False Fear Epidemic over Critical Analysis of Evolution Spreads to Wisconsin

Discovery Institute ^ | 07 February 2006 | Casey Luskin (of the Disc. Inst.)

[PatrickHenry]

Breaking News [Thus begins the article]: False Fear Syndrome has skipped right over Michigan and spread directly from Ohio to Wisconsin. The primary symptom is the spreading of false fears about teaching intelligent design in states that are merely encouraging the critical analysis of evolution. The Syndrome is typically accompanied by paranoia among educators, politicians, and the newsmedia.

This epidemic broke out in full force in Kansas last November. More recently it appeared in Ohio and South Carolina. Sadly, today there is a confirmed case in Wisconsin.

A press release from Wisconsin Representative Terese Berceau indicates she has introduced a bill into the Wisconsin State Legislature seeking to "to stem the growing tide of intelligent design and other specious science." This is interesting because I've never seen legislation aimed at stopping "the tide" of a particular idea. Imagine if a politician issued a press release stating "I want to stop the growing tide of evolution." I'm sure something like this has happened--and I'm sure they got skewered for it.

In any case, Representative Berceau has been infected by the false fear that intelligent design is being pushed in her state. She writes in her press release:

"We have seen attempts to enshrine the teaching of intelligent design as science in Kansas and in Dover, Pennsylvania — even in Grantsburg, Wisconsin, in our own backyard." (Berceau Offers Legislation to Stop the Assault on Science in Wisconsin Schools, issued February 6, 2006)

The only problem is that intelligent design isn't being taught in Kansas (or anywhere else for that matter), nor is it being taught in Grantsburg, Wisconsin. As Discovery reported in 2004, the Grantsburg School District has a policy which states:

"Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design."

So there is no need for this bill. This is simply another instance of Darwinists attempting to oppose critical analysis of evolution by pretending that it is equivalent to teaching intelligent design. This is a political tactic based upon misinformation, misrepresentation, emotions, and false fears.

Here are 5 simple, non-complicated reasons why teaching critical analysis of evolution is not teaching ID:

1) They're Just Different: One can easily critique evolution without getting into "replacement theories," such as intelligent design. For example, consider the Ohio Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan which offers critiques of arguments for evolution from a number of angles including homology, antibiotic resistance, and endosymbiosis theory, all without making any discussion of intelligent design.

2) Explicit Statements of Intent: Some places which sanction critical analysis have explicit disclaimers which ensure that people understand that the critical analysis policy does not call for teaching ID. For example, Ohio's Science Standards, which require critical analysis, also state in 6 places, "The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." Similar disclaimers exists in Kansas and Grantsburg, WI.

3) Separate Legal Category: In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly distinguished between scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories, and teaching alternative viewpoints to evolution. This thus exists as a separate and already-protected legal category.

4) Many Critics of Darwin Don't Support ID: Critics of Neo-Darwinism such as structuralists or self-organization proponents have plenty of problems with Neo-Darwinism--and they explicitly disaffirm ID! If critical analysis = ID then these people apparently don't exist. Case-in-point: in South Carolina last month, structuralist Richard von Sternberg testified in favor of critical analysis of evolution. Yet Sternberg himself is not an ID-proponent.

5) Final Proof: The Pudding (the Darwinists' own behavior): Darwinist behavior confirms it: no lawsuit has ever been filed in a state or district which simply required teaching critical analysis of evolution. Yet it took the Darwinists less than 2 months to file a lawsuit to ban intelligent design from science classes in Dover, Pennsylvania.

[ovrtaxt]

Well, the good news is, nobody's getting violently purged these days, thanks to our Biblically inspired Constitution. Good thing the Founders didn't think we were all just biological accidents.

[peyton randolph]

Well, Lewontin did start up "science for the people" to combat "bourgeois science" - perhaps the Creationists could try to start it up again?

Expect to see the Discovery Institute's Five-Year Plan For People's Science Development.

[ovrtaxt]

Funny how you keep trying to tie the advocates of free thought to Communism. It's really pretty pathetic. You're starting to embarrass yourself now.

But I guess if you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. Maybe you're a little sensitive to the history of science curriculum in commie/ socialist history? Notice, if you will, how this debate doesn't exist in other than government school systems.

[wolfcreek]

IMO, It is a real mistake NOT to teach both of these subjects in school. Let the young humans decide for themselves what is relevant and what is not. Islamist brainwash their children into believing only the hardcore rhetoric of their religion. I don't want to see free thinking go by the wayside.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

I don't know, maybe some people are monkeys, some are mixed, and some are not.

My wife's family for example: see Uncle Al in the sleeveless T-shirt?

Ewww! Ouch, Owww! (Sounds of spousal abuse in background.)

