School Board Panel: Ohio Students Should Be Taught Evolution, Controversies That Surround It

Associated Press / ABC ^

[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/

[Bonaparte]

"Nobody fine-combs the material in the book and/or whether it passes scientific muster."

Cite one book in the Cambridge Series that does not pass scientific muster. Just one, and I will concede your point.

[f.Christian]

The MO/magic of the ATHEIST--EVO taliban...

missing--Butchered dove(TRUTH/SCIENCE/CONSTITUTION)---

appearing rabbit(RATS)/... 'experts'' !

Then came the...

SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/PSYCHO-EVO/NWO Soviet-LIBERAL-Socialist GULAG America---

the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...

Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative...

REDACTING them

and calling/CHANGING---

all the... residuals(technology/science) === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...

to substantiate/justify/validate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...

anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)---

and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...

against God--man--society/SCIENCE(religious oath-TEST for office/employment)!!

[Gumlegs]

Must science, to be "legitimate," contradict theology in every last particular?

No. But a book claiming to be a "bridge" between science and theology can hardly be " a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments," insofar as it would bridge the two.

[Bonaparte]

But a book claiming to be a "bridge" between science and theology can hardly be " a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious commitments," insofar as it would bridge the two.

Look closely at Dembski's exact claim (quoted in post 40). He is not speaking of that particular book which was specifically written to explore the points of relation between science and theology and how ID points this up. He was referring to ID per se, a discipline organized along strictly scientific lines and making no religious claims at all.

[f.Christian]

While some take pride in ideologies, Kirk begins, in the chapter "The Errors of Ideology", by calling conservatism the antithesis of ideology. "This small book is a defense of prudential politics, as opposed to ideological politics", he writes. Knowing that "Politics is the art of the possible", the conservative "thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the... ideologue---is merciless." Ideology, Kirk reminds us, is shallow. It springs from ignorance of the lessons of history and contempt for "the democracy of the dead" (G. K. Chesterton's phrase). Rightly did John Adams call ideology "the science of idiocy". It mistakes means for ends.

[AndrewC]

Perhaps you missed the emphasis on different parts. That is commentary much more meaningful than your SPAM placemarker.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt

(2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means

(3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures

(4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

[Bonaparte]

You state that you do not bother looking at what Dembski actually says (rather than what his adversaries claim he says) because --

(1)he hasn't demonstrated that biological structures cannot evolve naturally, which is essential to his "theory"

Two points here.

First, you saddle Dembski with a demand that he prove a negative, an insurmountable obstacle for any scientist.

Second, you once gain demonstrate your ignorance of what ID actually says. Dembski nowhere makes the claim you assign to him, ie. that undirected evolution is impossible. What he disputes is how far it can go, propelled only by mutation/selection, ie. algorithms, natural laws and chance.

and because

(2)he hasn't produced any evidence for his [wink wink] non biblical designer.

But he has produced very powerful evidence. Simply denying categorically that he has done this, without specifically addressing that evidence, is no argument at all.

[f.Christian]

The point to be taken from this is that mainstream journalists lie brazenly and without regard for the consequences, especially when writing about communism.

What is happening in govt--schools via evolution... 'mainstream science'---is a zillion times

[PatrickHenry]

We keep talking past each other. ID (as I understand it from my limited reading) proposes the intervention of the Intelligent Designer because -- and only because -- certain biological structures had to be designed, and could not have been the result of the processes explained in the theory of evolution. If that is not the position of ID, then you're right, I'm utterly ignorant of the subject. However, if I'm wrong, and it's Dembski's position that evolution isn't impossible (for eyes, flagella, or whatever), then what purpose does his "designer" serve? Is the designer just some kind of cosmic backup, in case evolution fails? I think not. The only purpose for the designer is that he -- and only he -- can perform a function that evolution cannot perform. Am I right or wrong?

As for proving a negative, it's unfortunate, but that's the position into which Dembski has placed himself. By claiming the necessity for ID, he must claim -- and demonstrate -- that biological evolution of certain allegedly "designed" features could not have happened. He's got a difficult case to make. I remain open-minded.

[Right Wing Professor]

The claims about how the flagellum evolved are made by others and based on a resemblance between the appearance in an enzyme and the appearance of a flagellum.

Nope. The resemblance is more than 'appearance'. It's structural and mechanistic.

