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.
If you have learned to think why is it that all you do is rant against opponents instead of showing them how they are wrong? Methinks your arrogance is totally without basis.
The Evols rely heavily on what "everybody knows", which is based upon the drumbeat of propaganda in our public schools for many decades, not upon truth. The lies are now being exposed and it is those who riducule here who will be shown to have been thoughtless fools, or worse, and in the not-too-distant future at that. "Teach the Controversy" is a winner and we will be seeing a whole lot more of it.
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.
I guess you are saying, for only one example, that Richard Dawkins is not in the biology field.
Your silliness never ceases to amaze me.
Evolution isn't about the origins of life.
So why, balrog, was the premier pro-evolution web site named "TalkOrigins"?
I will quietly await your answer and if you throw more childish insults, I will call them out. Waiting patiently, balrog, for your answer . . .
Well, thanks, I guess. I just now typed in "www.talkorigins.org" and the web site came up, first try.
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:
See what I mean.
Good for you! Now what does the front page of the website say? Up at the top in big, bold white letters? The Talk.Origins Archive. You'll have to read to the second paragraph to find out why:
The newsgroup was (and still is) the "premier" pro-evolution discussion forum. The website came later to serve as a repository for old articles, FAQs, and discussion threads. NNTP was around wwwwaaaayyyy before websites became popular. I refer you to the third question on the Welcome page.
I read that as supporting what has been said from the start: Abiogenisis, while related to the theory of evolution, is an independent area of inquiry. Unless you are in a position to summarize a theory of evolution that also addresses the origin of life, I don't think you can substantiate your claim.
Yup, and this very post shows it. In Post#120 I challenged you and your fellow evos to stop the personal attacks and discuss science, so what do you do - you continue the personal attacks.
What the entire site says is that evolution and abiogenesis are incontrovertibly joined as a materialitic/atheistic attack on religion.
You are agreeing with me.
Please explain "...abiogenisis, while related to the theory of evolution..." How does it relate? And "Unless you are in a position..."? My claim?
Just plain nonsense. I make no claim. I asked the question: So why, balrog, was the premier pro-evolution web site named "TalkOrigins"? and it remains unanswered.
You are practicing sophistry, Condorman.
Abiogenisis deals with "How did life begin?" Evolution covers "What happened next?" A common creationist/ID fallacy is to claim that the theory of evolution is false because it cannot explain the origins of life. And no matter how many times it gets demolished, you people insist on propping it up again. In post 100 of this thread you make the claim, "Evolution purports to tell us how life began but without the crucial evidence." You must therefore be familiar with a theory of evolution with which I am not. To ensure that we are discussing the same topic, would you mind summarizing it for me?
I make no claim. I asked the question: So why, balrog, was the premier pro-evolution web site named "TalkOrigins"? and it remains unanswered.
Bull. See post 100. You most certainly DID make a claim. Regarding your question, however the TalkOrigins website is an archive for the talk.origins newsgroup. If you want a primer on UseNet newsgroups, go here. I'm not going to bore everyone by posting it inline.
The short answer is that you are asking your audience to assign meaning where none exists, then using that to imply something sinister. I expect that "origins" was simply a short-hand reference to Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. I expect the conversation when something like this:
Guy #1: Dude, we need a newgroup to talk about evolution and stuff.
Guy #2: 'K. What do you want to call it?
Guy #1: How about talk.evolution?
Guy #2: It is going to be just about evolution?
Guy #1: Well, you know, evolution, Origin of Species, Descent of Man, creationism, stuff like that.
Guy #2: If you're not going to be that specific, call it talk.origins and be done with it. Wanna split a pizza?
Here's the full text of The Origin of Species. And here's what ol' Darwin himself had to say about the origin of life, in the last sentence of the last chapter:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.In other words, he never discussed the subject of "abiogenisis" at all. Evolution is what happens after life begins. Attacking evolution because it doesn't deal with abiogenisis is like complaining about Windows XP because it doesn't do your laundry. True, it really doesn't do laundry, but that's just not a valid criticism.
You sidestep the hard question, then throw insults. Not a winning strategy, and childish, balrog.
Read it again, I did answer it. This time, think about what I said.
Winning? Strategy? Childish? Is this a game to you?
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.