Ohio State Board of Education infuriates Evolution Supporters by new Lesson Plan

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Well this just cooks my goose. Evolution supporters are pissed off because of a class titled "Critical Analysis of Evolution". The opponents of the class fear that it may lead to having intelligent design taught in the classrooms. Thats right, the lesson has nothing to do with "intelligent design" they just fear that it may lead to it.

This is nothing but censorship. Why in the hell can't our children be taught both the theory of evolution and the theory of Intelligent Design to allow them to be truly educated? What would that hurt? By only allowing one item to be taught you are basically starting a trend in which you will only learn what the government wants you to learn.

www.cleveland.com.../base/news/1076495549160490.xml


The State Board of Education gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a 10th-grade biology lesson that scientists say could put "intelligent design" in Ohio classrooms.

Setting aside an impassioned plea from the National Academy of Sciences, the board voted 13-4 to declare its intent to adopt the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson next month.

The academy warned that doing so would give a green light to teaching intelligent design, the idea that life is so complex that a higher being must have created it.




posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I hear that!
I think both should be taught to the kids. I remember learning both in school.. Evolution in Biology and The 'Argument from Design' in Philosophy class.
Censorship is not the way to get someone to agree with you. The ideas need to be presented to the students so they can then decide for themselves, if they haven't already.



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Great what's next?

Come on. We are living in the 22nd century, not in in B.C, when we thought Zeus controlled lightining.


[Edited on 2/13/2004 by surfup]



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Well said Zues. lol

This shows the imaturity of even our leaders. Evolution is part of society, and a fundamental science. Its tenants have more supporting foundations than " Creationism ", yet both remain " Theories ".

Churches can moan and bicker all they want, Creationists are becoming simple vestiges, Evolution will eventualy become a philosophy of Norm 50-70 years now from now, if not now. You cant repress education from Students, its an utter educational genocide commited against our children!

Deep

[Edited on 13-2-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
Great what's next?

Come on. We are living in the 22nd century, not in in B.C, when we thought Zeus controlled lightining.


[Edited on 2/13/2004 by surfup]


ummm.... someone please correct me if im wrong, but last i checked, it was the 21st century



posted on Feb, 13 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunkleskates

Originally posted by surfup
Great what's next?
Come on. We are living in the 22nd century, not in in B.C, when we thought Zeus controlled lightining.


ummm.... someone please correct me if im wrong, but last i checked, it was the 21st century


Sorry, typo.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Intelligent Design does not belong in any science class. It has no supporting evidence and is not falsifiable. Evolution has both these properties. Intelligent Design should be taught in the religion classes or maybe philosophy.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
Intelligent Design does not belong in any science class. It has no supporting evidence and is not falsifiable. Evolution has both these properties. Intelligent Design should be taught in the religion classes or maybe philosophy.


This is taken from a post I made here www.abovetopsecret.com... but I think it fits here as well.


I am not quoting any religions beleifs when I stated that we had to have been created by intelligent design I am only posting what is logical.

It is illogical to think that something as complex as the human being could have created itself from raw materials on the earth. It is way more sci-fi to think that we were all created in a sludge pit of amino acids than to think of travelling at light speed. The dynamics that would need to be in place to have that interaction take place are staggering. Add to that the fact that after this first form of life created itself it would have to be able to reproduce itself or it would die out.

So think about what you are saying

1. Somehow everything just came together and chemicals that are not supposed to interact, interacted and created life.

2. This one life has created every form of life on earth that you now see. (If this is so then why and how did it change into different things) Why did certain creatures evolve just to be the food of other creatures. True evolution would mean everything would evolve to be the best not less than the best.

3. This first life somehow found a way to reproduce itself after it created itself.

A little far-fetched don't you think?



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
We should keep the discussion about intelligent design in that thread. I don't have a problem with critical analysis of evolution. I do have a problem with making it seem as if a totally unproven and flawed theory like intelligent design is a good alternative to evolution. Intelligent design is in essence the same as creationism; an intelligent creator made the universe and made life (you said this yourself in the other thread).



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I think it's great!! I have always believed that students should be presented with all sides of the theory of evolution, good and bad, and allowed to decide for themselves what to believe. If the conclusion that some of them reach ends up favoring intelligent design, so be it. At least they were given the chance to view everything objectively and make a decision on their own. I think that is how all schools should approach the "origin" subject. Both intelligent design and evolution are unprovable theories, so it is wrong to teach either one as fact.

