Posted on 10/18/2002 11:16:06 AM PDT by xsysmgr
COLUMBUS, OHIO — In what could turn out to be a stunning victory for opponents of evolution, the Ohio Department of Education voted 17-0 on Tuesday to pass a "resolution of intent" to adopt science standards that would allow students to "investigate and critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution. With additional hearings scheduled for November and a final vote to be held in December, Ohio is likely to become the latest battleground in the never-ending debate over how life began.
"The key words are 'critically analyze,'" said Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that promotes alternative theories to evolution.
"The new language is a clear victory for students, parents, and scientists in Ohio who have been calling for a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution,'" he added.
Meyers said, "The board should be commended for insisting that Ohio students learn about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory as a part of a good science education. Such a policy represents science education at its very best, and it promotes the academic freedom of students and teachers who want to explore the full range of scientific views over evolution."
"Darwin's dike is finally breaking down," he said.
The vote drew ire as well as praise, however.
"It's clear that the motivation is anti-evolutionist," said Eugenie Scott, director of the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that monitors school districts that run afoul of the "evolution only" approach to science education. And Patricia Princehouse, a history professor at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, warned: "The American Civil Liberties Union will find it unconstitutional."
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.
Ohio is hardly alone in its "teach the controversy" approach. Last month, Cobb County, located in the suburbs of Atlanta, stunned the scientific community by allowing (though not requiring) teachers to present "disputed views" about evolution. Though the federal government has no authority over science education, the conference report accompanying this year's No Child Left Behind Act notes that, "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."
The language adopted by the Ohio board falls short of that pushed by three anti-evolutionist members, who last week circulated an amendment that was more forthright about allowing students to be exposed to theories that contradict Darwin's theory of evolution — including the theory of "intelligent design." But what the adopted language does do, according to board member Mike Cochran, is to "allow students to understand that there are dissenting views within the scientific community" regarding evolution.
"The earlier language was more clear cut," concedes Deborah Owens Fink, a board member from Richfield and one of three on the board who support intelligent design, "but this language gives some leeway" about how evolution is taught.
Those in the scientific mainstream say there is no genuine dispute over evolution — at least not within scientific circles. They cite such phenomena as antibiotic-resistant bacteria as proof that species change in response to environmental stressors, with nature weeding out the weak and favoring the strong. They hold that students in public schools should be taught evolution — and evolution only — and that religious views on such matters should be restricted to the home and the church.
But the public disagrees.
According to a June poll conducted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 82 percent of Ohioans said they believed teachings on the origins of life should not be restricted to evolution. The board received 20,000 letters urging that multiple theories be taught and, in a packed room on the day of the vote, the overwhelming majority of public speakers urged the board to be open to theories that challenge Darwinian evolution.
Ohio's numbers mirror the national consensus. A recent Zogby poll showed that 71 percent of Americans supported the proposition that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Nationally, 160 scientists recently signed a statement calling for "careful examination" of Darwin's theory.
While the public may be clamoring for open-mindedness about evolution, scientists argue that public opinion has no place in science education. They compare intelligent design to such "fringe" crazes as astrology, noting that intelligent design has never been presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
"Science is not democracy," said professor Lawrence Lerner, professor emeritus at California State University and author of a 2000 report from the Fordham Foundation which showed that 19 of this country's states were remiss in how they taught evolution.
"Science is not a viewpoint," said Eugenie Scott. "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."
Most members of Ohio's scientific community have argued for an "evolution-only" approach to science education. "Intelligent design is not based on scientific evidence," said Lynn E. Elfner, director of the Ohio Academy of Science. And Steven A. Edinger, a physiology instructor at Ohio University, commented: "I'm concerned that they've opened a loophole to allow intelligent design in."
Board members conceded that the vote was "political." But, said Mike Cochran, "if it's politics, this is in the best tradition of politics because it's a compromise."
Conspicuously absent from the debate was Republican Governor Bob Taft, who faces a close race this November against Democratic challenger Timothy F. Hagan. Though Taft has reportedly been working behind the scenes for a compromise, both sides have criticized him for refusing to take a public position.
Taft has reason to lay low. When the Kansas State Board of Education voted three years ago not to require public-school students to learn about Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory, Kansas became the laughingstock of the world. Newspapers as far away as South Africa mocked America for being backward and religiously fundamentalist, and editorialists at Kansas's own newspapers worried that businesses would refuse to locate there because students were so "poorly educated." In a much-publicized Republican primary that drew attention from such liberal groups as People for the American Way — which flew in Ed Asner to read from Inherit the Wind — three board members were voted out of office; and the newly elected "moderate" board last year voted to include both Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang in the Kansas science standards.
Whether Ohio will go the way of Kansas remains to be seen.
— Pamela R. Winnick, a lawyer admitted to practice in New York, has been a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade. A 2001 Phillips Foundation fellow, she is writing a book about the politics of evolution.
biggest cult of oxy-moonie-morons---art bells!
Latest evo gem--artist...
Sure. All domesticated animal husbandry is proof of evolution but in the case of planned animal husbandry, man, rather than environmental influences, play the role of selectivity. Try to think this through, which, I realize, may not be easy. If you cross a poodle to a poodle, do you get a wolf? (Knock, Knock)
Now: Do you care to give me scientific proof that God exists?
