Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

Very, very sad. Ohio is taking a grand step back towards the Dark Ages. Hopefully a legal challenge will prevail and Critical Analysis of Evolution will be shoved into the dumpster where it belongs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No Critical Analysis of Evolution?Forgive me but I have been impressed with the understanding that any true scientific study/research/endeavor should always be subject to critical analysis.Did I miss something or are evolutionists now requiring that the theory of evolution be excluded from any and all critical analysis?If so, then the creationists/christians/IDers have just been handed an enormous weapon with which to claim that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the truly legitimate sciences which are forever subject to critical analysis.I truly hope this was a jest on your part, for it would trouble me greatly to know that evolutionists are now removing themselves, their studies, and their discoveries from the rest of the scientific community, which continually invites critical analysis as a means of keeping it legitimate, honest, and on its aphoristic toes.Cheers, Jeers, or Tears.....take your pick, I am at a loss here.

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

I have no problem with Critical Analysis of Evolution, but the section that they wanted to add on Intellegent Design was called Critical Analysis of Evolution. It was not in reality a critical analysis of evolution, but from the article you supplied, an attempt to bring intellegent design into the discussion.There is no problem with any critical analysis of evolution, or any other part of science. But as soon as you introduce magic and the supernatural, any reasoned analysis goes out the window. With magic as a base for any subject, anything and everything is possible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

He's not referring the the general idea of critical analysis; rather he's referring to a particular document titled "Critical Analysis of Evolution — Grade 10" and intended for use in Ohio science classes. You can see it for yourself at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
Many scientists have severely criticised this document, especially some of the suggested references (e.g. Denton's "Evolution: A theory In Crisis" which even Denton doesn't believe any more) (note that a lot of the more controversial references have been removed in the curent version) and Attachment A, "Five Aspects of Evolution", which has been watered down a lot from the original version but still owes a lot to Wells' "Icons of Evolution" and the Discovery Institute's propaganda.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-07-2004 12:42 AM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

JonF says [Many scientists have severely criticised this document.....]Understandable. And yet many have supported it as well.....[[The Ohio State Board of Education approved the new curriculum by a vote of 13-5 after being persuaded by 22 Ohio scientists that the new lesson plan promotes academic freedom and that it is good for 10th grade students to have an inquiring mind about evolution.]Also, the teacher has options..... [[no teacher will be required to teach criticisms of evolution, and no students will be tested on the criticisms. So what's the big deal?]I still have much reading to do but at this point it seems that those less qualified are the very ones who are raising the biggest stink.....[[To some people, it's a very big deal, and the ACLU is ominously threatening a lawsuit. The opposition to the new lesson was led by Case Western Reserve University lecturer Patricia Princehouse (whose academic position is philosophy not science) who said, "It's sad day for science in Ohio." Another non-scientist, Florida State University law professor Steven Gey, flew in to warn Ohioans that the lesson is unconstitutional and would almost certainly be struck down if it reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe he is seeking an activist judge to rule that the Constitution prohibits allowing students to question anything in science class.....There is nothing religious about creationism, or even about intelligent design, in the new Ohio standards. What is controversial is giving students the opportunity to question evolution; it's the inquiry-and-debate aspect that some people find so threatening.]There are numerous points and opinions presented, among which are..... [[Science standards set, but the teaching is still evolving,
Ohio faces a new challenge in intelligent-design debate,
Proposed lesson on evolution upsets scientists,
10th-graders would debate the theory,
Ohio educators to be applauded,
Ohio lesson plan pleases conservatives, irks apostles of Darwin,
Ohio Lesson Plan Pleases Parents, Irks Liberals,
If you want 'honest science,' Intelligent Design is not it]It is a bit one sided, ok, heavily one sided, but makes for excellent reading nevertheless.All references provided are available at the following link.....Texas Citizens for ScienceOne of the many points raised at this site is the fact that ID, intelligent design, presupposes a designer, a creator, which can neither be tested, falsified, proved, or disproved, and therefore does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry.To be fair, and I know many evolutionists disagree with me on this point, evolution presupposes life springing from non-life via some mechanism known surreptitiously as abiogenesis, which can neither be tested, falsified, proved, or disproved, and therefore does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry.Yes, I know the argument that the theory of evolution does not deal with the theory of abiogenesis, but I for one am not willing to use that argument as a means of escaping discussing the origin of life, choosing instead the safe, and in my opinion, somewhat disingenious position of claiming that evolution only be about life after it appeared.I choose to deal faily when discussing issues with creationists and evolutionists alike and if I insist that creationists consider the designer, aka god, in their thinking then it is only fair that I allow them the same courtesy, and agree that evolutionists consider the non-designer, aka abiogenesis, in their thinking.I can not help but admit the incredible sense of design in much of nature, from the smallest of elements to the enormity of the universe itself. However, a sense, or appearance of design must not be the final word when it comes to science. Chaos is also apparent and few designers would intentionally incorporate chaos into their designs. But if god is god is god is god, then I would have to say that god could do whatever the hell god feels like doing. Who is going to argue with a god besides anti-theists and idiots.So, if the Ohio Board of Education continues to include the Ohio "Critical Analysis of Evolution--Grade 10" Model Curriculum in its science classes on an optional basis, then personally, I couldn't give a rats ass. At least I won't have to deal with it, the school board, or that disgustingly anti-theistic, idiotic organization known as the aclu. I swear, at times, that old saying, "KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT IT OUT", sounds pretty damn good to me.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Of course it doesn't.At such time as a scientific explanation of abiogenesis is put forth, it will rely on chemical mechanisms that we can observe in the lab. "Abiogenesis" isn't a mechanism, or even a purported one. The mechanism will be some chemical process that we can replicate.What's untestable about that? What's unfalsifiable about chemistry that we can replicate in the lab?

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

ID is stuck somewhere between creationism and Deism and thus is irrefutably a religious belief. It is a poorly framed form of Deism with a lot of baggage left over from the creationists, baggage taht interferes with a proper look at it's precepts.

---

The most obvious example that ID is a religious tenet is to simply ask its proponents what is this "I" that D'ed.Strange how none of them seem to think that it was aliens. It all comes back to god.As soon as one of these groups seriously considers the possibility that 2001: A Space Odyssey was inspired by the actual machinations of the aliens who altered our developmental path, then I'll seriously consider ID to be something other than religion.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

DarkStar writes:

quote:

---

Not to mention the numerous secular scientists who have been willing to admit openly the problems associated with the theory of evolution as it is taught today

---

Um...every single quote you mention is about abiogenesis, not evolution.There are plenty of questions regarding how life started. None of that is of any concern to evolution as evolution is compatible with every method of genesis you could care to imagine.Did life arise chemically through abiogenesis? Fine. Supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence? Surely god can create life that evolves. Extra-terrestrially through aliens or panspermia? No problem. Interdimensionally through a rift in space-time? Easy sailing.What you need to learn is that what happens to life after its creation is a completely separate question to how life came into appearance in the first place.Does the quarter you use in the vending machine behave differently if it was produced at the Philadelphia mint as opposed to the Denver mint? Is a molecule of water created through a biological process (such as the Krebs cycle) any different from a molecule of water created through the sparking of hydrogen and oxygen gas?There is absolutely no question that life evolves. We can watch it happen right before our eyes so we know it happens now. We can observe the fossil record and its absolute declaration that it happened in the past.None of that tells us how life began.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That's like a christian saying god is testable and falsifiable and they will do so just as soon as jesus returns in the clouds. Nice argument when you don't have to worry about it until it actually happens.Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

DarkStar writes in the Subtitle field rather than the post field:

quote:

---

Can another ACLU threat of a lawsuit be far behind?

---

God, I hope so.The Constitution is not to be mucked with lightly. Religious sentiment is to be kept out of governmental activity. ID is nothing more than religion, and thus it has no place in a public school curriculum as some sort of claim to objective reality.I find it interesting that you find the ACLU to be a hindrance to our Constitutional protections.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Gosh, I guess I just assumed that any theory put forth as scientific thought would either adhere to scientific principles or be quickly and soundly deflated. So sue me, I guess.If and when a scientific model of abiogenesis is developed, by definition, it will be falsifiable, repeatable, and testable.Moreover if speculating about as-yet-undeveloped models torques you off so damn bad, why were you the first one to do it? You're the one who tried to tell us what the scientific model of abiogenesis would be like in the first place.

DarkStar writes:

quote:

---

To be fair, and I know many evolutionists disagree with me on this point, evolution presupposes life springing from non-life via some mechanism known surreptitiously as abiogenesis

---

Incorrect.Are you saying god can't create life that evolves? That whatever you seem to think "evolution requires" to be the first life, god couldn't have created directly?If I take a piece of metal and painstakingly carve out the obverse and reverse of a quarter, is it any different from a quarter that is minted?Why does evolution require abiogenesis? Be specific. Please explain why evolutionary theory requires anything particular about the method by which life originated.

quote:

---

which can neither be tested, falsified, proved, or disproved, and therefore does not meet the requirements of scientific inquiry.

