Big vote in Ohio

corporial · Post by **corporial** » 2002-09-10 03:47pm

During this fall the Ohio Board of education is going to vote whether to add creationism to the science curriculum in public schools. (Find out more http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1294910/detail.html )
If the Board of Education votes to add creationism to the curriculum it will make Ohio the first state to do so. Will everyone please visit http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/ and send polite emails urging them to not consider adding creation to the science curriculum. Rest assured that if Ohio falls, it won't be the last state to consider this.

More information
http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1340849/detail.html
http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1297872/detail.html
http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1297245/detail.html
http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1296111/detail.html

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-10 04:04pm

Let us hope this fails

As I'm going to be visiting Ohio in a few months and thats not somthing I need there

More idiots

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-10 04:09pm

Hey, doesn't this violate that little thing we like to call 'Seperation of Church and State'?

Pray(figuratively) that it gets shot down.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-09-10 04:22pm

Cyril wrote:Hey, doesn't this violate that little thing we like to call 'Seperation of Church and State'?

Pray(figuratively) that it gets shot down.

Technically no. What it violates is common sense.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-10 04:49pm

And Americans get touchy when I say their country is infested with fundie morons. We've got our fair share of fundie idiots too, but yours have way more power and influence and numbers than is healthy.

GoneCrazy · Post by **GoneCrazy** » 2002-09-10 06:07pm

i really hope ohio doesn't go crazy. ive got cousins there and i live in the state right next to them. we go there every coupla months. i'd really prefer it if my cousin who's in first grade doesn't start spewing out the "things hes learned in science" which would happen to be a bunch of creationalist propaganda. i'd much prefer it if he told me about things that were actually true not a bunch of that crazy stuff they preach. (id use harsher language but i forget whether or not u could get kicked out of the boards for saying bad stuff)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-10 06:17pm

GoneCrazy wrote:i really hope ohio doesn't go crazy. ive got cousins there and i live in the state right next to them. we go there every coupla months. i'd really prefer it if my cousin who's in first grade doesn't start spewing out the "things hes learned in science" which would happen to be a bunch of creationalist propaganda. i'd much prefer it if he told me about things that were actually true not a bunch of that crazy stuff they preach. (id use harsher language but i forget whether or not u could get kicked out of the boards for saying bad stuff)

Don't worry. This is my board, and you can use pretty much whatever fuckin' foul language you goddamned well want to

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-09-10 06:26pm

I wish I could beat into their fucking skulls, 1st amendment or not, that creationism (specifically Christian Creation) is not scientifically valid and hence belongs in the science class just as much as Voodoo does.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-10 06:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:And Americans get touchy when I say their country is infested with fundie morons. We've got our fair share of fundie idiots too, but yours have way more power and influence and numbers than is healthy.

Well this American won't because it pisses me the fuck off that my country
is full of fundie idots. Even worse I think I am related to quite a few fundies
and have even more relatives on the wrong side of the fringe. That's without getting to my distant cousins who are Mennonites & Amish.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-10 06:42pm

Are they talking about the creationism that states 'God created the universe, by starting the process known as evolution', or the one that states 'God created the universe in seven days, 10,000 years ago. That's not really a 2 million year old dinosaur skull. No, really, it isn't.'

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-09-10 06:48pm

Appeared in the news today.
Number of priests rapidly diminishing.

Estimate the number to be reduced to half in the next ten years.
HURRAH FOR EUROPE

On the downside, a religious study centre just bought the office below my house.

THEY WERE SINGING ALELUIA ALL THE FREAKIN' AFTERNOON

I'm thinking of facing the sound columns downards and put satanic music real loud all day

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-10 07:06pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:Appeared in the news today.
Number of priests rapidly diminishing.

Estimate the number to be reduced to half in the next ten years.
HURRAH FOR EUROPE

On the downside, a religious study centre just bought the office below my house.

THEY WERE SINGING ALELUIA ALL THE FREAKIN' AFTERNOON

I'm thinking of facing the sound columns downards and put satanic music real loud all day

Good idea.