I'm not kidding. You people amaze me.
294 posted on 8/25/02 12:02 PM Pacific by AllSmiles
More...
Like FR 'patrickhenry'...
"search for the creator via evolution"---
"total--only evolution" too---
The papal encyclical rightwingprofessor-whack thinks/interprets---"professes evolution"...
could abortion be next???
Nebullis..."preschool evolution---INTENSIVELY"---
donh..."if the sun can create crystals-snowflakes...human life would certainly follow"---
(Why, if the sun can create crystals and snowflakes, can't it create life?)
(How much different is my paraphase of your rhetorical question---statement!)
also by donh...Hitler and nazi germany were all Christians---creationists!
(With this statement we can safely say bankrobbers/murderers are auditors/morticians!)
dominick harr..."just like a ball bouncing down the stairs----evolution created everything"---
jennyp..."anarchist evolutionary(natural) capitalism---Christianity(manmade) is communism"---
and patrickhenry doesn't know..."if prior to darwin---if science existed"...
SkyRat...Divine hammer-retribution from above via evolution!
exdemmom...evolution is the "lug wrench" that fixes science--biology/life!
Running sores of evo schlock!
Few new ones by the vade--junior--ph evo cult...
More schlock---latests(evo proof/matches/links)...
over---abundance of dung for beetles...schlock providence/miracles
ground depressions on earth surfaces collect liquids producing ponding---more spontaneous schlock opportunities/diversity...
motion/movement is created via biological interference/resistance in gravitational force fields...
foot/toe ground contact---attractions/balance...
standing/walking/running upright
amazing...dancing too!
My own...how evo schlock made us...
Insects vibrate molecules and gas particles---sound...and how humans procreate via words/instruments---music/songs.
I get it!
This schlock is so simple...natural---unplanned---no design!
Presto...mommies/daddies---babies!
Only logic--sense--sanity could schock the evo-schlock world...if it could penetrate it!
One more evo gem by allsmiles...
CLASSIC...
I really don't care who is crazy as long as they are tame. But the religious are not tame. They insist upon imposing their lunatic beliefs upon the rational and the children of the rational. That's where you get yourselves in trouble. If you have any confidence in what you are saying at all, be content to keep it to yourselves, as atheists are.
381 posted on 8/26/02 5:42 AM Pacific by AllSmiles
Yeah...as atheists are?
All quotes accurate---some paraphased!
Ditto from this side.
"Atheist Anti-Christian Darwinism" tells it like it is.
As always, your infantile beliefs in an atheist=Anti-Christian=Darwinism conspiracy do not make it true.
Evolution is all about politics and theology, cloaked in the mantle of science.
Spoken like a true advocate for politics and theology, not science.
Evolution purports to tell us how life began but without the crucial evidence.
No it doesn't. Your pathetic strawman definition of evolution is brought up in every crevo thread and demolished every time. Evolution isn't about the origins of life. How many times do you have to hear the patently obvious before you can recognize it?
It's time make the plain truth widely known and fix it by telling the whole story in our public schools.
And, based on your posts, I don't want any part of what you may define as "truth" taught in a science class.
When the Darwinists object to the inclusion of evidence in the classroom contrary to their pet theory, you know it's politics and not science.
When practically every scientist in the world objects to the teaching of whatever politically correct idiocy a few cranky morons deem to be the "truth", in a class that is supposed to about science, it must be a vast conspiracy among those of who are educated and intelligent to dumb down our own kids. Yeah, right, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure it is.
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
Thanks for yet another thoughtful post, Phaedrus. I always appreciate it when you share your views with me.
My pleasure, Patrick.
I occasionally lurk on these threads and I occasionally read some of the literature associated with the crevo debate. I’m no biologist but it seems to me that the evolutionists have made their case. As such, given the choice I generally support the evolutionary model as scientists’ best interpretation of the physical evidence.
What interests me however, is not the scientific debate, but the reason why a scientific theory generates such controversy. Crevo threads regularly top 500+ posts. Most other topics don’t seem to generate that kind of interest (the chief contenders being Civil War threads and the Catholic vs. Protestant silliness). Why do people feel this topic is so important? And more importantly, what do the adherents hope to gain?
I think this crevo stuff is a tempest in a teapot. Most people aren’t really interested in the material. If they were, there would be a lot more biologists running around. Those laymen who do dwell upon the subject seem to be ideologues with an agenda to push. To them I ask: What do you hope to gain from this debate? What do you think would change in our world if the issue were ever settled one way or the other?
Personally, I doubt it could have any effect on the way people live their lives. I’ve found that most people will readily accept any fiction if that helps satisfy their needs. Thus the only people who could be objective are those who have no ideological interest in either outcome – people like evolutionary biologists who have studied the material and qualify as competent researchers. For the most part I’ll bet they would really like all the theists, the atheists, and anyone else pushing an agenda to leave them in peace. But that’s just my opinion.
Then why is abiogenesis taught as part of the Evolution dogma?
As to the rest of your screed, do you feel better now?
