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.
A wise man once said it’s better to keep quite and be thought a fool and open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
I think 100 million dead by the followers of Darwin's so called 'scientific materialism' in the 20th century is sufficient proof that things were indeed better.
I’m no biologist, but I know a bit about history. Enough to know, for example, that if the despots of earlier centuries couldn’t make the numbers you are so fond of citing, it was not for lack of trying.
As usual, you bring nothing to the table.
"Aye, there's the rub." It's only the fundies who really challenge evolution. Everyone else is content to regard Genesis as metaphorical.
You speak of separation [of church and state] and supplementation [of theism by reason] but do you really believe that such disparate world views can co-exist? I have my doubts. If two men are driving a car approaching a cliff and one wishes to turn right while the other left, can they compromise and continue moving forward?
Yes, they can co-exist. But they can't both solve the same problem at the same time. You have to select the proper intellectual tool. Want to fix your computer? Use reason, not prayer. Want to get to heaven? Prayer, not reason. The problem arises when theism tries to bully its way into the domain of science. Can't be done.
I don’t believe these two worldviews can co-exist. One will eventually become supplemental and perhaps that’s the first step to becoming vestigial. Which one will prevail? I believe that issue will be decided by the needs of the audience rather than the actors in our little play. Time will tell.
As I said, they can co-exist; but it must be recognized that each his its proper sphere of action. If either one becomes dogmatically imperialistic (intellectually speaking) there will be clashes.
My rejoinders:
Then why is abiogenesis taught as part of the Evolution dogma?
and
Why ... was the premier pro-evolution web site named "TalkOrigins"?
You have thrown insults but you have not answered these questions. You are therefore dismissed. Please go to your room.
You seem to have a strange definition of an "insult" - I think you should look within yourself for the reasons.
However, you didn't even attempt to answer my question at all and weren't interested in answers from anyone else, so perhaps "answers" weren't what you are interested in from the beginning.
You're welcome. And just about the time I think we're going to start agreeing you say something like,
I include materialism and most forms of political correctness in the ideology bucket.
Materialism? That's one of those meaningless words. I cringe everytime I hear that word. What evidence do we have other than the 'material' world?
Back to the same thing again. How can you assert something you cannot prove exists?
I include materialism in the ideology bucket because ideology is a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture - and materialism is a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.
How can you assert something you cannot prove exists?
Oh, but the spiritual realm does exist, LogicWings! And I am living proof. My testimony would no doubt fail to meet your standard as being objective, to which I offer Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction
We are having a robust discussion relating to this subject on this thread (Reason v. Religion). I think you’d enjoy the discussion, especially in the last hundred plus posts. You’ll find expert commentary from the Artificial Intelligence angle – tortoise and donh – as well as Philosophy – betty boop and cornelis.
For lurkers, the following links show scientific research that goes beyond the physical realm:
Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery
Again, thanks for your post!
You're welcome.
You know, Alamo-Girl, these conversations are almost depressing for me. They remove the hope that the world will actually find its way to rationality someday.
The definition of materialism you quote begs the question that that is all there is.
See, the problem I have here is with the pressuppositions that we carry, smuggle, into the discussion, instead of just taking the evidence at hand and going from there. Like the idea that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality. Does that definition include energy? If yes, then the definition is insufficient and needs to be modified, and if not then it is demonstrably wrong. And when you get into the nature of energy you open a whole new pandora's box, the limits of which are still unknown.
The quote from Haaarvard Prof Lewontin is one of those that has so many elements that I disagree with that I don't know where to start. You and I have already covered this ground so I don't really see why we should go back over it again. We already know we disagree. The man is a Kantian sophist who says whatever he likes, there are several contradictions just within this one quoted paragraph.
Take the first sentence:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
The first phrase is an opinion. 'Patently absurd,' in what way? Just an assertion without any foundation. And how does he know these constructs are absurd? Because reality contradicts them? Or he just, 'knows better?' Based on what, experience in the material world? Or experience in the 'non-material' world? Where is this? How does he know it 'exists?' This first phrase is meaningless.
The second is patently wrong. I just read a work about living conditions just seven hundred years ago. It should be required reading for anybody who thinks that science hasn't delivered on promises of health and life. (he throws the word 'extravagant' in here to inflate the charge to create a Straw Man to confuse the issue, another opinion masquerading as fact.) The idea it hasn't is selective thinking, choosing evidence to fit the theory, not the other way around. Average life spans were less than forty. Now they are nearly eighty. People worked 12 - 14 hours a day at the crudest labor just to survive. Now we complain if we have to work a full forty hours a week and get less than double minimum wage. I just can't take assertions like this seriously.
Next he launches into an 'a priori' this and that, and as you and I have covered before, I don't accept any such 'a priori' knowledge.
What I am saying here, not very well, is that an 'Ideology of Materialism' is as much a 'Begging the Question' proposition as one of Supernaturalism, whether one agrees with it or opposes it. No one can say, "That's all there is" until one has experienced "Everything." And nobody has done that yet.
Oh, but the spiritual realm does exist, LogicWings! And I am living proof. My testimony would no doubt fail to meet your standard as being objective, to which I offer Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction
When did I say the spiritual realm doesn't exist? And what does that have to do with materialism, if anything? How are you proof of this spiritual realm, as opposed to me being proof of that spiritual realm? Or proof that it doesn't exist?
This gets to the real nub of the question, where this thread originally started, Critical Thinking. I don't just pay lip service to those words and launch off where ever I want from there. I parse every sentence in exactly the same way, what does each word mean and what is the conceptual basis for it, and what does the whole sentence parse together to mean. When you do that, the meaning of such sentences becomes clear, or the lack of meaning which is so often the case.
