will be selected AGAINST.

I concur. In fact, this is why I have two male members, one for urination and one for reproduction, unlike those lesser men with only one dual-use organ. In the future, every male will have two phalluses like me, I expect, as that dual-use trait is surely being selected against.

[jennyp]

Critically analyzed PLACEMARKER.

[Virginia-American]

... evolutionary theory is no more based on hard science then intelligent design...

Then how come standard biology can use evolution theory to make predictions about what will and won't be found when DNA is sequenced (and these predictions have always been verified), and ID is incapable of any predictions, let alone ones that consistently turn out true?

Seriously, how can ID amke a prediction? Isn't the hypothetical designer capable of any design? Evolution restricts the possiblities, and it is only these that are found.

[Virginia-American]

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

This is not true. Darwin didn't have a clue about genetics or biochemistry (in fact he accepted a 'blending' of genetic traits rather than Mendelian rules).

In fact, he used the evidence provided by artificial selection of domestic plants and animals, the homologous structures known to comparative anatomists, the geographic distribution of living and fossil species, the fact of faunal succession in the fossil record, etc.

The measured similarity between the genomes of different species provides a very detailed, independent confirmation of the phylogenetic trees that were already known.

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.

this also is false. See here or here to start with. There is a vast literature on this subject.

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 occurrence arguably 1 in infinity.

No it wouldn't. It simply requires that some configurations be better than others. "1 in infinity"?! Show your calculations, please. Also show that they are the only way things could have happened.

Oh, and you keep claiming I'm "not a scientist". Amusing. How do you know I'm not?

Your failure to do elementary research before posting.

Or is your contention that no Christian can possibly be a scientist?

Christian? What's that got to do with anything?

ID isn't itself a "scientific theory",

True. It is incapable of making predictions and therefor cannot be falsified by any observation. It's vacuous.

You claim that you'd be willing to accept other "scientific" alternatives, but face it, there are none.

True. Therefore, only evolution belongs in science classes.

[Virginia-American]

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.

False again. You wouldn't see as well without rods, but you wouldn't be blind either (ever hear of night-vision loss from vitamin-A deficiency)

[Dimensio]

You wouldn't see as well without rods, but you wouldn't be blind either (ever hear of night-vision loss from vitamin-A deficiency)

I knew of someone who was missing either rods or cones in his eyes. He was legally blind, but apparently had good nightvision (so I suspect that it was probably cones, rather than rods).

[Virginia-American]

I knkew a fellow in college who was legally blind because of retinitis pigmentosa. His rods were bsically nonfunctional, but his cones worked. Color vision, fine details, but *very* bad tunnel vision and no night or peripheral vision.

How many times have we seen these all-or-nothing pseudo arguments about evolution? "Inter caecos, regnat strabus"

[ElizabethP]

I can just hear high schoolers debating evolution now. There's no way they would be able to debate it on it's merits. In fact, I had this debate in my Biology class as a sophomore and in my Physics class as a senior in high school.

It was impossible for the other students to keep religion out of the equation in discussing evolution. They could not debate its scientific merits of believed lack thereof.

[whattajoke]

you both missed the memo from the creationist think tanks... You aren't supposed to invoke the bible in these discussions because, as we all know, "Intelligent Design" is the new buzzword, NOT "creationism," which brings to mind the christian creation myth.

We must pretend this has nothing at all to do with Christian creation myths... it's the only way we'll be able to subvert education!

[whattajoke]

Templar wrote in post 16: "Aging eyes and small computer type faces make it difficult to catch misspellings sometimes..."

30 posts later, Qwinn wrote: " 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.

Instead of describing the rather well understood evolutionary pathway of eyes, which has been posted on FR time and time again, I'd like to put the ball in your court(s), for once.

So, which is it? The human eye evolved over the ages which has given 21st century h. sapiens a multitude of eye ailments such as templar's, "aging eyes..." OR, were our eyes "intelligently designed," which has given 21st century h. sapiens a multitude of eye ailments such as templar's, "aging eyes?"

I guess a third choice is, "I want it both ways," which seems to be the creationist answer to everything in the end.

[templar]

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htmYour point?

[whattajoke]

But for truth's sake, why must the educational establishment suppress the free discussion of any other beliefs besides Darwin's?

Fair enough. And I'm sure your world view is not so myopic as to think that your particular christian creation myth is the only "competing" idea, right? You could spend all 180 days of the school year with a new "competing" myth and still have plenty to spare. You could call that class, "Comparative religion," or "World Cultures" or some other PC-friendly tripe.

Meanwhile, down the hall in biology class, the youth of today will still be taught that thing called science, which has NOTHING at all to do with creation of any sort, or supernaturalism. Pretty simple solution, no?