Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent design loses vote [Ohio]
AP via Akron Beacon-Journal ^ | 2/24/2006 | Carrie Spencer Ghose

Posted on 02/15/2006 12:53:18 AM PST by jennyp

The Ohio school board voted Tuesday to eliminate a passage in the state's science standards that critics said opened the door to the teaching of intelligent design.

The Ohio Board of Education decided 11-4 to delete material encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution.

The 2002 science standards say students should be able to ``describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.'' It includes a disclaimer that the standards do not require the teaching of intelligent design.

The vote is the latest setback for the intelligent design movement, which holds that life is so complex, it must have been created by a higher authority.

In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.

On Tuesday, the Ohio Board of Education directed a committee to study whether a replacement lesson is needed for the deleted material.

The vote was a reversal of a 9-8 decision a month ago to keep the lesson plan. But three board members who voted in January to keep the plan were absent Tuesday. Supporters of the plan pledged to force a new vote to return the material soon.

``We'll do this forever, I guess,'' said board member Michael Cochran, a Columbus lawyer and supporter of the lesson plan.

Board member Martha Wise, who pushed to eliminate the material, said the board took the correct action to avoid problems, including a possible lawsuit.

``It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about science,'' said Wise, an elected board member representing northern Ohio.

In approving Wise's motion, the board rejected a competing plan to request a legal opinion from the attorney general on the constitutionality of the science standards.

The state's science lesson plan, approved in 2004, is optional for schools to use in teaching the state's science standards, which are the basis for Ohio's graduation test. Although schools are not required to teach the standards, districts that do not follow the standards put students at risk of not passing that part of the Ohio graduation test.

The Pennsylvania court decision against teaching intelligent design does not apply in Ohio, but critics of state standards say it invites a similar challenge.

Wise said other events since the ruling made removing the standards even more important. Earlier this month, for example, Gov. Bob Taft recommended a legal review of the standards.

In addition, members of a committee that advised state education officials on Ohio's science curriculum said the standards improperly single out the theory of evolution and could lead to the teaching of religion.

Board member Deborah Owens Fink, who voted against eliminating the lesson plan, said it is unfair to deny students the chance to use logic to question a scientific theory. She said scientists who oppose the material are worried that their views won't be supported.

``We respect diversity of opinion in every other arena,'' said Owens Fink, an elected board member from Akron.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: crevolist; schoolboard; scienceeducation; troll; whocares
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-386 next last
To: Chiapet
You're still being extremely dense. The obtuseness is amazing for something so very simple.

99.9% of persons with an IQ over 50, when shown a pinata of a horse and also a big pile of papers emptied from a wastebasket, would understand when someone asked them the following question - "Which of these two items did someone most likely intentionally form in the shape that they are presently in?", would not get confused like you, and answer "Well both, since the paper was manufactured in each". No, they would understand that the question and comparison was between the final form of the two items.

161 posted on 02/15/2006 8:49:35 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
The human digestive tract, with its ridiculous force fit and predilection to blockage and scirrhous, encephaloid, colloid, and cylindrical-celled epitheliomas;

This is a complete no brainer. People don't eat, rest, exercise properly, abuse the creation, and then blame the designer for faulty design. How stupid is that?

162 posted on 02/15/2006 8:53:29 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: narby

Yes, Dover PA is the intellectual leading edge of out nation! Hooray for that wonderful decision! Our nation's most eilte town!


163 posted on 02/15/2006 8:57:16 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
99.9% of persons with an IQ over 50, when shown a pinata of a horse and also a big pile of papers emptied from a wastebasket, would understand when someone asked them the following question - "Which of these two items did someone most likely intentionally form in the shape that they are presently in?", would not get confused like you, and answer "Well both, since the paper was manufactured in each". No, they would understand that the question and comparison was between the final form of the two items.

Yeah...you're still not getting the point, but then again, I suppose that's probably deliberate on your part. You have a nice day.

164 posted on 02/15/2006 8:59:15 AM PST by Chiapet (As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so a life well-spent brings happy death. -Da Vinci)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Nope. The human digestive tract is similar to other mammalian digestive tracts with one major exception -- it is vertical and the others are more-or-less horizontal. Unfortunately, becuase of its layout, the human digestive tract can cause problems, including constipation, which are rare in other species.