N.I.B. (heck, most Black Sabbath will irritate them).
Sympathy for the Devil

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-10 08:44pm

speaking of Sympthoy, I caught that one a few nights back, Damn sometimes I forget how good Cowboy bebop is then suddnly its on TV and you sit down watch it and go watch your entire pirated collection all over agian

And yes I do have the DVD', I'm just a lazy bastard with 200 Gigs of free space and I feel oblgated to fill it up with SOMTHING besides the measly 21 Gigs I have there after a year and a half of downloading

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-11 07:28pm

Just imagine the future!

September 5, 2036:

The Ohio State Education Department has voted to replace the current and much-proven round-Earth theory with a flat-Eath theory, and require all maps of the Solar System in schools to be replaced with maps that show Earth as the center. When asked why, Jack Fundaé, head of the OSED said "The Bible said so, so it must be true". Tests must also be limited to 3 questions, and the coloring section of the flat earth must use no more than 3 crayons. Failure for teachers to comply will result in the being stoned.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-09-11 08:29pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: On the downside, a religious study centre just bought the office below my house.

THEY WERE SINGING ALELUIA ALL THE FREAKIN' AFTERNOON

I'm thinking of facing the sound columns downards and put satanic music real loud all day

I second the playing of Black Sabbath and Ozzy at full blast. You can also add Iron Maiden, Slayer, and Metallica to that list as well. I'd like to see what happens when you play "God Send Death", "God Hates us all", and "Diciple" (all by Slayer) for those pukes.

Songs of interest. Children of the Damned, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be thy Name, all by Iron Maiden
Black Sabbath, N.I.B., Sabbath Bloody Sabbath by Black Sabbath
Almost any Ozzy song since they're convinced that Ozzy is the Devil
Jesus Saves, Alter of Sacrifice, Raining Blood, South of Heaven, Hell Awaits, all by Slayer, plus the above songs.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2002-09-11 10:33pm

Holy shit! I live in Ohio, and I didn't know this was going on. For those of you unfamiliar with Ohio, this state is so right-winged its sick. Except for the major cities (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) the rest is shit.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-09-11 10:43pm

Defiant wrote:Holy shit! I live in Ohio, and I didn't know this was going on. For those of you unfamiliar with Ohio, this state is so right-winged its sick. Except for the major cities (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) the rest is shit.

For the people in Ohio, the major cities are shit. Same here in Maryland. I'd
be happy if an asteroid wiped out Baltimore and Prince George's County,
along with scorchin Montgomery County, thereby returning Maryland Politics
to the center where it belongs, rather than the radical left.....

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-09-11 10:48pm

aerius wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote: On the downside, a religious study centre just bought the office below my house.

THEY WERE SINGING ALELUIA ALL THE FREAKIN' AFTERNOON

I'm thinking of facing the sound columns downards and put satanic music real loud all day

I second the playing of Black Sabbath and Ozzy at full blast. You can also add Iron Maiden, Slayer, and Metallica to that list as well. I'd like to see what happens when you play "God Send Death", "God Hates us all", and "Diciple" (all by Slayer) for those pukes.

Songs of interest. Children of the Damned, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be thy Name, all by Iron Maiden
Black Sabbath, N.I.B., Sabbath Bloody Sabbath by Black Sabbath
Almost any Ozzy song since they're convinced that Ozzy is the Devil
Jesus Saves, Alter of Sacrifice, Raining Blood, South of Heaven, Hell Awaits, all by Slayer, plus the above songs.

You might want to try some songs from Danzig, too.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-12 08:40pm

"God s Us All"? That sounds like reasonable philosophy to me. Perhaps, you could hide loudspeakers in there, and then play the music, when they least expect it.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2002-09-15 09:46am

First I just want to say:

Don't worry. This is my board, and you can use pretty much whatever fuckin' foul language you goddamned well want to

LOL. Gotta love Mike.

Ok. On this topic, I'm fucking STUNNED. I followed the original link, and would you believe the "Intelligent Design" choice is WINNING?

That is really scary. How could an institution that should be as objective as possible regarding FACTUAL knowledge, even consider this as a possibility? How would they even teach it? They can't follow a curriculum of and consistency. There are no FACTS to draw on????

This boggles me.

Isn't there a way to make it a crime to have religious beliefs unless you can prove you passed a course fully explaining logic, reason, and the scientific method?

Of course that would never do . I'll bet that next to none would return to their illogical beliefs. Since fundies can smell a threat to their mindset a mile away, you'd never get the law passed. Shame.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-15 07:37pm

I sent the following.

