Groups Balk at Teaching Intelligent Design

AP - Science ^ | 2005-10-29 | JOHN HANNA

[Junior]

TOPEKA, Kan. - Two national groups say the state can't use their copyrighted material in proposed science standards that critics contend promote creationism.

The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association called the proposed standards misleading and objected to language — sought by intelligent-design advocates — suggesting some evolutionary theory isn't solid.

"To say that evolution is sort of on the ropes is unfair to the students of Kansas," said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the teachers' association.

The State Board of Education is set to vote Nov. 8 on whether to adopt the new standards, which must be updated periodically under Kansas law. Current standards treat evolution as a well-established theory that is crucial to understanding science.

Six of the board's 10 members have shown support for the proposed standards, saying they want to give students a more balanced view of evolution.

The standards are used to develop student achievement tests but don't mandate how science is taught.

It was not immediately clear whether the 107-page proposed standards use direct language from any of the groups' copyrighted material. If the revised standards are adopted, state officials would have to review them for copyright violations.

Phillip Johnson, a retired law professor who sometimes is called the father of the intelligent-design movement, called the groups' decision, announced Wednesday, "panicky and hysterical."

"We're not out to damage science," he told a student group at Washburn University on Thursday. "We're out to make science more interesting. We think we're friends of science — true science."

Intelligent design says some natural features are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they're well-ordered and complex. Its advocates also attack evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes could have created the building blocks of life, that all life has a common origin and that apes and man have a common ancestor.

Detractors contend intelligent design is repackaged creationism, which the Supreme Court has banned from classrooms as promoting a narrow religious view.

 

[Junior]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. See what's new in The List-O-Links.

[SampleMan]

objected to language — sought by intelligent-design advocates — suggesting some evolutionary theory isn't solid.

When did any theory become solid? Let's say that I have a theory that the known universe is surrounded by a sphere of super dense matter. It is this matter and not a big bang that explains the expansion of the universe. In fact, it explains it better in some ways (why is the expansion accelerating). Is this a solid theory? Why not? Until they stop calling it a theory, they should at least allow that it isn't solid.

[Non-Sequitur]

The board announced earlier this week that they're going ahead with the new standards. Thank God my daughter is taking biology this year. Not much they can do to chemistry or zoology.

[Non-Sequitur]

Until they stop calling it a theory, they should at least allow that it isn't solid.

The process that explains how a 300 ton airliner can go hurtling though the air at 30,000 feet is called the theory of flight. How solid do you want that to be?

[muir_redwoods]

"When did any theory become solid? Let's say that I have a theory that the known universe is surrounded by a sphere of super dense matter. It is this matter and not a big bang that explains the expansion of the universe. In fact, it explains it better in some ways (why is the expansion accelerating). Is this a solid theory? Why not? Until they stop calling it a theory, they should at least allow that it isn't solid."

You might want to reacquiant yourself with the scientific definition of the word "theory". Remember, Newton's Laws of motion were corrected by Einstein's Theory of relativity. A Theory is a regimen based upon obsevation against which hypotheses can be tested and experiments performed. Gravity is a theory as is atomic energy, and even circuit design.

[Nooseman]

Do some theories have a stronger footing than others?

[Junior]

The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares"

