Evolution wins out in Michigan science curriculum debate

mlive.com (Michigan News) ^ | 10 October 2006 | TIM MARTIN

[Ichneumon]

Science falsely so called.

Yes, that's exactly why "intelligent design" was excluded.

[Always Right]

Intelligent design should be discussed in school...just not in science class.

It already is by omission. By teaching something as known fact which includes substantial amount of speculation, you are teaching intelligent design is fiction. The problem with the way evolution is taught is a student does not know what is speculation and what has solid proof behind. The teaching of evolution is not honest.

[saganite]

Good!

[Lunatic Fringe]

I think the first thing they need to teach is the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory," a concept obviously lost on IDers.

[PatrickHenry]

Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. This is quoted from the Dover decision. Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.:

[After a page of references to expert testimony] It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.

[snip]

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

[Ichneumon]

Why should the ACLU want to prevent discussion of intelligent design?

They don't, they want to prevent religious indoctrination from being smuggled into classrooms in a Trojan horse labled "intelligent design". Read the transcripts of the Dover _Kitzmiller_ trial for more than ample evidence on that score.

Also see:

ARE THERE ANY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND CREATIONISM?

"Intelligent Design": Religion Masquerading as Science

The "New" Creationism

Intelligent Design: The New Stealth Creationism

The Bait and Switch of "Intelligent Design": Religion Masquerading as Science

Intentional Deception: Intelligent Design Creationism

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

Barbara Forrest's Expert Witness Report & Trial Transcripts, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District

The "Intelligent Design" book "Of Pandas and People" started out as a book on "creationism" (explicitly), then suddenly "morphed" into a book on "intelligent design" (via the authors swapping the labels, but NOT the text or even the definition of "creationism"-oops-we-meant-ID) when a court case struck down "scientific creationism" from the classroom:

In their unguarded moments, the leaders of the "ID" movement even admit it flat out:

And the "ID is not creationism" chants don't seem to be fooling anyone:

.

.

What liberty are they protecting?

Religious freedom. Public schools shouldn't be pushing any religion over the others.

The freedom from opposing ideas?

See above.

[ThinkPlease]

Great news! Thanks for the ping!

[balrog666]

I think the first thing they need to teach is the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory," a concept obviously lost on IDers.

You'd think that would be part of the basic introduction to science.

[scottdeus12]

ID just can't cut it

....not in Science class, anyway......

[taxesareforever]

I see no evidence that they are doing any such thing.

As living in a nutshell, see no evil, hear no evil.....

[newcthem]

Always thought it surprising that the "science" of evolution is the only scientific theory that has to be protected by law............

[Ichneumon]

What are the evolutionists afraid of?

Not a thing. What are the anti-evolution folks afraid of?

Oh yeah, the fact that evolution is just a theory

It's a scientific theory, not "just a theory" in the layman's sense of the phrase. It is a body of explanatory principles which are supported by the preponderance of evidence and which makes predictions which match observations and the results of all tests/experiments which can be conceived in order to validate or potentially falsify it.

In the case of evolutionary biology, it is supported by a vast mountain of overwhelming evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines. It has passed literally millions of validation tests and potential falsification tests.

Maybe that's "just a theory" in your shortsighted view, but it isn't in mine. That's a damned *fine* theory. There is more solid scientific support for evolution than there is for the notion that matter is made of atoms.

and that their true agenda will be exposed.

Yes, how dare we have an agenda of teaching students good science and preventing them from being fed false and misleading anti-science propaganda?

[Always Right]

They don't, they want to prevent religious indoctrination from being smuggled into classrooms in a Trojan horse labled "intelligent design".

Well there is extremism on both sides, but right now the extremism from the leftists are winning in the schools. A proper balance of teaching evolutionn without ruling out intelligent design can be achieved.

[Always Right]

Religious freedom. Public schools shouldn't be pushing any religion over the others.

But they are. The idea that evolution explains it all is a religion.

[orionblamblam]

OK. Then enlighten me: where is there evidence that *anybody* is tryign to prevent discussion of ID? Note: it is dishonest to suggest that keeping religion (i.e. ID) out of science class is preventing discussion, since you still ahve 23 hours in the day to discuss it.

I'll wait.

[PatrickHenry]

Always thought it surprising that the "science" of evolution is the only scientific theory that has to be protected by law............

You would see the identical situation if astrologers were ever crazy enough to demand that their "theory" should be included in a public school curriculum.

[orionblamblam]

> The idea that evolution explains it all is a religion.

Do you *honestly* believe that? Keep in mind: according to Christians... God is watching you. Consequently, it's in your interests to answer honestly. Do you *honestly* think that a recognition of cause and effect is "religion?"

[Ichneumon]

Always thought it surprising that the "science" of evolution is the only scientific theory that has to be protected by law............

What are you babbling about? It's not "protected by law", nor need it be.

It is, however, amusing that evolutionary biology is the only field of science where millions of uneducated yahoos feel that they're somehow qualified to declare it "not real science" or dictate how it should be properly taught (or that it should not be taught at all)...

You don't see endless waves of idiots trying to "debunk" or rejecting quantum physics or relativity or organic chemistry or celestial mechanics or... But boy howdy, *every* mouthbreather who has ever read a Jack Chick comic is now an "expurt" on evolution!

[Lunatic Fringe]

You would think so. But all I hear from IDers is how evolution is "only a theory". So is the Theory of Gravity (referred to by the common misnomer "The Law of Gravity").

[Buck W.]

"...support the teaching of evolution in science classes — but not intelligent design."

Evolution IS intelligent design.