Good day, Ms. Sheets and other respected members of the board. Please note that E-mail addresses for all board members were not available, so I could not send this to all members. It would be appreciated if this E-mail could be made available to those I could not send it to.

I have read that the Ohio State Board of Education is going to vote on adding the Intelligent Design theory to the scientific curriculum (http://www.nbc4columbus.com/News/1294910/detail.html). I am writing to urge the board to vote against this proposal. Please note that, while I am not a resident of Ohio, I believe that this vote will set precedent for other state education boards, and intelligent design is not an idea that should make it into the nation's scientific classrooms. I also have relatives in Ohio who are in school, and they will be affected by this decision. I consider proper scientific education to be important in grammar and high school, and passing intelligent design theory off as valid science will only malign the reception of a proper scientific education.

Intelligent design theory does not belong in the scientific classroom because it is not a scientific theory. No articles dealing with intelligent design theory have ever been published in any scientific journals, and it is not an accepted idea in the scientific community. There is no reason to teach intelligent design other than to introduce religion into public schools.

There are many specific problems with intelligent design theory that make it unscientific, which I will list.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY MAKES NO PREDICTIONS.
All scientific theories must be testable to account for their validity. In order to be tested, a theory must make a prediction. Intelligent design theory does not meet this criterion, so it is not a scientific theory. It does not predict anything. How are students going to test intelligent design theory? What experiment could they design and perform? They simply can't test the theory, and neither can scientists.

Intelligent design is nothing more than a compromise effort between evolution and creationism. It appeases those who believe in evolution by stating the evolution actually occurred, and it appeases those who believe in God, by stating the God directed the process. However, this compromise is a purely political effort, and intelligent design theory has no formal weight in the scientific community.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY ADDS UNNECESSARY TERMS TO AN ALREADY VALID THEORY.
The scientific method makes sure that any hypothesis must go through a battery of tests and modification to fit observation before it can be declared a theory. One of these tests is Occam's Razor, the logical principle of parsimony. In science, if two theories both fit the facts and explain observations, the one with the least amount of variables or terms is deemed the better theory.

Intelligent design theory adds unnecessary weight to evolutionary theory. Biologists have observed that evolution is guided by the process of natural selection. Natural selection basically posits that the outcome of evolution will be guided by what mutations develop in a species. If certain members of a species develop a mutation which allows them to survive more easily in their environment, those members will thrive, while members developing disadvantageous or nonadvantageous mutations will not. This is the process which guides evolution.

Intelligent design theory supplements an existing explanation with unnecessary weight. The two competing theories are as follows.

•Accepted evolutionary theory: Species evolve according to natural selection. If members of a species develop a survival advantage, they will reproduce and thrive, while other members will eventually die out.

•Intelligent design theory: Species evolve according to natural selection and the way God wants them to evolve. If members of a species develop a survival advantage, they will reproduce and thrive, while other members will eventually die out.

Clearly, the current evolutionary model (the first theory) is simpler, and it is regarded as one of the most robust, accurate theories in all of science. The "God" term in the second theory is not required to explain what we observe in nature. As stated before, since intelligent design theory makes no predictions, there is no way of testing it. How are we going to test God's desires or his will? How can biologists demonstrate through experiment that God really is guiding the evolutionary process? They can't. The Intelligent Designer is a redundant, unfalsifiable term. Yes, it is possible that there is one guiding the process, but this does not make the theory valid. Intelligent design theory's claims are tantamount to claiming that God's hand comes out of the ground and pulls objects down to the Earth when they are dropped. There is no reason for that term to be in the explanation of gravity.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY ATTRIBUTES AN UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN TO AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR.
The human body works, but there is no evidence that requires it to have been intelligently designed, and it has numerous flaws which indicate that no intelligent designer could have possibly directed its creation, such as the following.

•Humans use the same pipe to breathe and swallow food. This creates a potential choking hazard which is lethal. Why would any intelligent designer allow this flaw to persist for so long?

•The human eye receives input that is upside-down. This requires our brain to do extra work and flip it right side-up. This hampers efficiency, something which is paramount in any design practice. No intelligent designer would have let this flaw slip by.

•Human reproduction systems are disastrously inefficient. In a typical ejaculation, millions of sperm will be discharged, but only one will reach the egg, and the pregnancy yield is not even 90%. Many pregnancies will end in miscarriage or fail early on. Reproduction is a basic biological drive, so why would any intelligent designer make reproduction so incredibly inefficient?

•The human genetic code is not robust. If one little segment of the human genome is modified, it can result in mental retardation, disfigured limbs or a fatality. Today, such a design is completely unacceptable in everything from computer operating systems to the cars we drive. No one would dare call a computer which exploded or just stopped working upon its CD-ROM drive being removed "intelligently designed," yet the same flaws in the human body are sometimes regarded as evidence of the intelligent design.

•Humans retain a useless organ known as an appendix. There is no reason for it to be there, so why would any intelligent designer keep it there? It has been known to cause extreme pain, and it is sometimes necessary to surgically remove it. Its presence is not only an inefficiency, but a danger, as well.

For these reasons, intelligent design should be kept out of any scientific curriculum. It is grossly unscientific in every conceivable way, and you will never find any mention of its validity in any scientific journal. Teaching it as valid science is fraudulent and can only hurt the basic scientific education that students receive in high school. It would tell students that intelligent design is an accepted theory when it is nowhere near such a status.

Please vote against adding intelligent design to Ohio's scientific curriculum. It has no place there.

When sending them E-mail, be sure to include your name, address, phone number and other relevant contact information.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-15 07:42pm

Did anyone else notice this little blurb?

Some say that Ohio supporters of the concept have aggressively pushed their case in Ohio because the state's conservative government makes it easier to sell the idea politically and not scientifically.

"This didn't just happen by random. The ID networks have been planning this strategy for some time," said Lawrence Krauss, a physicist from Case Western Reserve University. "They were looking for the right place and they found Ohio."

Good ole' Lawrence Krauss, writer of The Physics of Star Trek, appears to be against intelligent design theory.

corporial · Post by **corporial** » 2002-09-15 09:34pm

I sent the following.

Thank you for helping out. I hope that this whole "putting ID in schools" idea gets killed before it spreads further.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » 2002-09-16 07:54am

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_con ... Sept02.asp

Following up on this, I went and downloaded the draft curriculum standards (link above).

To be perfectly honest, they look pretty damn good. Here's a small sample (the numbering continues on from an earlier section).

Grade 10 Life Science Indicators - Evolution Theory wrote: 20. Recognize that a change in gene frequency (genetic composition) in apopulation over time is a foundation of biological evolution.
21. Explain that natural selection leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments. Explain how chance alone can result in the persistence of some inherited characteristics having a reproductive advantage or disadvantage for the organism. Recognize that when an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited characteristics may change.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-09-16 05:31pm

I received a reply back. Here it is, with my followup.

Damien- I appreciate your comments, but feel that the the discussion of Intelligent Design will add rather than distract from the scientific discussion of evolution. It is very unclear why some members of the scientific community appear to be so threatened by the mere discussion of the Theory of Intelligent Design.
We are threatened because intelligent design theory is not legitimate science. Presenting it as such will taint scientific education by telling students that any fallacious idea they happen to come up with is scientifically valid. Would you approve if completely incorrect ideas about your profession or area of study were taught as valid in classrooms?

The only way intelligent design should be in a science class is to demonstrate what science is not, and as an example of blatant pseudoscience. Teaching it as valid science is wholly unacceptable.

Mano Singham, a well respected educator, evolutionist, and member of the Ohio Science Advisory Team, has noted with respect to science, “We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence [“Teaching and Propaganda”, Physics Today, June 2000,vol. 53, pg. 54].
What evidence is he referring to? In the context of biological evolution, there are no alternate theories which are scientific. There are only alternate theories which are unsupported by evidence or experimentation, like creationism and intelligent design. Such ideas only serve to illustrate what science is not.

The belief in the theory of common descent from one cell, is the ruling paradigm within biology. It is therefore not surprising that its supporters don’t want students exposed to the theory’s weak spots, and conflicting interpretation of the data.
The conflicting interpretations usually come from creationist and intelligent design pseudoscientists. Intelligent design advocates interpret data differently because they interpret it unscientifically. They claim that human life is "too complex" to have emerged without intelligent intervention, even though biologists have traced the evolution of human organs from evolutionary ancestors.

