Skip to comments.
School Board Panel: Ohio Students Should Be Taught Evolution, Controversies That Surround It
Associated Press / ABC ^
Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| 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/ |
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 461 next last
To: <1/1,000,000th%; keats5; nanrod; Dimensio; stanz; RCW2001
Post 40 is intended for your eyes also.
To: Bonaparte
Unlike scientific creationism, intelligent design does not prejudge such questions as 'Who is the designer?' or 'How does the designer go about designing and building things?'But it does postulate the designer. If not, then call it something else then we can really get talking. I realize there are many ID positions, maybe somebody's ready to jump the gap.
To: <1/1,000,000th%
"But it does postulate the designer."No, it doesn't.
Postulate, v. Presuppose, presume, assume, premise, posit.Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms, 1951, p. 635
ID does not "postualate" a designer, it concludes a designer and does so from solid scientific data, using the accepted methods of science. The presuppositions, as noted by Dembski, are the province of "scientific creationism."
To: <1/1,000,000th%
"...there are many ID positions. Maybe someone's ready to jump the gap."Just as there are obviously many neo-Darwinist positions. I don't see much "gap jumping" there, nor would I demand it of them.
To: <1/1,000,000th%
BTW, as I demonstrated in post 40, virtually everything you claimed about ID in your post 32 is false. Dembski himself, the leading proponent of ID, makes this abundantly clear in the extended quoted passage I offered above.
Not that you will every admit this.
To: Gumlegs
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
To: Bonaparte
When posters such as Patrick Henry, jennyp and Vade Retro dispute the scientific validity of ID, they are tilting at an apparition arising strictly from their own fevered imaginings, jousting with a creature that no proponent of ID has ever proposed. This is an absolutely classic example of straw man argumentation and, as such, consitututes proof positive that they cannot cope rationally with ID as it actually is. I disagree. I could be wrong, but I think the ID crowd has an agenda which is very far from the discovery of scientific truth. From Dembski's words at the start of what you posted, with my own additions placed [in brackets]:
Scientific creationism is committed to two religious presuppositions and interprets the data of science to fit those presuppositions [later given as a supernatural creator and the scientific accuracy of Genesis]. Intelligent design, on the other hand, [wink, wink] has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation. [But -- wink, wink -- it is very comfortable with it, which is why creationist so often advocate ID.]
Here are Dembski's words from the end of the piece you quoted, again with my additions [in brackets]:
To be sure [but let's be careful not to emphasise this], the designer is also compatible with the Creator-God of the world's major monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But the designer is also compatible with the watchmaker-God of the deists ...
In my opinion, there are two problems with ID. First (and this one takes up too much time to go into here, but as we all know there are websites devoted to it) ID fails to make a credible case, in peer-reviewed journals, that an external designer is essential. Second, and most damning, ID is the opening wedge for the teaching of "scientific" creationism in government schools.
To: PatrickHenry
Western Science began as an effort to discern, understand and quantify God's design. I would further say that we have learned much from this effort.
629 posted on 8/29/02 9:05 PM Pacific by Phaedrus
To: Bonaparte
To: Heartlander
Religion was not in schools and politics until evolution/LIBERALS took over!
Separation of religion and state was created by the Reformation---protestantism(Christianity)!
Macro evolution/atheism is fantasy...science fiction political cult(RELIGION)---
micro evolution(SOCIAL engineering) is manipulating/fabricating(re-wording/working)---reality/science(creation)!
Yeah...EVO-witchcraft/hunters---vetters(devils)!
To: PatrickHenry
Admit it, PH. You have never even
read an article, let alone a book, by any proponent of ID. You can't argue with its science, because you don't even know what its scientific arguments are, let alone what its data are. All you can do (as usual) is assign ignoble motives to it and falsely claim that ID has not been peer reviewed and published in scientific venues. It
has been peer reviewed and it
has been published in scientific venues. Just as one example,
The Design Inference, the scholarly work
par excellence in this school of thought was thoroughly and rigorously peer reviewed by a distinguished committee at Cambridge University before its approval for publication by that insitution.
You don't know what you are talking about.
To: PatrickHenry
No social engineering(wealth/power redistribution)---popery/EVOLUTION(liberal god/godesses)!
To: PatrickHenry
Patrickplasticplasterhenry...aka Galilee Galileo---
Trying to orbit science around darwin...
is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon---
HACKWARDS!
Darwin is an assteroid----klunker....
no fuel---lotta assh/slag!
Halebopps---cargo cults...govt work/well-fare!
To: PatrickHenry
ID is the opening wedge for the teaching of "scientific" creationism in government schools.Did you even read what was posted (and addressed to you, among others) in post 40? William Dembski, the leading proponetn of ID, categorically rejects "scientific creationism," agreeing with only one of its six major points of contention.
So, you tell us, PH -- how can one simultaneously repudiate a theory and advance it?
To: f.Christian
Our society(FR too) is so immersed/buried in liberalism via the media/intellectual bias...
Truth/decency/sanity has become the enemy---
govt liberal science the unquestioned/sanctioned law and religion of America!
To: AndrewC
Ah, the blue screen of dearth strikes again.
56
posted on
10/16/2002 5:05:27 PM PDT
by
js1138
To: js1138
To: f.Christian
Specious rights are those so-called "rights" advocated by leftist types as a justification of Marxist rule, such as the right to a living wage, or the right to affordable housing. These are specious because they are not rights, they're actually handouts.
The correct concept of a "right" such as freedom of religion or private property rights is that of a limit on governmental authority. The basis of liberty is not that people are given permission by the government to do legitimate things. Rather, the government is empowered to do a limited number of legitimate things.
139 posted on 9/10/02 11:49 AM Pacific by Liberal Classic
To: AndrewC
There is a preconceived order to the letters in the program. Take this away from the program and the letters in the statement; ‘President Clinton of the USA’ might turn into ‘To copulate, he finds interns’. LOL!
To: f.Christian
To: BMCDA
Ohhhh! I see, you just have to have faith. And if you have faith it's automatically true. Nice trick ;-D
Atheism requires an active belief system. Since no absolute evidence refutes God’s existence, one is required to reject (and reject and reject). A belief without absolute facts requires faith. Does your faith and belief make it true?
351 posted on 8/28/02 5:08 PM Pacific by Heartlander
To: RCW2001
This is ridiculous I learned evolution in School and ive lived in ohio on and off all my life and at 42 i still see it for what it is .....BULLSPLATTER !
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 461 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson