|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Looks like the science vs creationism debate is rearing its head in Ohio.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/...12/ohio.evolution.debate.ap I haven't seen much in the news discussing much in the way of details. If anyone sees link to good news stories, please post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi DS,
IIDB has a pretty good discussion going (as they usually do with this type of Creationist/ID attempt at suborning the education system through political pressure: here. The thread contains a lot of links and discussion of the Ohio effort. edited to fix UBB code. Someday... [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13036 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2002/local/10/15/evolution.html
I was able to dig this up as well. Not much in the way online at teh moment. I read somewhere the education board has a hearing/debate on the subject with 1500 people (I think that was the number) showing up. Haven't heard teh results of the debate or any boards decision. I will post if I can find any more details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Despite the fact that intelligent design is not science, and repeatadly fails to support its claims, ID has become the new doorway into the science classroom for creationists. In ohio, the school board approved a plan that would allow ID to be taught as part of the scientific cirriculum in relations to biology and evolution in schools.
two links to the story. Error Cincinnati News, Sports and Things to Do | Cincinnati Enquirer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From the second (Enquirer) link:
quote: It seems to me, that the new law would permit into the classroom, statements such as the above. Rah Rah Rah! Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
the ohio school board meeting can be heard in downloaded sections from this site:
Forbidden note that it is a creationist site - not a place one would find a scientific discussion ... enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There is another problem with ID. No matter how adamantly they claim it is not a religious doctrine does not make that a fact.
The fact of the matter is that Deism is a religious doctrine - see:Deism - Wikipedia You'll notice (a) that it has been around longer than ID, (b) it was popular with several "Founding Fathers" like Jefferson (instrumental in the separation of church and state doctrine), (c) it makes less claim about the effect of a designer than ID does, and finally (d) that it is a religious belief. 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. I provide more thoughts on this topic at:http://mywebpage.netscape.com/AbbyLeever/ID-evaluation.htm but I leave you with this quote from my essay: "The focus of ID as commonly used has obviously been limited to only some scientific and religious inputs, and this is clearly narrow-minded and headed in the wrong direction. There appears to be an a priori assumption in the popular usage, that life on this planet was the main purpose of the whole universe wide design process, when there is no valid reason to conclude such a [biosphere egocentric] thing. There also appears to be an a priori assumption that humans on this planet are the ultimate end result of that universe wide design process, when there is no valid reason to conclude such a [species egocentric] thing. Advocates of ID can say that they don't specify who or what [the designer] is, however for it to accomplish what they claim, it must be able to act invisibly across interstellar distances or to periodically appear on earth, act, and then disappear at will without leaving any traces thereof, and be able to do either while violating time constraints for the speed of travel for all natural objects. That to me is supernatural behavior, and any being capable of supernatural action is de facto a god of some flavour. So whether you call the [active \ creative agent] a god or an supernatural alien is just a matter of semantic gamesmanship." Enjoy. (italicized "a priori") [This message has been edited by AbbyLeever, 03-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Very nice essay.
They should use it as teaching material in Ohio. I also think it is worthy of its own "Intellegent Design" forum topic. If you like that idea, go to the cited page for a "New Topic" button that will get things started in the correct forum. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, I may do that once I get my legs here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Didn't want to start another simular topic, so I plugged it in here.
Page not found – Twin Cities Parts of above:
quote: quote: quote: See the cited for the complete article. Moose ps: First new message from me, since I got the photo of little sweetie Hiss cat up as my avatar. Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrLudicrous Inactive Member |
For those that are interested, there is a forum dedicated to the inclusion of ID in the public schools of Ohio at:
I tried getting those guys to come over here because the format stinks, and there is also rampant arbitrary censorship (most likely initated by both users and management), but take a peek to see what is happening in the Buckeye State.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Perhaps the most telling reason for the gains made by proponents of intelligent design being taught in the classroom is the fact that so many americans support this idea.
[According to a 1999 Gallup poll, "47% of Americans believe that God created human beings at one time within the last 10,000 years pretty much in their present form," in agreement with the theory of intelligent design. An additional 40% say that God guided the evolutionary process. Apparently, the mechanism of intelligent design, in various degrees, makes a lot of sense to a majority of Americans.] Page Not Found | East Stroudsburg University [Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools]
Page Not Found
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; ["An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature p. 88] ["I believe we developed this practice (i.e., postulating prebiological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero. When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that, no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and immeasurably." Mora, Peter T., "The Folly of Probability," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems p. 45] ["From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.....Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were '10 to the power of 40,000.....They did calculations based on the size and age of the universe (15 billion years) and found that the odds against life beginning spontaneously anywhere in space were '10 to the power of 30.....At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God.....We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation--and not accidental random shuffling." Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express] http://www.geocities.com/...f.htm#NON-CHRISTIAN%20SCIENTISTS Now admittedly, I neither possess the aforementioned books, nor have I read or heard the aforementioned interview, so I am hardly properly equipped to view and understand just how far out of context the above quotes are, if at all. The point is that the controversy continues and will continue, most likely, long after everyone in this forum has turned to dust. Personally, I find it abhorrent that the ACLU is so adamantly against even the teaching of the problems associated with the theory of evolution, something true scientists seem willing to grapple with in their search for truth. [Evidently the ACLU threat spooked the board into submission. It soon began to restrict DeHart’s classroom material. In 1998 a new superintendent ordered Mr. DeHart to quit mentioning intelligent design. He could, however, still talk about problems with evolutionary theory. But that freedom didn’t last very long. Now, he’s been told to refrain from even questioning or criticizing the theory of evolution. In the process, he’s actually been commanded to suppress data and teach falsehoods. Unfortunately for Burlington students, the school’s required biology textbook contains factual errors.] http://www.nas.com/ccc/news5-23-01.htm Hearing of cases like this only serve to strengthen the creationist view that the theory of evolution has been debunked but the left wing athiests will stop at nothing to ensure its continued teaching despite its obvious failure to remain scientific in nature. The aclu should find better things to do with its money and let the purity of science defend itself. If science can not defend itself, which it surely can, then the odds are it is not true science but psuedo-science. Sorry to go off on a tangent like that but I firmly believe that science, if it remains true and pure, is capable of answering nearly every question that man, or woman, can ask. Cheers This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-05-2004 11:19 PM BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Personally, I find it abhorrent that the ACLU is so adamantly against even the teaching of the problems associated with the theory of evolution, something true scientists seem willing to grapple with in their search for truth. I think part of the problem is that this is the only theory in all of science where what we don't know yet is referred to as a "problem." In any other field these would be referred to as "frontiers." We don't know everything about cancer, for instance. But we don't try to tear down hospitals because of it. This is stuff we should be telling kids; not out of a misguided attempt to show ideological parity or even out of a guilty need to be honest about science - these areas are where the future research is going to be. It's not enough to dump what we know on kids; we have to show them what we expect some of them to find out one day. Maybe the ACLU isn't desperate to sweep stuff under the rug; maybe they're justifiably pissed that creationists will capitalize on any attempt to excite science-minded youngsters about frontiers in biology by styling them as admissions of ineptitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
More news from Ohio.
[COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The state school board Tuesday approved a lesson plan for teaching evolution that includes what critics contend is a religious theory ``cloaked as science.'' Supporters argued the lesson plan offers scientific ways to analyze evolution, but scientific groups objected and critics said they expected a lawsuit.] Latest news from around the world | The Guardian BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024