The same is true of the human spinal column; it is not fully adapted for upright stance, but can no longer support our frames in a horizontal stance. It is literally a structure in transition. It is because of this "neither-here-nor-there" situation that back problems are so prevalent.

Shall we discuss the human knee, or the eye, or any of the other ad hoc features of human anatomy?

165 posted on 02/15/2006 9:00:23 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that there is a category of mundane stuff (like sand, rocks, water, etc.) that was not designed. Is that correct?

And if it is, by what criteria are you determining what was designed and what was not designed?

166 posted on 02/15/2006 9:00:24 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The statement was that anyone who send their kids to public schools is a total loser. A single counterexample is sufficient to counter a general rule.

No, it's just the opposite. I single exception does not counter a general rule.

The Professor's World: "It's not insane to play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun because I did it once and am still alive".

167 posted on 02/15/2006 9:02:57 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

The PURPOSE of life is not the perfection of the world where that perfection is according the current views of atlaw. So it most certainly seems. And that's my explanation.


168 posted on 02/15/2006 9:03:23 AM PST by bvw (Viewpoints are everywhere. The answer is "an elephant".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: wtp7

Would that include people who can't even spell "intelligent"? :)


169 posted on 02/15/2006 9:06:53 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Junior
it is not fully adapted for upright stance, but can no longer support our frames in a horizontal stance. It is literally a structure in transition

No, let's discuss how the appendix or tonsils or other FORMERLY 'useless' organs were used as BOGUS examples, out of complete ignorance, same as you have done above. Let's discuss that.

170 posted on 02/15/2006 9:08:51 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

Ok. You absolve the designer of blame for our Rube Goldberg digestive tracts because people don't care for them properly.

What about the balance of my list?


171 posted on 02/15/2006 9:09:16 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

Non-sequiter. I did not mention the tonsils or appendix, nor did I say anything about any part of the anatomy being useless. I was talking "engineering problems." Now, instead of going off on a tangent, would you care to address the issues already presented, or do you want to stick with irrelevancies?


172 posted on 02/15/2006 9:12:34 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

The dispute is not over whether some things have the appearance of design. I think the vast majority of people can agree on that. The question is: can design come about without a designer? Darwin says yes, proposes a mechanism and a large number people following after him produce evidence which they believe supports that conclusion. The ID people say no, and attempt to refute that evidence. The problem for the ID people is that you can't prove a negative, which is why scientists generally want nothing to do with their theory.


173 posted on 02/15/2006 9:14:11 AM PST by moatilliatta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: bvw
The PURPOSE of life is not the perfection of the world where that perfection is according the current views of atlaw.

You're talking to the wrong guy.

I'm not the one who described the design of our world as one intrinsically demonstrating "PURPOSE, HARMONY, BEAUTY, INTELLIGENCE" and "absolute miraculous, unbelievable accomplishment of mechanical, mental, and organic chemical processes."

174 posted on 02/15/2006 9:15:08 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
The human back, with its rather appalling record of longevity and its predilection to failure;

Do you mean the backs of overweight Americans who don't exercise, eat crap, and have back trouble by the time they're 45, or the backs of older Okinawans who do tough manual labor well 100?

175 posted on 02/15/2006 9:16:56 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

What purpose does the appendix serve?


176 posted on 02/15/2006 9:18:06 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

He was right, you are wrong. Pretty simple eh?


177 posted on 02/15/2006 9:19:00 AM PST by bvw (Blind swamis are everywhere. The answer is "an elephant".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Not just them. I pulled my back at age 22 while partaking in a Navy working party. I was young, skinny and in great shape. Eighteen years later and my back hasn't been the same.

As pointed out earlier, the human back is pooorly engineered.

178 posted on 02/15/2006 9:20:46 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Junior
stick with irrelevancies

It's not irrelevant. I provided great examples of IGNORANT MEN, claiming how those items were "engineering problems", i.e. no purpose, and that was not the case at all. There may be some very specific and valid reasons why the things you mentioned were designed the way they are.

179 posted on 02/15/2006 9:25:47 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
But c'mon, you know full well the kind of sleazy evasion of well-known facts & obvious conclusions therefrom that holocaust deniers resort to in order to sustain their denial.

Well, gosh, that sounds just like certain creationists. There are no transitional fossils doncha know and speciation has never been observed and if you accept evolution you must reject God blah blah blah.

180 posted on 02/15/2006 9:26:46 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-386 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson