Monday, August 28, 2006
Ohio: So-Called Scientists
Will the Ohio state school board race between creationist Deborah Owens Fink and moderate Tom Sawyer really be fought over the issue of how we teach science in public schools?
We'll let you be the judge, but before you make up your mind, here's a piece of evidence to evaluate. It's an excerpt from a fundraising letter mailed out by Fink to her supporters:
Yes, that's right, the Ohio and National Academies of Science aren't made up of real scientists as you may have supposed but of "so-called" scientists. Certainly, these so-called scientists wouldn't be nearly as qualified as Fink to determine how DNA evolved.
RSR thinks the Bible is a great piece of literature, and many take solace from its words, but the people who wrote it didn't know how to make a microscope, a telescope, or a refrigerator. For those reasons -- though we know Fink may disagree -- it may be that the good book isn't the best guide to science we could put in our public school classrooms.
One last little point, as recent experience in Kansas demonstrates, creationists and intelligent design activists who blithely assume that public opinion surveys showing support for teaching creationism and intelligent design in public schools can be translated into election victories may end up disappointed. Just ask Connie Morris.
We'll let you be the judge, but before you make up your mind, here's a piece of evidence to evaluate. It's an excerpt from a fundraising letter mailed out by Fink to her supporters:
As many of you have heard or read, the liberal left have recruited someone to run against me in my State Board of Education race.
The usual trio is at work here: Patricia Princehouse, Lawrence Krauss, and Steve Rising.
For those of you that have followed the Ohio State School Board's decision over the last 6 years: to teach evolution fully- including all of the strengths of the theory- as well as discussion of the gaps, this trio has fought against this notion. While 82% of Ohioans wanted a more open discussion of evolution, other groups such as the Ohio and National Academy of Science have preferred instead to censor the issue. This group of so-called scientists do not want many of the problems of contemporary evolutionary thought analyzed. One must ask: What are they afraid of? (eg, no evidence for chemical origin; or explanation for how the information complexity in DNA originated or evolved)
Yes, that's right, the Ohio and National Academies of Science aren't made up of real scientists as you may have supposed but of "so-called" scientists. Certainly, these so-called scientists wouldn't be nearly as qualified as Fink to determine how DNA evolved.
RSR thinks the Bible is a great piece of literature, and many take solace from its words, but the people who wrote it didn't know how to make a microscope, a telescope, or a refrigerator. For those reasons -- though we know Fink may disagree -- it may be that the good book isn't the best guide to science we could put in our public school classrooms.
One last little point, as recent experience in Kansas demonstrates, creationists and intelligent design activists who blithely assume that public opinion surveys showing support for teaching creationism and intelligent design in public schools can be translated into election victories may end up disappointed. Just ask Connie Morris.
