Posted on 12/11/2002 3:19:35 PM PST by jennyp
Columbus - The State Board of Education yesterday unanimously adopted a set of science standards that makes Ohio the first state to require students to examine criticisms of biological evolution.
But board members also agreed to a last-minute disclaimer stating that their action should not be construed as support for the controversial concept of intelligent design, the idea that life had to be guided by a higher power.
Without the disclaimer, at least a half-dozen board members had intended to vote against the standards because they feared it would give schools a green light to bring religion and philosophy into science classes.
The compromise effectively ends a tumultuous, yearlong debate on how to best teach the origin and development of life.
That debate made Ohio the flashpoint in a battle between supporters and critics of Charles Darwin's theory that life evolved through natural processes - a battle that has raged since the "monkey trial" of biology teacher John Scopes 77 years ago.
"Clearly, it was being misrepresented by adults fighting their own battles and using these standards to fight their own battles," said board member Joseph Roman of Fairview Park, who introduced the disclaimer the board adopted yesterday.
The state academic standards don't dictate what local school districts teach, but they provide a powerful incentive by outlining what students must know by the time they graduate. While intelligent design will not be on the new 10th-grade graduation tests, evolution will.
Local districts that decide to teach intelligent design also could face a legal challenge, said Christine Link, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. She said intelligent design is a form of creationism, and courts have ruled that teaching creationism is unconstitutional in public schools.
"If any school district implements the teaching of intelligent design, the ACLU will act swiftly," Link said. "Our concern is this gives local districts a false green light."
Board members traveled here Sunday sharply divided on how to come to grips with the issue. The disclaimer that emerged resulted from an 11th-hour compromise fashioned by board members Martha Wise of Avon - a staunch evolutionist - and Deborah Owens Fink of Richfield, who led the charge to bring evolution alternatives to Ohio classrooms.
"Neither side got what they wanted, totally," Wise said. "But this is a win-win."
Stephen Meyer of the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute in Seattle, called the board's action "historic." Already, intelligent design organizers have set up shop in New Mexico, which will soon be drafting its own science standards.
"This represents an important milestone in the effort to ensure that students learn the full range of relevent scientific evidence," Meyer said.
But the disclaimer satisfied most evolutionists.
"The board made a clear statement and said 'no' to pseudo-science," said Patricia Princehouse, a Case Western Reserve University professor and a board member of Ohio Citizens for Science.
The new standards will help Ohio recover from the black eye it received two years ago when a national study gave it a failing grade for not even mentioning evolution in its science standards. Retired California physicist Lawrence Lerner, who headed the study, said Ohio would have received an 'A' this time had it not made a point of singling out evolution for critical analysis. Instead, it will get a 'B' or a 'C,' " he said yesterday.
"Ohio has the opportunity of leaping from the bottom of the heap to a par with excellent state standards," Lerner said. "The compromise would place Ohio in the mediocre middle."
Haeckel was a liar and a fraud, he was no scientist. He totally made up the drawing of embryos in order to support the lie of 'ontogeny follows philogeny'. To the great discredit of Darwin, who was no scientist, he followed him in adding the fraud to his theory. Even decades after the fraud was discovered and after science has totally discredited 'ontogeny follows philogeny' Darwinists continue to use the faked drawings and the fake theory in support of evolution.
Darwin and his minions popularized the ideas of Nazism and made the despicable actions of Hitler 'scientifically acceptable' to the populace. -me-
LOL! What a fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth, over the top, bald (and empty) assertion. It doesn't deserve an answer, unless you want to be more specific.
I've been specific enough. Darwin and evolutionary theory gave 'scientific' support to eugenics, racism and survival of the fittest the direct excuses for the barbarism of Nazism.
Another one for the annals of Patrick Henry! Clinton was right, Hitler was a Catholic and the Pope is not!
Seems you delight in telling lies.
First of all Gould was no biologist, he was a paleontologist. His totally moronic 'punk-eek' which is in no way science and in no way supported by any evidence (in fact it is just an excuse for the lack of evidence of Darwinian evolution in the fossil record) is a total fraud specifically designed to make money out of a theory he knew was a fraud. He is just one more in the long line of liars of evolution.