I share your curiosity. To me, the evolution vs creationism debates are just the stage on which a far more interesting play is in progress. But merely to describe the two contending worldviews would be so provocative that I'll restrain myself. It's certainly not -- as the creationists allege -- about atheism, communism, or any of the other evils they love to blame on evolution. Those are unassociated with evolution, and are unthinkingly used as mere insults by the anti-evolution crowd. The stakes are very different, and of far greater philosophical significance. Deep down, the crevo threads aren't about theory evolution at all, which is doing just fine as a genuine science. The ultimate issue is about how we think. And whether we think. The stakes are enormous.
Probably a crude science meme/dogma. You might as well phrase it "why are so many people stupid?"
As to the rest of your screed, do you feel better now?
That depends, did any of it penetrate your skull? Will you post the same old, tired arguments the next time you choose to come out from under your rock and visit a crevo thread? I guess only time will tell.
You do not seem to be addressing my statement at all, and are certainly not refuting it in any way. As I said, evolution cannot be science:
A bald assertion which you cannot back up. That science, any kind of science is consistent with evolution is ludicrous. Science is about finding repeatable, measurable order in the Universe. Evolution denies order by postulating randomness as the source of it. So evolution cannot be science and each discovery which finds order and repeatability in nature disproves it.
Do you have a refutation for the above or are just choosing to ignore it?
I think this crevo stuff is a tempest in a teapot. Most people aren’t really interested in the material.
There is a lot of importance to it even if people do not realize it. Evolution is the basis of the scientific materialism which has been the source of so much death and destruction. It is also the source of the decline of morality and conservative values. So it is very important the problem is that too many people are unaware of its importance.
Nah. They'll just rant that they're trying to save the world from communism, genocide, etc. So am I, so are we all, but they never hear that. So their rant goes on. And so does the theory of evolution. And the world continues to ride on the shoulders of fewer than 1% of the population who have learned to think. So it has always been.
Sturgeon's Law is an understatement.
Me too, and so do most Christians. You and the evolutionists are wrapping yourself in the mantle of science when you have absolutely no call to do so. Science relies on observation - has anyone observed a species transform itself into another more complex species? No one has. So by your own terms evolution is not science. How can one study a random process? One cannot, so by your own terms evolution is not science. In fact, the systematized knowledge of biology, on which evolution depends has advanced by contradicting the propositions of evolution, not by following them.
Maybe, but when he said that 90% of SF is crap, let us remember that SF is written by bright people (usually), and of those, only 10% can do it well. So he was starting with a pretty good base. But hey, who am I to argue with Ted Sturgeon?
There are rarely any biologists on these threads because there's so little actual content to the Creationist/ID argument on the science side. After "evolution is wrong", the science part of the discussion is over. Few biologists will waste their time trying to understand why someone thinks evolution is the work of the devil.
The only definition of creationism as far as evolutionists go is a Christian who disagrees with evolution - regardless of their denomination. Creationism is an evolutionist insult similar to the homosexual lobby's use of homophobe for anyone who opposes their agenda.
Like all tyrants evolutionists use strawmen to demean opponents and tar all of them with the brush of the few who share the most easily attackable positions. Also by doing this they seek to both divide the opposition and offer some of the opponents a hand by saying 'come to my way and you will be a good guy too, we are not against your beliefs, just against the extremists on your side'. Of course as they write off a small minority, they start expecting more compliance with their views and it is they who become more extreme. At first Darwin hid his atheism. Modern spokesmen for evolution no longer hide it. So what they are offering is really a slow descent into atheism and those who oppose their agenda and try to prevent others from going down those loathsome stairs they tar and feather with the opprobious title of creationists.
You sidestep the hard question, then throw insults. Not a winning strategy, and childish, balrog.
It is the evolutionists who refuse to discuss science, not the opponents. All I see on these threads is claims by evolutionists that evolution is science but nothing to back it up. I do see from opponents an attempt to show that evolution is not science, but such attempts are ignored and shouted down by evolutionists. If you guys want to talk science, let's do so, let us know:
1. One example of a species which has been seen to transform itself into another more complex one.
2. One example of a mutation which added an entirely new function to a species.
3. One single Nobel Prize winning discovery which does not tend to disprove evolution.
4. One example of an evolutionary invention which has benefited mankind.
5. One single experiment which proves evolution.
6. One single example of a species saved from destruction by mutation.
Oh and I almost forgot, since paleontology is the basis of most of the evidence for evolution, kindly tell me:
1. What is the evidence that dinosaurs did not have purple skin? (this is needed because skin is almost an absolute requirement for proper classification - fish have scales, reptiles do not, mammals have fur, and birds have feathers).
2. What is the evidence that dinosaurs did not have mammary glands? (again this is absolutely necessary since the definition of a mammal is that it has mammary glands).
3. What is the evidence that dinosaurs had 2, 3, or 4 chambered hearts? (again this is necessary because different species have different hearts)
4. What is the evidence for dinosaur DNA? (again, this is necessary to tell us the relationships to different species).
Seems you have a full plate above IF you want to back up your claim that evolution is science and that evolutionists want to talk about science.
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.