Inherited Debate: Ohio classrooms get a second opinion on evolution.

National Review Online ^ | October 18, 2002 | Pamela R. Winnick

[Paradox]

Thats what science is all about, as far as I am concerned. Now, if they go and start teaching the Gilgamesh epic as a science, or something similar, that would just be plain stupid.

[Psalm 73]

OK, I'll bite -
They say it is good to teach students to "think outside the box", and to question the norms, (like homosexuality and historical revisionism), but DO NOT question the "theory" of evolution.
Would they rather our students just accept everything unquestioningly? Or just accept certain things unquestioningly.
How nasty even Freepers get when one questions the infallibility of macro-evolution as the be-all and end-all of our origins.

[Gerfang]

It has always struck me as strange how so much press and so little class time is dedicated to the teaching of Evolution. Most kids spend more time watching television each week then they do learning about Evolution during their entire secondary education.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Sloth]

While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education.

No, public opinion has no place in science. The public ABSOLUTELY has a say in what is made a part of tax-funded educational curricula.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post, xsysmgr! I've pinged a few Freepers who follow the intelligent design discussion and might have an opinion for the thread.

My two cents: Inquiry is not a threat to truth.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping. My two cents: if Ohio wants to raise up a generation of fools, swamis, astrologers, and flat-earthers, that's fine with me. Who cares what madness they teach in their government schools? The teachers and their union bosses probably don't know anything anyway, and the kids probably aren't even being taught to read. What difference does it make what they do?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for sharing your views!

Who cares what madness they teach in their government schools?

I went to school some 40-50 years ago; I'm not sure I'd recognize much of it these days.

Eagles Up / Etherzone 11/99 “. In 1967, the National Education Association declared war on the American people. Its executive secretary proclaimed: "NEA will become a political power second to no other special interest group... NEA will organize this profession from top to bottom into logical operational units that can move swiftly and effectively and with power unmatched by any other organized group in the nation." Today, that prediction is a reality…”

The DeWeese Report 2/2000 Tom DeWeese “… For those who have fought the battle to save education from the education establishment, and especially from the National Education Association (NEA), November 12, 1999, was an unexpected surprise. On that Friday evening, the ABC television program 20/20 aired an expose' of public education and its unqualified, yet protected, unionized teachers. Since its airing, the NEA has been screaming bloody murder over what it calls muck-raking journalism. Sometimes the truth hurts. The 20/20 report clearly showed that public schools have failed under a system of huge government bureaucracy and unionized teachers. Bad teachers protected by union contracts and union lawyers... 20/20 tried to recruit teachers to take a national teacher's test, but few would participate. Of the teachers who did, 15% did not know that Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas. Two thought Brazil was in Asia and five thought Shakespeare had written the story for the movie, "Shakespeare in Love." ……”

[PatrickHenry]

Good quotes. Seriously, anyone who thinks his kids can get an education in an institution run by federal bureaucrats, municipal politicians, union bosses, and ignorant government clerks (they're the "teachers") is very confused indeed. The only hope for education is to totally scrap the current system.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree that little adjustments will no longer do the trick. It will take a conservative majority throughout government to undo what exists and replace it with a competitive, competent alternative.

[Terriergal]

My two cents: Inquiry is not a threat to truth.

The key word here being truth.

[LogicWings]

would allow students to "investigate and critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution.

How could anyone oppose critical analysis? The problem, as I see it, is the tools these students would have to 'critically analyze' anything. Since these selfsame students are probably not taught the skills of 'critical thinking' they aren't capable of making any such analysis. This then just opens the door to 'its my opinion against yours' which is futile, as has been so well demonstrated here with supposed adults, let alone children.

A few other things caught my eye.

What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next - as in ape to man.

Typical mis-characterization of the theory.

Scientists in the "intelligent design" community don't advocate any particular religion, but they do believe that some higher intelligence - though not necessarily the God of the Bible - created life in all its forms.

I like this one. This leaves the door open for anything. Why I believe that little green men on Saturn took pieces of the Rings there and shot them to earth and each piece of the ring that landed here became a new species, (the rings are really made up of DNA, don't ya know). They are more intelligent than we are and that's why we have UFOs, they are checking up on their experiment!

On the other hand.

While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education.

This statement bothers me, as does,

"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence Lerner

These are dangerous viewpoints. If you don't have public review of science education then what happens when some group of scientists 'prove' that Jews are genetically inferior? Would there be any Jews left by the time anybody proves that they were mistaken?

