Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
In Cobb County, Ga., controversy erupted this spring when school board officials decided to affix "disclaimer stickers" to science textbooks, alerting students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."
The stickers were the Cobb County District School Board's response to intelligent design theory, which holds that the complexity of DNA and the diversity of life forms on our planet and beyond can be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent. The ID movement -- reminiscent of creationism but more nuanced and harder to label -- has been quietly gaining momentum in a number of states for several years, especially Georgia and Ohio.
Stickers on textbooks are only the latest evidence of the ID movement's successes to date, though Cobb County officials did soften their position somewhat in September following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. In a subsequent policy statement, officials said the biological theory of evolution is a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other, religious teachings.
Surely, few would begrudge ID advocates their views or the right to discuss the concept as part of religious studies. At issue, rather, is whether ID theory, so far unproven by scientific facts, should be served to students on the same platter with the well-supported theory of evolution.
How the Cobb County episode will affect science students remains uncertain since, as the National Center for Science Education noted, the amended policy statement included "mixed signals."
But it's clear that the ID movement is quickly emerging as one of the more significant threats to U.S. science education, fueled by a sophisticated marketing campaign based on a three-pronged penetration of the scientific community, educators and the general public.
In Ohio, the state's education board on Oct. 14 passed a unanimous though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But the board's ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
Undaunted by tens of thousands of e-mails it has already received on the topic, the state's education board is now gamely inviting further public comment through November. In December, Ohio's Board of Education will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels.
Meanwhile, ID theorists reportedly have been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey and other states as well as Ohio and Georgia.
What do scientists think of all this? We have great problems with the claim that ID is a scientific theory or a science-based alternative to evolutionary theory. We don't question its religious or philosophical underpinnings. That's not our business. But there is no scientific evidence underlying ID theory.
No relevant research has been done; no papers have been published in scientific journals. Because it has no science base, we believe that ID theory should be excluded from science curricula in schools.
In fact, the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest general scientific society in the world, passed a resolution this month urging policy-makers to keep intelligent design theory out of U.S. science classrooms.
Noting that the United States has promised to "leave no child behind," the AAAS Board found that intelligent design theory -- if presented within science courses as factually based -- is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and undermine the integrity of U.S. science education. At a time when standards-based learning and performance assessments are paramount, children would be better served by keeping scientific information separate from religious concepts.
Certainly, American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints and the scientific community is no exception. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, science and conceptual belief systems should not be co-mingled, as ID proponents have repeatedly proposed.
The ID argument that random mutations in nature and natural selection, for example, are too complex for scientific explanation is an interesting -- and for some, highly compelling -- philosophical or theological concept. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution, and it isn't based on science. In sum, there's no data to back it up, and no way of scientifically testing the validity of the ideas proposed by ID advocates.
The quality of U.S. science education is at stake here. We live in an era when science and technology are central to every issue facing our society -- individual and national security, health care, economic prosperity, employment opportunities.
Children who lack an appropriate grounding in science and mathematics, and who can't discriminate what is and isn't evidence, are doomed to lag behind their well-educated counterparts. America's science classrooms are certainly no place to mix church and state.
Alan I. Leshner is CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science; www.aaas.org
Unfortunately, your tactic of distorting what someone says and trying to make a trap for them has failed. I do not fear hell, I only find it frustrating that when your creationist/intelligentdesign/whatevercodenameyoucameupwiththisweekforyourostrichheadapproach argument fails, you can only resort to "Fear the wrath of god and an eternity in hell!" while at the same time subscribing to the people who have always placed as the cornerstone of their arguments that evolutionists use intimidation.
sidebar: if one says 2+2 is 7, and a 4-year old says 2+2 is 4, doo-doo-head, one must not get into "He called me a name!" It doesn't make one any more right.
The biggest knowledge gap I've sensed on these threads is clearly that of philosophy of science. People who seem to properly understand the role of theories, facts, evidence, observations, etc. seem entirely to support the idea of evolution through natural selection.
They don't claim it's perfect or disproves the existence of God, just that it's the best explanation we've got going for the historical record of life.
On the other side there seems to be a lot of misuse of the ideas of theory vs. fact, a lot of almost post-modern sentiments like "well you have your theory and I have mine", and the occasional "you're going to hell!"
At issue is whether evolution is proven by scientific facts. In fact we can go even further and ask whether evolution is even a theory. No two people will state it the same way. If one goes to the craddle of evolutionist misinformation - TalkOrigins - one will see some 20 different statements of what evolution is.
Evolution is also just a theory. That being the case, it is appropriate that the school board wants children to understand that evolution is only a theory.
What "support"?
Yes I did. I found it to be an excellent argument for ID.
I'd charatibly hope you were kidding if I didn't know better.
"unproven by scientific facts" vs "well-supported theory of evolution."
HOGWASH.
CALLING A POLITICAL POWER BLOCK's winnings in the political and media arena
"well-supported theory"
has got to be a new winning grand example of Billdo-Slick-Zipper-and-Shrillery-Hellery-SPEAK.
You are merely one of plenty of priests in the religion of evolution. Pretending your religion is scientific is about as honest and honorable as pretending it's contentions are "proven" by the "evidence."
But hey, delusions are in vogue from Billdo and Shrillery's White House on down. Enjoy yours while you can--it's days are very numbered.
. . . every knee shall bow, every tongue confess . . .
THAT you can bank on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.