Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| The Associated Press
|
| COLUMBUS, Ohio Oct. 14 — A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.
The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. The guidelines for the science curriculum simply put into writing what many school districts already do. The current guidelines do not even mention evolution. "What we're essentially saying here is evolution is a very strong theory, and students can learn from it by analyzing evidence as it is accumulated over time," said Tom McClain, a board member and co-chairman of the Ohio Board of Education's academic standards committee. Conservative groups, some of which had tried and failed to get biblical creation taught in the public schools, had argued that students should learn about intelligent design. But critics of intelligent design said it is creationism in disguise. On Monday, the committee unanimously forwarded a final draft without the concept in it to the full 19-member board. Board member Michael Cochran, who had pushed for intelligent design in the standards, said, "The amendment allows teachers and students in Ohio to understand that evolution really is a theory and that there are competing views and different interpretations. This allows them to be discussed." The Ohio school board will decide Tuesday whether to adopt the new standards or order that they be revised.
On the Net: Ohio Department of Education: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ |
You're doomed! Crevo threads are like Hotel California. Once you're in, there's no getting out.
Interesting handle.
But seriously, I find that if you remove anyone from a crevo thread, it no longer functions as a crevo thread. Which leads me to conclude that these threads are designed to be this way (OK. I wasn't really serious. I'm thinking maybe I could be the evo f.Christian).
LOL!
But there isn't 400 designers! There's only 2! Its quackery! Its ludicrous! Its the work of Marxist devils!!
Oh! Wait a minute.
You must be right because you got post 100.
Are you just playing dumb, or can you really not see the difference?
I believe I read a review of Hawking's work by Gould that specifically mentioned spotted black holes as having evolved from Dalmatians.
For a while I was wondering if these were the same designers that have been arranging the ions in my salt crystals, but I'm leaning towards it being a different team. My salt crystals are tediously repetitive, whereas the cichlid designers seem to be a rowdy lot; maybe they had a few beers on the way to Lake Victoria.
I wonder if the ciclid team also worked on the North American icterids. The painted bunting, in particular, could hardly have been designed by a sober supernatural being. I know it's going to get Dimensio's ire up, but I'm thinking whoever designed the painted bunting was, well, you know, a little differently oriented.
I have an unfortunate sense of humor.
My point was order, in some cases very beautiful and complex order, arises spontaneously from chaos all the time. The physical laws that govern this were worked out in the 19th century, and they in no way contradict evolution. Dembski seems to think he's discovered a different, and more mysterious kind of order. If he has, all I can say is that no one describing it in any way I find accessible has shown me why this order is anything different from what we've long understood.
And no, I'm not going to waste my time finding and reading Dembski's work in the original just because none of its admirers seem to be able to explain it ; I've never read Newton's Principia either, yet I think I have a fair grasp of calculus.
"Astrophysicist Paul Davies writes that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design," and says further that there now exists "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all." Another scientist, George Greenstein, is even more pointed in his remarks: "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency -- or, rather, Agency -- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" American astronaut Gordon Cooper expressed his conviction that the subtle workings of the vast universe around us were themselves evidence of God: "The more one learns about scientific endeavors, the more one is convinced of the wonders of God's creation. The more one contemplates the complex workings of millions of planetary bodies, and the unknown immensity of space, the more one realizes what a fantastic miracle it all is." We are reminded that even Albert Einstein, though he steadfastly rejected the notion of a personal God, still came to the conclusion later in his life that the universe had a beginning, and that "a superior reasoning power" had to be responsible for this beginning."
"When we look closely at the universe, we see the hand of God. Likewise, when we view the complex underlying structure and chemistry of life, indications of God's work are unmistakable. Scientists, only a few decades ago, were confident that they would soon crack the mystery of life, and would very likely be able to "create" life in test tubes, using only raw chemicals. But the mechanics of life soon proved beyond the most clever of scientists. Sir Francis Crick has noted that the "origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the difficulties in its occurring." Another scholar, Klaus Dose, says that the solutions to the difficulties in origin-of-life research are "beyond our imagination."
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork."
"Indeed, the awesome majesty, the limitless power, and the eternal glory of God, on the one hand, and the intense love and tender care for mankind by our Father, Creator, and Benefactor, on the other, is amply manifested by the design of our universe, of our solar system, and of our planet, and it is manifested equally clearly by the... infinitesimal architecture---of all life itself."
"Men are not sophisticated beasts by nature; they are not elaborated kinds of apes. They are children of God, unique among all creation, fashioned in His image. The Prophet Jeremiah wrote, "The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." And, "He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by His understanding."
Obviously then the occurence is not random. It is ordered. Why? It is pretty darn well difficult to make a crystal other than that arrangement. You can reproduce that sequence everyday for a year with your eyes closed. Try that with nucleic acids. And no cheating by using compounds derived from living organisms.
fC...
Anarchy is a prelude to THE POLICE STATE...liberalism/EVOLUTION perpetuates it!
AP...