• PatrickHenry's famous List-O-Links

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

1. 2005-10-29 Groups Balk at Teaching Intelligent Design
2. 2005-10-28 The Worst Jobs in Science No.3- Kansas Biology Teacher
3. 2005-10-28 Is US becoming hostile to science?
4. 2005-10-28 Buckingham seesaws on the stand [Dover trial 10/28/05]
5. 2005-10-27 How Miers and Dover Intersect: 'Science' determines 'Law'
6. 2005-10-27 Jumping wallaby genes and post-Flood speciation (Evidence supports Biblical model)
7. 2005-10-27 Generosity Is No Monkey Business, Study
8. 2005-10-27 Former school board member `misspoke' in advocating creationism
9. 2005-10-26 Poll – Americans See More Promise in Stem Cells Not Derived From Embryos
10. 2005-10-26 Discovery Institute and Thomas More Law Center Squabble in AEI Forum
11. 2005-10-25 Y Chromosomes Reveal Founding Father (Giocangga)
12. 2005-10-25 On Human Diversity: Why has the genetics community discarded so many phenotypes?
13. 2005-10-25 Witness: intelligent design needs boost [affirmative action for creationism]
14. 2005-10-25 Plants redesigned to live in outer space
15. 2005-10-24 "'Intelligent design' supporters gather (700 Scientists agree ID is ""step beyond Darwin"")"
16. 2005-10-24 The Spectre of Difference
17. 2005-10-24 Yawning
18. 2005-10-24 When a worldview competes with religion (Darwinsim is a 'secular religion')
19. 2005-10-24 Poll: Majority Reject Evolution
20. 2005-10-24 The Science Community's Myopia over Intelligent Design
21. 2005-10-24 How Tunas and Lamnid Sharks Swim: An Evolutionary Convergence
22. 2005-10-23 Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)
23. 2005-10-23 Efficient Human to Human Transmission Via H5N1 / H9N2 Recombination
24. 2005-10-23 Media stand on sidelines behind cloak of fairness-Far right politicians give Christians a bad name
25. 2005-10-23 Happy 6009th Birthday, All of Creation
26. 2005-10-23 The Greatest Beer Commercial Ever (HUMOR FOR THE CREVOS!)
27. 2005-10-23 Americans Review Evolution, Creationism

---

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of October:
 

2005-10-12 Alice au Wonderland 2003-10-09 antiRepublicrat 2004-10-10 Antonello 2004-10-13 Aussie Dasher 1998-10-18 AZLiberty 1999-10-14 blam 2000-10-19 cogitator 2001-10-21 Coyoteman 2004-10-26 curiosity 1998-10-29 Dataman 2000-10-29 dila813 2005-10-07 Dinobot 2004-10-13 DoctorRansom

2001-10-14 dread78645 2000-10-13 drlevy88 2005-10-14 EasyBOven 1998-10-03 Elsie 1998-10-17 f.Christian 2002-10-08 FairOpinion 2001-10-26 Genesis defender 2000-10-09 Gil4 2000-10-08 guitarist 2005-10-01 holeinchilada 2004-10-10 joeclarke 1998-10-03 js1138 2001-10-24 k2blader

2001-10-22 kanawa 2000-10-08 LibWhacker 2002-10-25 m1-lightning 2001-10-10 Michael_Michaelangelo 2001-10-09 Mother Abigail 2004-10-25 MRMEAN 2004-10-03 Nicholas Conradin 1999-10-28 PatrickHenry 1998-10-01 Physicist 2003-10-19 Pipeline 1998-10-25 plain talk 1998-10-12 Restorer 2005-10-04 ret_medic

2001-10-23 RightWingNilla 2005-10-28 scientificbeliever 2005-10-08 SmoothTalker 2004-10-09 snarks_when_bored 1998-10-04 Southack 2004-10-16 StoneGiant 2002-10-22 sumocide 2004-10-05 Termite_Commander 2004-10-21 WildHorseCrash 2001-10-23 yankeedame 2002-10-20 Z in Oregon 1998-10-29 zebra 2

---

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:

---

ALS Area Freeper Aric2000 Askel5 biblewonk bluepistolero churchillbuff ConservababeJen DittoJed2 dob Ed Current

f.Christian followerofchrist general_re goodseedhomeschool gopwinsin04 gore3000 Jedigirl JesseShurun Kevin Curry kharaku

Le-Roy Marathon medved metacognative Modernman NoKinToMonkeys Ogmios peg the prophet Phaedrus Phoroneus

pickemuphere ret_medic RickyJ SeaLion Selkie Shubi Tomax tpaine WaveThatFlag xm177e2

---

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!

Glossary of Terms

Crevo:  Creation vs. evolution
CrevoSci:  Creation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors:  Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Freepday:  The day a Freeper joined Free Republic

---

The
official beer
of Darwin Central

[Dustbunny]

Lets have a little 'tit for tat' on theory. After all, if you can't talk about creation as a fact, you should not be able to talk about evolution as a fact.

[muir_redwoods]

"Do some theories have a stronger footing than others?"

Some are older than others and have been subject to more lengthy or rigorous testing. Darwin's theory, used as one of the basic premises of Biology and Genetics is about 150 years old. Theories are never proven, they can only be either disproven or replaced by more elegant theories.