The link to the subjective-objective page was interesting but really didn't clear up anything for me. So she concludes that the Effiel Tower actually has metaphysical existence outside her subjective experience of it. Gee, you mean reality actually exists? Wow, what a surprise! What this has to do when it comes to objective proof of a spiritual realm is completely separate.
PH pinged me on the Reason vs Religion thread so I went and looked at it, but it just more of the same to me. Doesn't matter how you start the discussion, it all leads to the same disagreements, just restated again and again.
My point, and I'm not making it very well this morning is this:
Every word is based upon a concept, every concept is based upon an experience or an abstraction based upon a collective of experiences, or an abstraction of a collection of abstractions. Everything we think is based upon this process, there is no other. Even you would have to say that your belief in the Supernatural and the Spiritual Realm is based upon your experience of these 'realms' internally.
The problem is that there is no way for me to verify your experience. I'm not saying you don't have it, just that there is no way to verify your experience the way I can go to the Effiel Tower and see it is there. Not only that, there are all kinds of people who have all kinds of experiences in this same 'spiritual realm' that contradict yours, and they are just as certain as you are that what they experiece is the 'true' way things are.
The difference is that none of these people, you included, would have come to these conclusions and experiences simply from examining reality and your own thoughts and inner experiences. It is only after exposure to predefined terms of what is 'Supernatural' or 'spiritual' as defined by founding documents of such as the Koran, Bible, Vedanta, Bhahagavad Gita, I Ching, Caballah, or those of Taoism, Zen Buddhism or whatever (and I've read them all), none have any objective definition of these terms. They are all, without exception, definitions of something prior to that something being experienced in any way.
So when you separate the terms in question from the predefined meaning given by founding documents of faith, what do these words really mean? If you examine the meaning of Supernatural you end with terms like God, divine, miraculous that all have as their defining characteritic they are derived from the Supernatural. Or, since I'm occasionally a good Aristotlean, the Prime Mover, the Source of Everything. But parse these words and what do they mean. Nothing really. There is nothing in our experience upon which these concepts rest. They are all floating abstractions with no meaning.
The case is not the same with the word 'spiritual' depending upon what you mean by the word. Once again, you get into what the definition of the word really means. This is a very sticky wicket. I already know we wouldn't agree on this one either.
Then you get into the spiritual realm you are back in the same basket as supernatural. According to whom?
Norman Cousins laughed himself out of a terminal illness, because he believed it would work. That belief can facilitate healing has long been documented. But it is the belief in, not the actual, prayer, accuncture, massage, laying on of hands, healing fountain, magic talisman, statue, or whatever. I've been down this road a few times, all these things work and more. And everybody makes the same claim, just believe this. But it isn't what you believe but that you believe. It isn't proof of anything other than the power of the human mind.
So this dumps us back into the problem I had with your 'ideology of materialism,' not because I defend that ideology but because you used it as a basis for something to oppose. Since I don't accept the separation between the material and the spiritual, I don't accept that there is an ideology of materialism. It is as flawed a concept as Supernaturalism is. There is no basis for it and no way to prove it or confirm it. By the same token the 'spiritual realm' isn't separate from the material realm. You take yourself as proof of the spiritual realm yet you exist in the material realm. Kind of proves they aren't separate doesn't it?
In other words, by asserting that there is a 'spiritual realm' separate from the 'material realm' you are, in fact, creating and endorsing the very idea of materialism, by making that separation. If we are, in fact, spiritual creatures and spirit, in fact, exists then its existence is just as real as your material brain that perceives that spiritual realm. It is here now, just like you are here now, what ever here and now you are reading this in.
I care about you, LogicWings. Before Christ, I wouldn’t have cared about you, not at all. Back then I didn’t care about anything but myself. But I do care now, and I know that caring about you comes from Him in me.
Jeepers, I even pray for my enemies – all the same good things I pray for my own daughter! This is not natural – not in the animal world, and it is particularly not natural for the vindictive person I used to be.
When an untoward thought enters my mind, the spiritual "me" admonishes the natural "me." The natural me is like a whole different person in here, amusingly impotent - but there until I finally graduate.
You can’t separate the material realm from the spiritual realm, but I can and do – all the time. There are people alive today who remember the person I was. But sadly, testimony makes no difference in this kind of discussion because testimony is presumed subjective.
In other words, by asserting that there is a 'spiritual realm' separate from the 'material realm' you are, in fact, creating and endorsing the very idea of materialism, by making that separation.
The definition I gave for “materialism” comes right out of the dictionary: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter
My understanding of radical materialism (aka metaphysical naturalism and physicalism) is that it defines that which can be observed as “all that there is.” The very fact that I exist in both the physical realm and the spiritual realm stands in opposition to that concept, i.e. the material realm is not all that there is.
Once again, we have a fatal failure to communicate because as you said:
Thank you again for discussion!
yeah, I already knew that. I'm not sure if it's because I'm not communicating well or I just am coming from a place that most people don't understand but just because somebody else is a materialist doesn't mean I consider that valid, any more than I think Muslims are right about the nature of the universe either.
I'm glad you've matured and become a real person. Funny, I was never anything but a kind caring person. Even at my most selfish I never intentionally hurt other people and often went totally out of my way to help somebody else if I saw they needed it. I drive my wife crazy because I am such a courteous driver. I understand what it is that is the glue that holds civilization together and I like being civilized as opposed to not. I've been in some tough places in this world and I know the difference.
But anyway, thanks for the kind words.
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.