And finally,

"There's an objective reality about science. If the Discovery Institute is really interested in convincing scientists that their reality is false, then they would be attending scientific meetings rather than selling their ideas in the marketplace of political ideas."

This gets back to the 'critical thinking' aspect of this debate. What is 'critical thinking' and has it been taught to these children as a prerequisite of the discussion? The idea here is that children would be able to 'conclude' something from 'critically analyzing' the evidence. This presupposes that children are taught logic in order to reach rational conclusions. This is the clearly not the case with a vast majority of adults, (as the comment on astrology demonstrates - Nearly every newspaper and magazine in this nation has an astrology page, despite the fact it is utterly irrational) so how could it be true for children?

So the cart is before the horse here. Children should be taught critical thinking skills before they are given subjects to critically analyze.

What this really brings into question is whether we should actually have public education sponsored by the government. Why should I pay taxes to educate the general populace when they aren't being educated, but taught opinions?

[Terriergal]

"Darwin's dike is finally breaking down," he said.

No, it's just that someone is finally noticing other than Michael Behe.

Thanks for the story. Reading Behe's book now. Of course he (as an evolutionist) is only so far saying things I have thought all along. Evolution can explain the differentiation of species, e.g. perhaps originally there was only two or three different kinds of deer which diverged. I think most Creationists would concede that. But a reptile never changed into a bird changed into a mammal. Likewise Darwin always avoided trying to explain the origin of actual *life* - he started a step later, once life was begun.

Another book I had skimmed at one time was _From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo_ by Harold Hill.

[balrog666]

What this really brings into question is whether we should actually have public education sponsored by the government. Why should I pay taxes to educate the general populace when they aren't being educated, but taught opinions?

Exactly the point. And the unions are an incredible source of fleeced money, coerced manpower, and miscast votes for the liberal democrats and they will oppose any possible competition with the last ounce of their socialist breath. Kill it, kill it now!

[betty boop]

In recent years, a handful of renegade scientists and academics have launched a revolt against Darwinism. Unlike creationists, they accept that the Earth is four billion years old and that species undergo some change over time. What they don't accept is macroevolution, or the transition from one species to the next — as in ape to man. Scientists in the "intelligent design" community don't advocate any particular religion, but they do believe that some higher intelligence — though not necessarily the God of the Bible — created life in all its forms. Proponents of intelligent design agree with the scientific establishment that students should be taught evolution, but they think students should be made aware there is some controversy over the theory.

Hiya PH! When I told you I wasn't a creationist, I suspected you didn't believe me. The above excerpt is an excellent description of my position in this never-ending dispute between evos and crevos. It's clearly not an observation from the creationist position. (So there! :^P) :^)

IMHO neither side has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Reality continues to unfold, and there is still much for man to learn. To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past. Or so it seems to me.

Real advances in human knowledge and human progress, IMHO, require that we keep our minds open to the idea that we as humans do not know what God knows. FWIW.

Thanks so much A-G for the bump; and thanks to you, xsysmgr, for the marvelous post.

[PatrickHenry]

To say the evolution issue has been dispositively "decided," therefore all further discussion is moot, is the complete antithesis of how Western science has proceeded in the past. Or so it seems to me.

BB, you are always in my dreams! It's nice that we agree on something, like the above sentence. Of course, no one in the biology field would ever make such a statement, so you can relax. No point getting worked up over a position that no one has ever taken.

[VadeRetro]

Young Earth Creationists are a subset of creationism, not the whole set. There is also Day-Age Creationism and Old Earth Creationism. If you aren't any of the preceding three, you're probably a theistic evolutionist like several on this board. However, I'd bet against that as you clearly have too many issues with mainstream science and the preponderance of evidence since the mid-19th century.

[betty boop]

...you clearly have too many issues with mainstream science and the preponderance of evidence since the mid-19th century....

Very astute observation, VR. Can you imagine why that might be the case?

As far as "mainstream science" goes, I'd feel a whole lot happier right now if I had reason to believe that "mainstream science" was still operating as "mainstream science."

Sorry for the apparent redundancy. Just taking liberties with common English usage to make the point.

[PatrickHenry]

As far as "mainstream science" goes, I'd feel a whole lot happier right now if I had reason to believe that "mainstream science" was still operating as "mainstream science."

If it's any comfort, BB, I agree that the so-called "social sciences" are virtually all hogwash. But I can't believe you have issues with astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. (And, believe it or not, they're all consistent with evolution.)