I'll make one good faith attempt at this. I'm going to ask you a question, which is this --
1. Given the age of the earth, as shown by astronomy and geology;The question for you is this -- if you don't conclude that all forms of life on earth are related, the later ones descended from the former, then what is your explanation of all this evidence?2. and given the millions of fossils which have been uncovered, and chronologically arranged according to the age of the rock strata in which they are found (and when possible by carbon dating of the fossils as well);
3. and given the visually striking pattern of apparent descent when these fossils are further arranged, not only by age, but also by their structural similarites;
4. and given that the relationships thus suggested are also supported by DNA evidence;
5. and given that after generations of fossil-hunting, and now DNA study, there are no counter-examples of species which upset the above-described visually striking pattern of apparent descent;
6. and given that, in nature, feeble creatures will usually fail to survive and populate the next generation, while strong, capable creatures will most often be the ones who will pass on their genetic material to future generations;
7. and given that we observe mutations frequently occur;
8. and given that any mutation which is injurious will likely be bred out of a population, while a mutation that gives individuals an advantage will likely be passed on to future generations;
9. and given that isolated populations can, over time, become sufficiently differentiated from their parent stock that they can no longer interbreed;
10. and given that all of the foregoing suggests a natural mechanism by which all species on earth could have gradually developed;
Geology has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not.
2. and given the millions of fossils which have been uncovered, and chronologically arranged according to the age of the rock strata in which they are found (and when possible by carbon dating of the fossils as well);
Problem here is that fossil finds are to a certain extent fortuitous and while one can say that at a certain point in time a certain set of characteristics may have existed, one cannot tell either backwards or forwards the time that they arose or the time that they ceased to exist.
3. and given the visually striking pattern of apparent descent when these fossils are further arranged, not only by age, but also by their structural similarites;
It does not seem that striking to me. Let's throw the dinosaurs into the equation (which evolutionists like to forget) and you have some very strange creatures appearing. Also the Cambrian explosion throws down this whole elaborate scheme.
4. and given that the relationships thus suggested are also supported by DNA evidence;
Totally false. The DNA evidence does not support evolution. There are several reasons for this including that the concept of a molecular clock itself would disprove evolution.
5. and given that after generations of fossil-hunting, and now DNA study, there are no counter-examples of species which upset the above-described visually striking pattern of apparent descent;
There are, the Cambrian, the dinosaurs are examples.
6. and given that, in nature, feeble creatures will usually fail to survive and populate the next generation, while strong, capable creatures will most often be the ones who will pass on their genetic material to future generations;
7. and given that we observe mutations frequently occur;
8. and given that any mutation which is injurious will likely be bred out of a population, while a mutation that gives individuals an advantage will likely be passed on to future generations;
Problem with all the above is that it is completely theoretical, there is no proof or evidence possible for it. There is proof against it in the persistence of genetic diseases, and the continued survival of species which supposedly have been surpassed by the evolutionary process by more 'fit' creatures. In fact, the lowliest of the low in the evolutionary totem pole, single celled organisms, in spite of their minute size (which is many times smaller than a single human cell) constitute some 90% of the biotic mass on earth.
9. and given that isolated populations can, over time, become sufficiently differentiated from their parent stock that they can no longer interbreed;
The problems of inbreeding show that this isolated populations are breeding grounds for destructive mutations, not for the improvement of a species.
10. and given that all of the foregoing suggests a natural mechanism by which all species on earth could have gradually developed;
If evolution were true, we would see plenty of evidence for it all over. We do not. We do not see it in the bones (no gradual evolution), we do not see it in living species (there are close examples of almost every species found in the fossil record - with the significant exception of dinosaurs), we do not see it in DNA (all attempts at drawing phylogenetic trees from DNA disprove evolutionary assumptions), we do not see it in biology (where favorable mutations are not to be found in experiments).
Have you personally observed or tested all these givens you state or did you take someone elses word for it? Anyway let's start from the top.
1. Given the age of the earth, as shown by astronomy and geology;
If this is a given what is the age then? Please be within a 100 million or so.
2. and given the millions of fossils which have been uncovered, and chronologically arranged according to the age of the rock strata in which they are found (and when possible by carbon dating of the fossils as well);
There are plenty if examples of the strata not supporting this claim. More importantly how did they get there in the first place? Is millions and billions of years of stratification the only explanation? And finally carbon dating is proving to be less reliable with each passing test. At best it may date a few thousand years but to suggest that it can go back millions is not really honest.
3. and given the visually striking pattern of apparent descent when these fossils are further arranged, not only by age, but also by their structural similarites;
Fords all seem to use ford parts and GM's use GM parts. One would expect a single creator to use somewhat similar parts or design for the same function. Having said that the breathing apparatus of a bird, a bovine and a jellyfish are all remarkable different and evolution is hard pressed to explain how they came to be. These are also known as the missing links.