It's not everyday that a concept like irreducible complexity gets swept off the game board so decisively.

It never was on the game board.

Results of SciFinder search for the term 'irreducible complexity'

2 references were found containing "irreducible complexity" as entered.�

Reference 1: Hanly M A Sado-masochism in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre: a ridge of lighted health. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHO-ANALYSIS (1993 Oct), 74 ( Pt 5) 1049-61. Journal code: 2985179R. ISSN:0020-7578. DN 94140508 PubMed ID 8307694 AN 94140508 MEDLINE�

Talk about dirty minds! Who would have thought there was S & M in Jane Eyre

Atlan H Automata network theories in immunology: their utility and their underdetermination. BULLETIN OF MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY (1989), 51(2), 247-53. Journal code: 0401404. ISSN:0092-8240. DN 89167279 PubMed ID 2924021 AN 89167279 MEDLINE�

Looks a little closer to what you want, but reading the abstract, I doubt it's really what Dembski thinks of as IC

That's it, your impact. Zero. Nada.

In fact, you can scan through any textbook in any field of natural science, and I'll be astonished if you find the term irreducible complexity'. And since apparently none of the people who believe in it so strongly (yourself included) know what it is, it's unlikely to have much future impact either. Dark uspeakable mysteries just don't last in our neighborhood

Thanks for your time and, once again, for your candor.

Candor is one of the things that distinguishes real science from mumbo-jumbo. Was it Brandeis who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant? In any case, happy to oblige.

[f.Christian]

What is happening in govt--schools via evolution... 'mainstream science'---is a zillion times WORSE!

[f.Christian]

The Mentality of Evolution There seems to be a cart before the horse attitude i.e. evolution has occurred, that's a fact ( it is never stated who proved this fact ), therefore we just need to twist the evidence until it fits our pre-conceptions. Of course, science is supposed to look at the evidence, and then derive the theory, but as Karl Popper admitted, the theory of evolution has never been a scientific theory due to its lack of testability, so normal scientific standards do not and have never applied to the theory of evolution. It has always been an emotional issue and not a scientific one - on all sides it must be stated in fairness. The main difference is that the worshippers of mechanistic reductionist Newtonian materialism try to pretend they are objective, when in reality most of them are not. The following extract from Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial puts it quite nicely:-

It is likely that Darwinist gradualism is statistically just as unlikely as Goldschmidt's saltationism, once we give adequate attention to all the necessary elements. The advantageous micro mutations postulated by Neo-Darwinist genetics are tiny, usually too small to be noticed. This premise is important because, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "virtually all the mutations studied in genetics laboratories which are pretty macro because otherwise geneticists wouldn't notice them are deleterious to the animals possessing them." But if the necessary mutations are too small to be seen, there will have to be a great many of them (millions?) of the right type coming along when they are needed to carry on the long-term project of producing a complex organ.

The probability of Darwinist evolution depends upon the quantity of favorable micro mutations required to create complex organs and organisms, the frequency with which such favorable micro mutations occur just where and when they are needed, the efficacy of natural selection in preserving the slight improvements with sufficient consistency to permit the benefits to accumulate, and the time allowed by the fossil record for all this to have happened. Unless we can make calculations taking all these factors into account, we have no way of knowing whether evolution by micromutation is more or less improbable than evolution by macromutation.

Some mathematicians did try to make the calculations, and the result was a rather acrimonious confrontation between themselves and some of the leading Darwinists at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1967. The report of the exchange is fascinating, not just because of the substance of the mathematical challenge, but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. For example, the mathematician D. S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C. H. Waddington responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must be only apparent. Ernst Mayr observed that Ulam's calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.

Your rubber plastic ducky is sinking!

[rwfromkansas]

That is all the Kansas School Board did several years ago also, but I am noticing nobody is covering this Ohio story hardly at all. Interesting.

[f.Christian]

Still think the Catholic church teaches evolution?

Your book you said you were writing on entropy is also probably 180 degress wrong too!

Evo WHACK/WARP/twist/flip-ism...explanation(denials) and 'evidence(assertions)'!

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[Ready2go]

What Happens When You Take God Out Of Schools

It started when Madeline Murray O'Hare
complained she didn't want any prayer
in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said lets tell the kids they
are nothing more then animals...that "survial
of the fittest" will be our creed. And we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the
Bible in school.... the Bible that says thou
shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and
love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank
our children when they misbehave because their
little personalities would be warped and we
might damage their self-esteem. And we said,
an expert should know what he's talking
about so we said OK, we won't spank them anymore.