Evolution as a means of adaption and survival should still be taught as fact, because it is. It just should not be taught as the origin of life, without allowing any room for questioning and personal analysis of all information that is available. To do that is just as bad as teaching that Creationism is the only explanation, and it should never be doubted or questioned.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
We should keep the discussion about intelligent design in that thread. I don't have a problem with critical analysis of evolution. I do have a problem with making it seem as if a totally unproven and flawed theory like intelligent design is a good alternative to evolution. Intelligent design is in essence the same as creationism; an intelligent creator made the universe and made life (you said this yourself in the other thread).


Do you have a problem with presenting all alternatives to students from Creationism to Evolution? Or would you rather stop at Criticism of Evolution?



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Do you have a problem with presenting all alternatives to students from Creationism to Evolution? Or would you rather stop at Criticism of Evolution?


No, but I have a problem with presenting intelligent design as a equally good alternative to evolution. Intelligent design in it's essence remains a religious theory.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Intellligent design is something that should be taught in religious classes, I agree with you.

Teaching it in a science class would give it too much credit.

As for that persons arguement, he makes life seem so mystical, chemcals interacting that should not have? Evolution is not about chemical bonding, it is about a single entity slowing developing over billions of years through reporuduction, which is physical bonding, to evolve into a greater form. This is based on things like animals living near the sea may evolve to swim, creatures near trees evolve to climb them, and creatures that utilize limited thinking skills often and form social groups, perhaps evolve to become more intelligent, such as humans or dolphins.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I just hate ohio state. Anything they do there has to be foolish. Oh, I almost forgot. GO BLUE!!! I just wish that people would have open minds and understand that we don't know what the hell happened to put us here. We have some theories but they can't be proven. Let students judge for themselves. People can come up with their own belief on what theory is correct, as long as they are given enough info. Why is everyone so afraid of letting students think for themselves? Nevermind, that would be a long story in itself.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
All I am saying is that all theories need to be taught to give students all the options. We do not need to neuter education to just teaching what we think is right now. If we only teach evolution and someone comes up with proof that it is wrong they will be treated the same way Galileo was when he said the Earth was not the center of the Solar System.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel I think it's great!! I have always believed that students should be presented with all sides of the theory of evolution, good and bad, and allowed to decide for themselves what to believe.
Not believing in the basics of biology is not an option. It's similar to saying, "I don't believe in gravity". Evolution is proven. It's happening now. It's not an option in education to believe it or not.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I know I may be tempting the Gods by disagreeing with an Admin but here goes

*Writes Suicide Letter*

*Clears Throat*

Last time I checked Macro Evolution has not been proven. Science can not prove that a species can evolve into another species.

The only kind of evolution that can remotely be proven is micro evolution such as the appendix going dormant.

*Yes, Lord I am prepared to die*



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
If all theories were taught, instead of only those with credibility then children would be in school for thousands of years.

This is why we have to control what goes into the education system, to prevent trash theories from making it in and clogging it up with useless information.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
All I am saying is that all theories need to be taught to give students all the options. We do not need to neuter education to just teaching what we think is right now. If we only teach evolution and someone comes up with proof that it is wrong they will be treated the same way Galileo was when he said the Earth was not the center of the Solar System.


So you are saying we should teach students theories that we know have no supporting evidence? I'm alright with teaching students alternate theories, if those have supporting evidence. Last time I checked Intelligent Design has not been proven. Science can not and will never prove the existance of God.

Macro evolution has been observed in fossils. Intelligent Design has been observed in nothing. What theory would you like to learn your children to make them objectively thinking and well informed humans? I hope not the unproven 'just accept it' intelligent design theory.

Galileo was treated that way because he threatened the power of religion. The same religion that supports intelligent design.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by amantine]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Some people will try to argue that you find a dino with feathers on it and it proves that dinos became birds. Maybe it was it's own species that died out like everything else? There is still one heck of a gap that can't be found. That's why some people are starting to think that evolution doesn't take its time but it happens in fast mutations. These mutations would kinda explain some of the reasons for no proof of transition periods. Evolution still can't be proven 100% though. I also read something a long time ago about how the Jews had a word for some catagory of animal that we have no proof of today. Like an animal word that can't even be translated into English today. It may have actually been some feathered dino that could fly if I remember correctly. I don't even remember enough about it so I shouldn't mention it. It could be pure rubbish, there was a story on it though. I will try to find it. I think that evolution could be the answer, as long as there is some kind of interference by God or aliens. I tend to think that aliens are what people believed to be God in the past. The mutations would also explain a lot as well. I am open to both sides of the story. Just kinda sitting around waiting for proof.

[Edited on 17-2-2004 by Mandalorianwarrior]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join