A ruling paradigm in physics is the law of conservation of energy, yet no one is proposing that alternative to it be taught. No one is proposing alternatives to the special theory of relativity. No one is claiming phantom "weak spots" in either. Yet, evolution came to be accepted theory by the exact same process that special relativity did.

Scientific theories are not sacred dogmas, and to teach them as such is indoctrination, not education. Public schools have an obligation to present students with all of the facts, not just those favored by one side. Students need to learn about dissenting views in science. Dissenting opinions are a normal part of how science progresses, and an integral part of developing critical thinking required for productive members of society.
You're right; science is not dogma, but that does not give everyone a license to proclaim whatever idea they wish as legitimate science. When I took Modern Cosmology last year, the professor did not cover string theory because it was not experimentally verified. String theory makes predictions, explains the facts and answers a lot of questions, but the predictions it makes are untestable, because we lack the technology at this point. If string theory is not taught in advanced physics courses, why should intelligent design (which makes no predictions) be taught in basic courses?

Should history teachers be forced to teach that Nazi Germany lost World War II because it was God's will? Of course not, because the idea is redundant. The only way to quantify God's will would be to say what has already happened, and that is not predictive or useful.

Why shouldn’t Ohio adopt this more progressive approach ?
Because science is not politics. You cannot apply the standards of politics to science, because in science, not all ideas are given equal representation. If an idea does not fit the facts, is not supported by experiment or observation and makes no predictions, it is unscientific and scientifically invalid. Scientific standards for validity are ruthless; political ones are not.

Two recent surveys of Ohioans are quite supportive of this approach. In a Cleveland Plain Dealer poll (June 2002), only 8% of Ohioans favored an “evolution only” curriculum. Indeed, another 8% wanted “Intelligent Design” only . The vast majority (74%) wanted different sides of the story to be presented. In a Zogby International poll (May 2002), 65% of Ohioans agreed that “teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.”
That is unsurprising, since the public is composed mostly of scientific laymen. The polls do not change the fact that intelligent design is an unscientific idea.

Ohio residents have spoken in favor of a balanced curriculum for evolution. Ohio has the opportunity to lead the nation in enacting progressive, excellent science standards, encouraging critical thinking necessary to uncover new frontiers in science.
Ohio has the opportunity to defend the establishment clause and keep religion out of public schools. Teaching intelligent design as a valid alternative to the accepted evolutionary theory will give students a completely and irrevocably wrong idea of how science operates. The only application it has toward critical thinking is a giant target for students to spot flaws in.

So while we have different views on this issue, I respect yours, and appreciate the time you took to write to me, and other members of the board. Thank you for your comments; I know you are very passionate about your views. Respectfully Yours, Deborah Owens-Fink
I hope you will reevaluate your perspective on the subject.

I have to ask, what would it take for the board to not pass this proposal?

Notice her pad responses, failure to address anything I said directly and application of political ideologies to science. Who gives a shit what the Ohio voters want to be taught in science classrooms? They know nothing about science, so who are they to determine what should and should not be taught as science?

Whoever this Mano Singham guy is, he's obviously either full of shit or being quoted out of context. Currently, high school does teach science in a dogma-like fashion, but that doesn't mean that every bogus theory on the block should be entertained for serious discussion. I found it hard to believe that anyone reputable enough to get their stuff published in Physics Today would honestly hold such a ridiculous viewpoint.

I decided to do some digging on the Physics Today website. Guess what I found? Mano Singham is against the intelligent design theory.

http://www.aip.org/web2/aiphome/pt/vol- ... /p48b.html

To better understand it, compare the progress of science with that of biological evolution itself. Organisms evolve; new ones emerge from the old, which results in the impressive array of living systems around us that are, for the most part, wonderfully adapted to their present environments. Does this mean that the process of evolution was directed toward a goal? That the present living forms were preordained in the primeval soup? Of course not. The life forms that exist now just happen to be the ones that arose from a vast number of initial possibilities.

Isn't research wonderful? I stand by my argument that teaching intelligent design in school is tantamount to informing students that science considers "Because the Invisible Man said so" a valid conclusion for the mechanisms behind a process. It's horse shit. We've already identified natural selection as the mechanism behind evolution. Intelligent design is to creationism what Windows 3.1 was to DOS: the same thing in a clown suit.