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
It would seem so -- but alas. Are you only dreaming? Are you under the influence of mind altering drugs? Are you insane? Have you misremembered a suggestion as an actual occurance you witnessed. All these are possible explanations for your "observation" that change it from "fact" to imagination.
You can say there is a line between "fact" and "theory" but it is going to be arbitrary. In reality, everything we believe is a theory. We self-assign more confidence to some theories than others.
Saying that we had clotting blood from the beginning, that it did not evolve is NOT an argument for evolution.
Well, George Gaylord Simpson really was a big name in 1953. (But who knows if he meant what he's portrayed as meaning, given the lack of integrity in Creationist Quote Science? OK, we do know specifically about that one!
(Follow the preceding link and look how honest your quote wasn't, Jorge!)
And the Nebraska Man misinterpretation really was a big story of 1922...
And the Leakey's started finding Rift Valley hominids in the 1960s, the walking/amphibious whales started turning up in the 1980s, the Chinese feathered dinosaur finds were in the 1990s, the legged sirenian was just a few years ago ...
anywho, as it goes, the ones with longer tongues were more able to catch the faster butterflies. those faster butterflies were healthier for those lizards. therefore, the ones with longer tongues were more fit to survive than the shorter-tongued ones whenever food later became scarce. so, lizards, over time, developed long tongues. But, logic isn't needed... right? We are supposed to believe that evolution means "Things sprout stuff at random because they want to!"
If you wish to argue against logic, please understand the logic with which you are arguing, instead of making an erroneous assumption
Yes, I am prepared to assert that such quotes are false. I have provided the evidence; feel free to review it at your leisure. Cheers!
HOGWASH. What a bunch of self-serving doublespeak. It's AT LEAST *AS* based on science as evolution is. Just because it doesn't pass the 'scientific' media INQUISITION'S REVIEW BOARD is not the most impressive 'scientific' support for your position.
And no way of scientifically testing the validity of the ideas????
HOGWASH. The results embarrassingly-to-your-position don't pass your DOCTRINE OF FAITH IN EVOLUTION test so you define them off the discussion table. Slick trick.
They have been tested mathematically. And ID won. So you stretch definitions and truth all way out of whack bending over so far backwards you do a sequence of backward summersaults--to avoid admitting a shred of truth that ID won.
As best as I can recall, there have been other successful 'tests' against 'scientific' measures at least AS SCIENTIFIC AS THE HOGWASH YOU CALL EVOLUTION--and ID WON. But, hey--it's your religion--have at it. Just let go your death grip on the classrooms of the nation with respect to refusing all sides to be represented.
The quality of U.S. science education is at stake here.
HOGWASH. As one of the Huxley's was honest enough to note 'We killed God off so we could screw like bunnies.' Evolution is merely a brick in the wall--walling you off from anyone or anything that would hinder your doing exactly what you want, wherever with whomever.
You trashed the quality of U.S. science education long ago by your political winnings in the public arena blocking any competing theories as unscientific--i.e. THEY DIDN'T PASS YOUR DOCTRINES OF FAITH.
And you expect the masses and students to be too stupid to sort such things out.
Many ARE TOO LAZY to bother. But too stupid they are not.
Not everyone is as thick-headed as the people in some mirrors.
"Twist and Shout" isn't just good creationist argument; it's part of the "Real Science."
Your wrong. I don't.
re-iteration: no one listens to a drone.
Well then...I suggest you don't waste your time repeating the same old worn-out arguments.
Here's what I said about that:
Science, as a trade, uses a method designed (as best we mortals can)
I paid appropriate homage to the human condition as it limits the pursuit of science. You're mis-characterising my statements, not unlike a Maureen Dowd effort. Think carefully before you pop off.
This quote, combined with an image of an atheist being pointed at and surprised by God, is intended to invoke images of wrath and hell. If it isn't, then the English language has no meaning. If your argument is based on the English language having no meaning then dog fire train assimilate callipygous, my friend.
But does light still go the "defined" speed of light?
And I'd like your perspective on the redshift discussion on the "Is the speed of light slowing down?" thread.
If you think you can prove anything I posted is dishonest then give it your best shot. I bet you can't.
But don't hand out reading assignments and expect me to do your homework for you in order prove your point.
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.