4. and given that the relationships thus suggested are also supported by DNA evidence;
With the recent mapping of the DNA we have discovered that there seems to be much more to the reproduction cycle than previosly thought. It is hard to imagine that while mice and men share so much in common in terms of DNA, yet we are so different. Researchers have discovered that RNA plays a much more active role in reproduction cycle in that while RNA copies only sections the DNA it manipulates the code it has copied from the DNA depending on it's use. How and why RNA does this has yet to be explained but given time I have no doubt that we will at least have some idea. Maybe the answer lies at the subatomic level.
5. and given that after generations of fossil-hunting, and now DNA study, there are no counter-examples of species which upset the above-described visually striking pattern of apparent descent;
And still we have no man to simian link nor do we have a bi-ped to bird link. It seems as though you are trying to make a road map from New York to Honolulu. You can go pretty far and then you get to Coastal Highway 1 in Malibu. The rest of way is assumed because you where heading in the right direction.
6. and given that, in nature, feeble creatures will usually fail to survive and populate the next generation, while strong, capable creatures will most often be the ones who will pass on their genetic material to future generations;
That also includes all of the mutations you are suggesting that allow for the increasing complexity which you believe to be evolution.
7. and given that we observe mutations frequently occur;
However as you pointed out above they are weak and die out.
8. and given that any mutation which is injurious will likely be bred out of a population, while a mutation that gives individuals an advantage will likely be passed on to future generations;
Unfortunately the rate of beneficial mutations is so small that if mutations occur at the rate required to advance the species the species would die out before the advance occured. Which is what we have observed and it is called extinction.
9. and given that isolated populations can, over time, become sufficiently differentiated from their parent stock that they can no longer interbreed;
West Virginians can still breed with most of the US population except maybe New Jersians. On the serious side though this is not irrevesible. Chihuahua's cannot breed with Great Danes, but they can breed with other dogs and in a couple of generations the ancestors will be able to breed.
10. and given that all of the foregoing suggests a natural mechanism by which all species on earth could have gradually developed;
My broker said AOL was sure thing, however as it turned out the fudamentals were never what they should have been. The same holds true here. The fundamentals do not hold up. Evolution voilates two very simple fundamentals, the first being the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which what one of my Mechanical Engineering Professors pointed out) and the second is the Law of Biogenisis. You are familiar with both and while there are many arguments around them, they remain as huge obstacles for evolution and new research is still be conducted in order to surmount them. Clearly they can not be simply dismissed.
Living things are immensly complex and yet so perfectly adapted for their environment with the exception of humans which are ever so much more complex and more wonderfully made than anything else on this planet. Yet we are so different in our nature and being that it is truly odd as to why anything like us would evolve. Every other creature seems so well suited to it's environment and yet we simple do not fit in anywhere.
Well thanks for your time.
Now please explain how evolution trumps Entropy and the Law of Biogenisis.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
As I suspected, and as the above clearly demonstrates, you're not yet prepared for this debate. You may not realize it, but you need to do a lot of homework. Many of your objections are addressed in this article:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.
Specifically, your error involving the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is discussed in point #9 of that article. And regardless of what you may have heard, there is no "law of biogenisis." You're a bright fellow, but until you bring yourself up to speed, our dialogue is ended. It's been nice chatting with you.
That's quite a paradox.
The above article in unScientific American was so shameful that the magazine threatened to sue the authors of 15 ANSWERS TO JOHN RENNIE AND SCIENTIFIC AMERICANS NONSENSE by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. in order to keep them from publishing it. Typical evolutionist 'science' of keeping the truth about their stupid theory from being heard. Some science!
One of the problems that Darwin had to deal with (and is still a problem for evolutionists) is the evolution of the eye. One of the problems they have with such an explanation (one of many!) is that one of the earliest eyes known is the best of all! From the response to unScientific American:
Additionally Mr. Rennie neglected a major problem with his theory regarding the origin of the eye. According to evolutionists, the eye has evolved to the pinnacle at which we now find it. Yet, the trilobite, an index fossil that evolutionists claim is 450 million years old, possessed an even more complex eye (with a dual lens system) than anything seen in nature today. And even the evolutionists know this to be true. Writing in Science News, Lisa Shawver wrote that trilobites possessed the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature (1974, 105:72, emp. added). Indeed they did! Trilobites possessed a lens system known in ophthalmology as an optical doublet. But in order to make such a lens system function properly, it is necessary to have what is known as a refracting interface between the two lenses. And that is exactly what the trilobiteswhich evolutionists believe is one of the first living things on the Earth, and which is an index fossil for the Cambrian period)do indeed possess!