---

Incorrect.Do not confuse the difficulty of the task with impossibility. To be sure, showing evidence of abiogenesis will be extraordinarily difficult. It would be chemical processes of such a small scale that their remnants will be extremely difficult to find. And until we have some handle on how such a chemical process might happen, we don't have much of an idea of what to look for.That doesn't mean we never will. It may be that in the process of examining life, we will determine ways in which it can be created chemically that result in certain products being left behind. We can then look to see if those products were, indeed, left behind.

quote:

---

Yes, I know the argument that the theory of evolution does not deal with the theory of abiogenesis

---

You just contradicted yourself.Please explain how these two statements can be reconciled: and If evolution does not deal with abiogenesis (which isn't a theory, by the way), then how can it presuppose abiogenesis?

quote:

---

it is only fair that I allow them the same courtesy, and agree that evolutionists consider the non-designer, aka abiogenesis, in their thinking.

---

But they don't.And that is precisely why you aren't being fair. You seem to think that evolution necessarily requires abiogenesis. Since it doesn't (are you seriously saying god cannot create life that evolves?) why do you persist in this ridiculous statement?

quote:

---

But if god is god is god is god, then I would have to say that god could do whatever the hell god feels like doing.

---

And thus, you just relegated your "intelligent design" to the realm of the unfalsifiable.If every single possible outcome is consistent with the premise, then the outcome and premise are not logically connected.God can create life that evolves.
God can create life that doesn't evolve.Therefore, nothing about the fact of life's evolution or non-evolution is evidence that god did it because no matter what outcome we find, "god did it" is still compatible. Unless and until you can come up with an experiment that could be conducted where there are two distinct possibilities, one of which much be "god did not do it," then ID is unfalsifiable.And thus, ID is not science.

quote:

---

At least I won't have to deal with it, the school board, or that disgustingly anti-theistic, idiotic organization known as the aclu.

---

Strange. that "anti-theistic" organization known as the ACLU has been fighting for your right to practice your religion. Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (06/03/2004)After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (05/11/2004)Following ACLU Lawsuit, Town Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit to Pittsburgh Area Church (04/19/2004)Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (10/21/2003)In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (04/17/2002)Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (12/29/2000)ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (09/22/2000)ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (03/16/2000)And those are just the ones that directly affect Christians. I've neglected to include the fights for religious freedom regarding those who aren't Christian.I find it quite interesting that you seem to think that the organization that fights for your constitutional rights is out to get you. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you....

quote:

---

I swear, at times, that old saying, "KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT IT OUT", sounds pretty damn good to me.

---

Doesn't your holy book tell you to love thine enemy as you love thyself? Why does it even occur to you to commit violence upon them?Especially when they're doing so much to ensure that you are allowed to practice your religion without governmental interference?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

As cool as the ACLU is, be careful - a friend of mine signed up (so that he could be a "card-carrying member") and they totally dumped his name onto a bunch of fruity super-leftist mailing lists.He's kinda pissed about it. If there's one organization you would expect to recognize the right to privacy and to not have one's personal information bought and sold, you'd think it would be the ACLU.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

they totally dumped his name onto a bunch of fruity super-leftist mailing lists.

---

"Fruity"?And of course, there's the presupposition that those "super-leftist" claims aren't actually doing what the Constitution requires. I'm often reminded of this when people claim that the Ninth Circuit (you know...the ones that declared "under god" to be unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance) is a loopy, out-of-touch court since they are the most overturned circuit court. That assumes that the Supreme Court is a better judge of the Constitution than the Ninth Circuit. It is quite possible that the Ninth Circuit is the one that is more closely adhering to the Constitution and the Supreme Court is the one that is out of touch. After reading the opinions of Scalia, I think that's not such a bizarre notion.I definitely agree that the buying and selling of personal information is rephrehensible when not clearly delineated. The ACLU does provide the option to opt-out, though my personal opinion is that it should be an opt-in process. Always assume the customer does not want his information shared unless told otherwise.The point, however, is that the claim that the ACLU is "anti-theistic" is demonstrably false. They routinely come to the aid of mainstream theists whose rights are being denied.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!