'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms

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

The Discovery Institute has produced a 150-page guide to the PBS series, titled "Getting the Facts Straight" and available via the Internet at the organization's www.discovery.org website.

The Discovery Institute, on its website, states, "Accuracy and objectivity are what we should expect in a television documentary--especially in a science documentary on a publicly funded network. But the PBS 'Evolution' series falls far short of meeting these basic standards. It distorts the scientific evidence, ignores scientific disagreements over Darwin's theory and misrepresents the theory's critics. The series also displays a sharply biased view of religion and seeks to influence the political debate over how evolution should be taught in schools. 'Evolution' presents itself as science journalism, but it is actually a work of one-sided advocacy."

The Discovery Institute also noted: "The [PBS] series is intended not only for broadcast on public television, but also for use in public schools. 'Evolution's biased content, however, makes it inappropriate for classroom use without supplementary materials." The organization stated that its "Getting the Facts Straight" viewer's guide "has been prepared to help teachers, parents, students and interested citizens ensure that discussions of evolution in the classroom fairly represent the evidence and the full range of scientific viewpoints about Darwin's controversial theory."

The viewer's guide also charges that the series seeks "to promote a controversial political agenda."

The "Getting the Facts Straight" guide cites an internal document prepared by the Evolution Project/WGBH Boston stating that one of the goals of the series is to "co-opt existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools," including carrying its pro-evolution stance to school boards and other government officials.

The Discovery Institute, meanwhile, released a poll by Zogby International reporting that 71 percent of Americans believe biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution along with evidence against the theory. The survey of 1,202 adults was conducted from Aug. 25-29.

Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, said, "The number of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics-- --including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Signers of the Discovery Institute statement questioning Darwinism represent such fields as biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology and anthropology from throughout the United States and from several other countries. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, University of Pennsylvania and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M., are among the signers. A number of them have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.

The two-sentence Discovery Institute statement, titled, "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," reads: "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Chemist and five-time Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia is quoted in the Discovery Institute news release as saying, "Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."

Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."

According to the Discovery Institute's website, "Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their 'personal faith stories' in the last program of the series, 'What About God?'" Discovery's president, Bruce Chapman, said, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. Some of these dissenting scientists are not even religious. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it."

The Discovery Institute viewer's guide notes that it evaluates each of the series' seven parts "from a historical and scientific perspective," pointing out "where the series presents inaccurate history or flawed reasoning" and "how the series takes issues that are vigorously debated within the scientific community and presents them as established facts." The guide also examines "the religious stereotyping engaged in by the [series'] producers."

The Zogby poll, released Sept. 24, shows overwhelming public support--81 percent -- for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent supported presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory. (Less than 10 percent said "Neither" or "Not sure.")

"Public television producers are clearly at odds with overwhelming public sentiment in favor of hearing all scientific sides of the debate," said the Discovery Institute's Chapman, a former director of the U.S. Census Bureau. "The huge majorities in the poll cross every demographic, regional and political line in America." The Zogby poll's margin of error is 3 percent.

While reporting that 71 percent of Americans say biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution along with scientific evidence against the theory, the Zogby poll tallied 15 percent who said biology teachers should only teach Darwin's theory of evolution and scientific evidence that supports it. Another 14 percent were not sure.

A strong majority--78 percent--also agreed that when Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life. Of those who agreed, 52 percent strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat agreed. In contrast, 13 percent disagreed with students learning about an intelligent design of life, and 9 percent were not sure.

A strong majority--69 percent- also disagreed that "The universe and life are the product of purely natural processes that are in no way influenced by God or any intelligent design," while 24 percent agreed with the statement and 7 percent were not sure.

Source

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.