This is the only thing that evolutionists know how to do on these threads - repeat the mantra that they are the followers of science and everyone else is a fool. Well sorry, that is totally false. As anyone reading these threads can see, it is the evolutionists who run for the hills each time scientific questions are posed. It is evolutionists who even refuse to state exactly what the theory of evolution is.
Somehow I just can't see some scientist saying, "the experiment didn't turn out the way I wanted, so therefore God did it." Methinks you're making this crap up, but then again you probably think the Earth once orbited Saturn, too.
All life comes from life, no one has proved otherwise though many attempts have been made. All the scientific explanations around this simple fact are nothing but flowery speech, until someone produces a scientific experiment that demonstrates the evolutionists' dismissal. Amino acids don't count here, life isn't the same as horseshoes.
As I stated before you could make all the definitions you wanted but YOU needed to answer in your own words, not through a links. You said you were a good debater and very pursuasive and you have already thrown in the towel after the first rebuttal. I have seen all those links and have seen the counters as well. The thing I really wanted to know was if you presonally knew what you were really talking about. Not being able to explain it your own words is a dead give away.
I don't know who you think you are going to persuade by pointing at a bunch of links, because most likely people are not going to put anymore time in reading your response than you did writing it.
Vade Retro had a lot of difficulty explaining the evolution of flight and I suspect you would fare no better than he. So if you you would like to continue, then fine I am still game, but do not think that just because I don't put a bunch of hyperlinks in means I don't know anything about the subject. You don't win the debate by saying "Everyone I talk to thinks I'm right". Links are easy, thinking is hard. You have to earn it.
Don't forget you original claim that you couldn't deabate a creationist because they were unfair. I have been fair, and at this point my response to your claim is stands. Good luck
Regards,
Boiler Plate
I gave you one link (not a bunch) to an article with a simple explanation of why your statement about the Second Law is in error. Don't want to read it? Up to you.
Don't forget you original claim that you couldn't deabate a creationist because they were unfair. I have been fair, and at this point my response to your claim is stands.
My claim was that creationists use their own definitions to "win" debates. You responded by saying that it was a great debate technique. I don't agree, and as I said, it assures that no meaningful communication will be possible when each side is using a different vocabulary. You disagree? Fine. That's your choice. But it limits the number of people who will debate with you.
Your response stands? Sure it does. But it stands riddled with errors. As I said, if you want to bring yourself up to speed, so you don't misapply the 2nd Law, and so you don't cite such propositions as the non-existent "law of biogenisis" (which is a creationist's urban myth) then I'll be pleased to chat with you. But you have to make some effort. That's up to you too.
(I also think you're wasting your time.;)
Thanks. I rather liked it myself. In fact, I've saved it for a re-posting when appropriate.
(I also think you're wasting your time.;)
Probably, but what the hell. It's also for the lurkers, bless 'em.
It does not seem that striking to me. Let's throw the dinosaurs into the equation (which evolutionists like to forget) and you have some very strange creatures appearing. Also the Cambrian explosion throws down this whole elaborate scheme.
You are such a freakin' liar. Evolutionists do not "like to forget" about dinosaurs -- hell, we're the ones that say they are related to birds. Where in the hell do you get this stuff? Does it just pop into your head and you consider it divine revelation? As for the Cambrian explosion, if you'd actually read anything on the subject that was less than 20 years old you'd know evolutionists have no problem with it either. As more complete Vendian fossils come light it is apparent where the Cambrian critters came from. You prove time and again that you have no freakin' idea what you are talking about.
The rest of your post is full of such nonsense (molecular clock disproves evolution? How?) but the above is the most egregious example of ignorance masquerading as pomposity in your post, and as you have such a short attention span I figure I should start with the obvious stuff.
BTW, dear child, the point of PatrickHenry's post is that, taken individually any one of his points might point to a myriad of answers. Taken together (the "big picture") the evidence points to one conclusion. Creationists will be forever scrabbling about the periphery of real science until they can discern the difference.
If you believe this then you haven't been keeping up with your science. Carbon dating has been heavily refined over the last couple of decades and it is quite accurate for organic objects up to 50,000 years old. I've got a couple of links (including one on a Christian's perspective of radiometric dating) that you might find interesting, but it appears you do not do links as you wouldn't read even the one PH provided 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.