[js1138]

Evolution is a fact explained by a theory. Even the ID advocates admit evolution is a fact.

Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.

This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.

Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:

I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.

[Servant of the 9]

Why not be truthful and call it semi-inteligent design?

Cause any God responsible for it obviously had a 2 digit IQ.

So9

[silverleaf]

Two national groups say the state can't use their copyrighted material

OK. Somehow I think education can survive without the copyrighted material of these groups. Let's roll.

[Steamburg]

There's controversy in science?
There shall be no theory before mine!
What happened to the NEA whine about how we should teach critical thinking skills? Oh, that's right, we only teach those to cover up that we flunked history.

[SampleMan]

I'm really looking forward to the pummelling I'm about to get, but here goes.

Newton's observations on gravity and Einstein's "corrections" are good examples of my point on why theories shouldn't be treated as fact.

Newton theorized as to why some factual things occured (apples on heads, etc.). To this day, gravity cannot be explained, only its effects. Einstein sought to solve problems with where Newton's theories did not match actual results. (I would say therefore that Newton's theories were good, but not solid).

Now Einstein himself did not like "relativity" because it was a special case theory, which solved some problems, but only when selectively applied. He clearly stated that he thought the "Newtonian theory" and "relativity" would someday be replaced with an all incompassing explanation.

So applying the same logic to evolution, one could take the available facts (fossil records indicate that some animals have evolved over time) and propose a theory of natural selection. Where this theory presents problems, one could then entertain additional theories.

In other sciences, the lack of data is often treated as proof. Such as the lack of an observable mutation rate, which would explain rapid natural selection. e.g.(Giraffes evolved long necks to better survive, but a 1 mm longer neck on average doesn't give you an edge, so something radical must be introduced into gene pool. For this to happen, a positive mutation must occur, and be so pronounced as to have a long term effect. The assumption would also be that thousands of functional mutations (not just birth defects) would occur for each positive addition. So where is the evidence of long necked gophers and green lions?)

If someone dares to offer "other theories" to explain these changes, they are treated, as I am about to be. So much for open scientific thought.

[SeeSalt]

Is this a solid theory? Why not? Until they stop calling it a theory, they should at least allow that it isn't solid.

Bingo!

A theory is a theory, is...a theory. A theory is not a Law.

[muir_redwoods]

"Now Einstein himself did not like "relativity" because it was a special case theory, which solved some problems, but only when selectively applied. He clearly stated that he thought the "Newtonian theory" and "relativity" would someday be replaced with an all incompassing explanation.

Einstein published two theories, the first, the special theory of relativity and the second and more fully developed was the general theory of relativity. His notion of an all encompassing theory was the unified field theory which would unify gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These would not replace earlier theories so much as correct and refine them by showing how they were connected.

There is much to learn about evolution but scientific research is unlikely to replace it with a general observation that "G-d did it".

BTW, No pummelling allowed, Okay? :)

[SeeSalt]

"There is much to learn about evolution but scientific research is unlikely to replace it with a general observation that "G-d did it".

It is not a matter who did it but how did it? Evolutionism or intelligent design. Both are theories. Treat them as theories and expose them as well. None of them is Law.

[Thatcherite]

Do some theories have a stronger footing than others?

Yes, but not in the way that evolution-detractors would hope. Evolution is backed up by untold millions of data-points, and numerous sucessful predictions. It has been vindicated in many ways that Darwin could not have imagined. Every fossil that is dug up tests the theory. Every genome that is mapped tests the theory. Every discovery of a new species in the wild tests the theory. Darwin made many predictions about what would be found, and they have been vindicated. We never find a live species or fossil that doesn't fit into the nested hierarchy of attributes, and the same nested hierarchy can be seen in the DNA evidence. If God created "kinds" more or less in their current form, then He also made it look as if His mechanism was evolution, for inscrutable reasons.

[Right Wing Professor]

Phillip Johnson, a retired law professor who sometimes is called the father of the intelligent-design movement, called the groups' decision, announced Wednesday, "panicky and hysterical.""We're not out to damage science," he told a student group at Washburn University on Thursday. "We're out to make science more interesting. We think we're friends of science — true science."

The time to panic is when a hostile lawyer calls himself your 'friend'.