[peyton randolph]

Funny how you keep trying to tie the advocates of free thought to Communism. It's really pretty pathetic. You're starting to embarrass yourself now.

What IS funny is how creationists will perjure themselves in court testifying that ID is not a means to backdoor their faith-based beliefs into the science classroom.

What is even FUNNIER is that once caught doing it, creationists go back to the drawing board and borrow terms from Marxists to advance their agenda.

I'm just waiting for creationists to steal from the Dimwit playbook and rename their efforts "Science for the Children." After all, if it is for the children, it can't be bad.

I'm a deist, not an athiest. However, I distinguish between faith-based belief and science. It is too bad that the bulk of the FR creationist posters won't do the same. Instead, lying and willful ignorance to advance an agenda seems to be the common theme to those defending the indefensible and cloaking themselves in God's name while doing it.

[peyton randolph]

It is a real mistake NOT to teach both of these subjects in school.

Although others might, I have no qualms with ID being taught in a religion or philosophy class. However, it is not a science and accordingly should be kept out of the science classroom. However, that would not satisfy the Discovery Institute gang.

[Thatcherite]

Critical analysis of evolution.

Such a document could be produced for pretty much any scientific theory. We don't know everything, and every scientific theory has doubtful areas. Evolution is amongst the strongest and best grounded in observation. If this document isn't just religiously inspired creationist rejection of evolution then I eagerly await the corresponding documents for all other fields of scientific endeavour. I won't be holding my breath though.

[ovrtaxt]

As far as I'm concerned, I want the government 100% out of education. They don't need to be determining what's accepted curriculum. They have a control freak agenda at their foundation, because it's in their interest to have a population of lemmings.

I didn't follow that recent court case, but the ID group's tactic of going to the government was ill advised, IMO. These are government schools. They are commie/socialist by their very nature. What outcome did they expect?

Nevertheless, your tactic of trying to paint the ID philosophy as Communist is ridiculous. Trying to work within an inherently communist system is just as ridiculous.

[Right Wing Professor]

P.S. "No God, no inalienable rights."

If they're inalienable, they don't depend on a religious belief, do they? Sheesh!

[Nathan Zachary]

It is indeed. Nothing exploded and evolved into everything. There's another one for you. Or how about this- the earth and moon are 4.5 billion years old. The moon is drifting away from the earth at a rate of just over 3cm a year.
This means that 1.5 billion years ago, the tides would have washed over the continent and tallest mountains every day, that's if you ignore the fact that the gravity of the earth would have pulled the moon apart at that distance. That also means that life had to have evolved within much less than a billion years, which presents a problem for a whole lot of evolution theory. You can have a laugh a day picking apart this religion.

[ovrtaxt]

The founders claimed that those rights directly descended from God. Apparently, they do depend on a religious belief. Sheesh!

[Thatcherite]

It is indeed. Nothing exploded and evolved into everything. There's another one for you. Or how about this- the earth and moon are 4.5 billion years old. The moon is drifting away from the earth at a rate of just over 3cm a year. This means that 1.5 billion years ago, the tides would have washed over the continent and tallest mountains every day, that's if you ignore the fact that the gravity of the earth would have pulled the moon apart at that distance. That also means that life had to have evolved within much less than a billion years, which presents a problem for a whole lot of evolution theory. You can have a laugh a day picking apart this religion.

Looking out of my window I can see that the sea level is around 1.5 metres lower than it was an hour ago. Extrapolating backwards I conclude that my house can only have existed in its current position for about a day, and indeed it is only around a year since the tops of the tallest mountains on earth must have been covered. You can have a laugh a day picking apart this religion (moronic rejection of evolution using arguments so stupid that a 5 year old could see the flaw in them). Hint: Try not to get your arguments from lie-sites like Dr Dino, even the arch-creationist website Answers in Genesis says that arguments like the one you have just cited are false.

[spunkets]

This woman is a commie bitch. Her legislation ain't going anywhere. It's political granstanding to promote her commie agenda. This has to do with ecoBS from the Sierra club, 1000 friends of the rainbow commies, planned parenthood, ect... The evolution angle is just a gimmic.

[Right Wing Professor]

The founders claimed that those rights directly descended from God.

From our creator, actually. What created us is unspecified.

[ovrtaxt]

You're really reaching...

[Virginia-American]

Love how opposition to the DI's evil, anti-American, anti-science agenda is a "syndrone".

They sure sound like D*m*cr*ts.

[spunkets]

"The expression "Critical Analysis of Evolution" certainly suggests Critical theory and Postmodernism."

Yes, it does.

[Right Wing Professor]

The moon is drifting away from the earth at a rate of just over 3cm a year.

And this rate has not changed in 4.5 billion years?