Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

Critical Evaluation of Evolution ^ | March 2004 | Ohio State Board of Education

[longshadow]

Perhaps it would be more productive to teach geology in hih school instead of biology.

They do; it's called "Earth Sciences" aka "Rocks for Jocks".....

;-)

[Nebullis]

How do you define the "level" at which the inquiring mind can appropriately engage in the discipline of science?

The fact that there is a difference between educating and doing research has nothing whatsoever to do with mind "level" or age or limits of that nature.

[cornelis]

their own field

That's an interesting way of putting it.

The concept of public education has become problematic because the assumption of content neutrality. One's own field can easily run into issues with that for there's a point at which "one's own field" only has theoretical applicability.

The issue here has to do with consensus (e.g. primary education's benchmarks). That issue is not limited science per-se.

[cornelis]

completely different assumptions to start their own field

The more problematic is the overlap of assumptions. This overlap can be conveniently omitted in theoretical abstraction because at a certain level, abstraction is existentially neutral. Historical and political aspects on the other hand present challenging criteria for measures of success and winning.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The fact that there is a difference between educating and doing research . . .

My apologies. I misread your intent.

[Fester Chugabrew]

But I would think critical analysis is part and parcel of what happens among those who are being educated. Is that not what schools want to encourage at this grade level?

[Nebullis]

Learning how to think critically, analytically, and logically would be essential in any education.

"Critical analysis" is now a phrase subverted by the creationists to mean something that students should do only with evolutionary theory.

[Nataku X]

Thanks for un-doing the PDF. Good intentions, and some of the additions are good, but others were obviously done by a YEC, not an Intelligent Design advocate.

At the very least I'd add the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.

[Nebullis]

I disagree that this movement is a polital effort to change the direction of science inquiry. Political influence has that effect but it is not done by misrepresentation of already obtained scientific knowledge.

[js1138]

I'm putting this on auto-pilot for a while. Got errands to run. I'm really glad to have been able to find a source document for this topic. Journalists seldom add much light to a subject.

[Nebullis]

Just to expand on my last comment:

Funding and other political social or religious motivatian can and does change what scientists will study and so, in future, what knowledge will be obtained. However, suppression of knowledge already obtained at the elementary level will not influence the direction that scientists take; it will produce ignorant students, and where it influences funding, it will lead to less scientific inquiry.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Middle segments are also transitional. (Increasing the count.)

[Nebullis]

Because a branch will grow away from the branchpoint. And, really, because we can safely assume that extant species will continue to evolve, all species that do not dead-end are transitional.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's true that Creationists reject geology as well as biology; likewise they reject astronomy and physics and chemistry. While not really rejection, Creationist incorrect usage of mathematics is rather evident.

The actual target isn't really just evolution. The target is scientific inquiry itself. The Creationist-PostModernDeconstructionist-NewAgeist-Etc. axis are essentially the same in this respect. They all wish to replace scientific inquire by their own feelings.

The Creationists are identical to the Left in that they continually strive for the politicization of science. Politicization of society (arts, science, economy, medicine, etc.) has been a goal of the Left and the Creationists for decades.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Exactly. The easiest method of seeing a transitional species is to use a mirror.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Critical analysis" is now a phrase subverted by the creationists to mean something that students should do only with evolutionary theory.

There may be some truth to that. But the sensitivity level seems awfully high on the side of evolution. As many have said, if the theory is so sound, why not give a voice to those who are "dumb enough" to challenge it?

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's true that Creationists reject geology as well as biology; likewise they reject astronomy and physics and chemistry. While not really rejection, Creationist incorrect usage of mathematics is rather evident.

Careful there. I may have to go back out to my shed to grab the torch and pitchfork.

[Nebullis]

As many have said, if the theory is so sound, why not give a voice to those who are "dumb enough" to challenge it?

Scientists are the challengers of the status quo. Scientific inquiry leads to improvement and change of current theory. New theories have more and better explanatory power than the previous. These challenges are given voice in scientific journals.

The IDers seek to destroy current science in the hopes that some new system in their favor will automatically take place. A revolution that leaves the populace holding nothing but banners will result in chaos or tyranny. The IDists are welcome to do science and discover support for their theories. When they do, the results will be passed on to students.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The IDers seek to destroy current science in the hopes that some new system in their favor will automatically take place.

You are probably much better read in this field than me, but I just don't see it that way. While they operate under the assumption that intelligence is involved with the universe, they come at the facts with different questions and methods. They are as open to criticism as anyone else when it comes to corroborating their statements with reality.

If what you say is true, namely that they have an organized agenda to supplant natural curiousity, scientific method, etc. with "some new system," I'd sure like to know what it is. And if it is some kind of religious system then theirs is not only a nefarious pursuit but also a pursuit that is bound to fail.

[Fester Chugabrew]

BTW, if scientists are indeed "challengers of the status quo," then the Theory of Evolution ought be as much subject to scrutiny as any other theory.