Then someone said teachers and principals better
not discipline our children when they misbehave.
And the school administrators said no faculty
member in this school better touch a student when
they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity,
and we surely don't want to be sued. (There's a big
difference between disciplining and touching,
beating, smacking, humiliating, kicking, etc.)
And we accepted their reasoning.

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have
abortions if they want,and they won't even have
to tell their parents. And we said, that's a
grand idea.

Then some wise school board member said, since
boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway,
let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so
they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't
have to tell their parents they got them at school.
And we said, that's another great idea.

Then some of our top elected officials said it
doesn't matter what we do in private as long as
we do our jobs. And agreeing with them, we said
it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the
President, does in private as long as I have a job
and the economy is good.

And then someone said let's print magazines with
pictures of nude women (and nude men) and call
it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the
beauty of the female and male body. And we said
we have no problem with that.

And someone else took that appreciation a step
further and published pictures of nude children
and then stepped further still by making them
available on the internet. And we said they're
entitled to their free speech.

And the entertainment industry said, let's
make TV shows and movies that promote profanity,
violence, and illicit sex.

And let's record music that encourages rape,
drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes.
And we said it's just entertainment, it has
no adverse effect, and nobody takes it
seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children
have no conscience, why they don't know right from
wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill
strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard
enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a
great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

[f.Christian]

To: Tribune7

Many posters, even many on this site, have vehmently expressed the view that Christianity held back the advancement of human progress,

The charge that Christianity has held back scientific progress is utterly ridiculous. Perhaps the best example of pagan materialistm is atomism. The fortuitous and mindless joining of atoms holds absolutely no prospects for scientific inquiry and neither does the fortuitous and mindless mutations held by present day materialists. Only theories which deny mindlessness and propose order can be the source of scientific inquiry. It is this belief in order, in natural laws which as stated in our Declaration come from God that has proven to be the source of the scientific spirit and scientific progress in the Christian West.

12 posted on 9/15/02 6:07 AM Pacific by gore3000

[Heartlander]

The same laws govern chemical bonding in DNA as govern chemical bonding in a crystal. Both are held together by electrostatic attraction/repulsion, subject ot the rules of quantum mechanics.

“For those who want to explain the origin of life as the result of self–organizing properties intrinsic to the material constituents of living systems, these rather elementary facts of molecular biology have devastating implications. The most logical place to look for self–organizing properties to explain the origin of genetic information is in the constituent parts of the molecules carrying that information. But biochemistry and molecular biology make clear that the forces of attraction between the constituents in DNA, RNA, and protein do not explain the sequence specificity of these large information–bearing biomolecules.”

“Significantly, information theorists insist that there is a good reason for this. If chemical affinities between the constituents in the DNA message text determined the arrangement of the text, such affinities would dramatically diminish the capacity of DNA to carry information. Consider what would happen if the individual nucleotide "letters" in a DNA molecule did interact by chemical necessity with each other. Every time adenine (A) occurred in a growing genetic sequence, it would likely drag thymine (T) along with it. Every time cytosine (C) appeared, guanine (G) would follow. As a result, the DNA message text would be peppered with repeating sequences of A’s followed by T’s and C’s followed by G’s.”

“Rather than having a genetic molecule capable of unlimited novelty, with all the unpredictable and aperiodic sequences that characterize informative texts, we would have a highly repetitive text awash in redundant sequences—much as happens in crystals. Indeed, in a crystal the forces of mutual chemical attraction do completely explain the sequential ordering of the constituent parts, and consequently crystals cannot convey novel information. Sequencing in crystals is repetitive and highly ordered, but not informative. Once one has seen "Na" followed by "Cl" in a crystal of salt, for example, one has seen the extent of the sequencing possible. Bonding affinities, to the extent they exist, mitigate against the maximization of information. They cannot, therefore, be used to explain the origin of information. Affinities create mantras, not messages.”

“…no chemical bonds exist between the nucleotide bases along the message-bearing spine of the DNA helix, demonstrating that physical and chemical forces are not responsible for the specific sequencing in the molecule.”

[Heartlander]

The Bacterial Flagellum Placemarker