If Liberalism be evolution Then its a backwards track in time we take when freedom and liberty a spike in the eye of a king and a sting to aristocrats and monarchs once again we must beat back those red diaper doper babies who would bind us in chains and call it Evolution when its actually Tyranny
79 posted on 10/16/02 6:03 PM Pacific by ATOMIC_PUNK
It is interesting that the Scientific American article was used as evidence against ID and it contains a falsehood about a simple program that shows nothing except that programs can be written to type out messages using inefficient methods. This is the best that Scientific American can do!? Dawkins' weasel program is better at doing something unique. Scientific American used to be a well-respected magazine. Now I can't find it in places that used to carry it. It seems to have been replaced by a magazine called "Gene Simmons Tongue". (Sciam gone and GSTongue appears, it has even got a website http://www.genesimmonstongue.com/)
My, oh, my. The Straw Man rides tonight! If you read my post again, you will see that I did not allude to peer review per se, only to those journals whose editorial bias has resulted in denial of publication to Behe and other ID theorists, often without explanation. So the unfavorable generalization about peer review originates with you. You can impute it to me if you like, but the fact is I didn't say what you claim I said. And there is no way I would make such a sweeping statement, since I'm well aware of professional journals that have accepted articles by ID theorists, for example, The Journal of Theoretical Biology. Consult PubMed or SciSearch and you'll find others.
And, yes, The Design Inference was most definitely peer reviewed.
From Cambridge University Press, "Preparing a book proposal" --
Your proposal and any supporting material will be read by the appropriate Cambridge editor, who will discuss it with colleagues; it will then normally be read by independent, external reviewers, who observe strict rules of confidentiality. We strongly advise you to show your outline to your immediate collaborators and other professional colleagues, and to consider their opinions, before we see it. This will speed up our reviewing process and will almost certainly help you to write a well-balanced proposal. The comments of our own staff and of outside anonymous reviewers will be communicated to you, and you will be invited to comment on and reply to them.
Referees? Outside anonymous reviewers? Sure sounds like CUP engages the services of qualified peer-reviewers in evaluating submissions for publication.
Looking in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn), I notice their definition of peer review is, "an examination or review of commercial, professional, or academic efficiency, competence, etc. by others in the same occupation." Yep. I think the editors of Cambridge Series in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory had that book peer reviewed.
"Mathematics is not a science. Mathematicians need to be reminded of that occasionally."
And some things are not mathematically possible. Neo-Darwinists have had to be reminded of that for that past 40 years. Repeatedly. It was they who decided to drag mathematics into their threadbare arguments. That has made them fair game for the mathematicians. It was they who engaged in twisted circular reasoning. That has made them fair game for the logicians and even for law professors like Phil Johnson. And it was they who conferred extraordinary organizational and creative abilities on undirected causes such as algorithms and natural laws. That made them fair game for the information theorists.
"...The article he [Behe] wrote about flagella was disastrously timed; he claimed they couldn't have evolved, about two years before experiments that make it dramatically obvious how they evolved were done."
Dramatically obvious? Sounds like somebody conclusively demonstrated the evolution of bacterial flagella. Would you be so kind as to point me to that research? I'd like to read it for myself -- particularly, the investigators' conclusions. From the way you've described it, I'm sure the authors aren't the least bit tentative or modest in their claims. Dramatically obvious! Wow!
"Explain to me what 'specified complexity' is, and why it means we could not have evolved from simple one-celled organisms by natural selection."
If a brief description in "simple rigorous terms" were sufficiently explanatory, books on this subject would not have to be written, would they? With all due respect, I'm not here to tutor anybody on the basics. You're a highly educated, intelligent individual, fully capable of carrying out your own research. Everything you need is as close as your campus reference librarian.
And, btw, thanks for your candor. Outside of our own fields, we are all amateurs.
Wait: It takes a whole book to describe it? And you want this taught to high school students? Here's an experiment to try: Write up the exact description of CSI and how it relates to biology that you would like to see in the 10th grade Ohio high school students' biology textbooks."Explain to me what 'specified complexity' is, and why it means we could not have evolved from simple one-celled organisms by natural selection."
If a brief description in "simple rigorous terms" were sufficiently explanatory, books on this subject would not have to be written, would they? With all due respect, I'm not here to tutor anybody on the basics. You're a highly educated, intelligent individual, fully capable of carrying out your own research. Everything you need is as close as your campus reference librarian.
How many paragraphs did it take you? And how many exercise questions did you come up with for their pop quizzes?
Yes, and what is more relevant to the current topic, "darwins theory of evolution", might turn into any one of the following:
Just a small correction. Intelligent Design is not his latest. It came out 3 years ago. Since then he has written Signs of Intelligence (March, 2001) and No Free Lunch (December, 2001).
The Design Inference (September, 1998) preceded all three. Since you're fond of divining what's on an author's mind by simply glancing at a table of contents, here's the one for The Design Inference. As you can see, he treats the evolution controversy in only one section of one chapter. That's because it's a book intended only to explain ID. In Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, his emphasis is obviously different.
I wonder why Darwinians don't stop teaching evolution in schools if definitions are a problem. From talk-origins
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Biologists know little about the genetic mechanisms of speciation. Some think a series of small changes in each subdivision gradually lead to speciation. The founder effect could set the stage for relatively rapid speciation, a genetic revolution in Ernst Mayr's terms. Alan Templeton hypothesized that a few key genes could change and confer reproductive isolation. He called this a genetic transilience. Lynn Margulis thinks most speciation events are caused by changes in internal symbionts. Populations of organisms are very complicated. It is likely that there are many ways speciation can occur. Thus, all of the above ideas may be correct, each in different circumstances. Darwin's book was titled "The Origin of Species" despite the fact that he did not really address this question; over one hundred and fifty years later, how species originate is still largely a mystery.
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.