'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

Well who's that a writing? John The Revelator
Who's that a writing? John The Revelator
Who's that a writing? John The Revelator
A book of the seven seals.

-Blind Willie Johnson

Exerpted from: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelations

"The Revelation of St. John the Divine, popularly known as the Book of Revelation or The Apocalypse (apocalypse is from the Greek for "revelation"), is the final book and the only prophetical book of the New Testament in the Bible.

It contains an account of the author, named John in the text, who saw a vision describing future events at the end of the world--involving the final rebellion by Satan at Armageddon, God's final defeat of Satan, and the restoration of peace to the world.

It is definitely one of the most controversial, and hardest to understand, books of the Bible, with many ranging interpretations of the meanings of the various names and events in the account. The identity of the author John is not completely clear. A traditional view is that the author of this book was John the Apostle, but other scholars doubt that. The traditional Christian view is that this John was the same as the author of the Gospel of John and 1, 2, and 3 John. In the fourth century, St. John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against including this book in the New Testament canon, chiefly because of the difficulties of interpreting it and the danger for abuse. Christians in Syria also rejected it for a time because of the Montanists' heavy reliance on it. In the end, it was included, although it remains the only book of the New Testament that is not read publicly in Eastern Orthodox Church.

Traditionally the date of the writing of this book has generally been fixed at A.D. 96, in the reign of Domitian. Others contend for an earlier date, A.D. 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero. Those who are in favour of the later date appeal to the testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus, who received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that the Apocalypse "was seen no long time ago." Other evidence for the later date is internal: the book alludes to significant persecution, affecting the Christians of Asia Minor. This is a better historical fit for Domitian's reign than Nero's; Nero's persecution was mostly confined to the territories around Rome, while Domitian's persecution was indeed vigorously carried out in Asia Minor.

Major Schools of Interpretation There are three main schools of thought in how the symbolism, imagery, and contents of the Book of Revelation should be interpreted.

The Biblical prophecy school of thought holds that the contents of Revelation, especially when interpreted in conjunction with the Book of Daniel and other eschatological sections of the Bible, constitute a prophecy of the end times. This school can be further subdivided into the preterite view, which sees the book concerned with 1st century events, the futurist view, which applies all the events in the book into the end times; and the historicist view, which regards the book as spanning history from the first century through the second coming.

The historical-critical approach, which became dominant among critical scholars of religion since the end of the 18th century, attempts to understand Revelation within the genre of apocalyptic literature, which was popular in both Jewish and Christian tradition since the Babylonian diaspora, following the pattern of the Book of Daniel. There is futher information on these topics in the entries on higher criticism and apocalyptic literature.

Recently, aesthetic and literary modes of interpretation focus on Revelation as a work of art and imagination, viewing the imagery as symbolic depictions of timeless truths and the victory of good over evil. These schools of thought are not mutually exclusive, and many Christians adopt a combination of these approaches in a manner they find most meaningful. However, certain tendencies may be observed. The biblical prophecy school of thought is popular today among many American Protestant fundamentalists (nearly exclusively so) and among evangelicals, who also find value in the other approaches. Members of more mainline and liberal churches, on the other hand, tend to prefer the historical-critical and aesthetic approaches. Moreover, Catholic and Orthodox churches have delimited their own specific positions on Revelation "

EvoEvolution

Lying w/o shame !

ABIOGENESIS

That slow process by which living organisms were spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This scientific fact should not be confused with the old discredited myth of spontaneous generation by which it was once foolishly believed that living organisms arose from non-living matter. (see Law of Biogenesis).

A.C.L.U.

An organization that zealously protects our American civil liberties by preventing students in public schools from considering scientific evidence that is either consistent with creation or critical of evolution.

BIG BANG

The mechanism, or at least the noise, by which all matter and energy came into existence billions of years ago.

BIOLOGY

The branch of the exact sciences which is exclusively concerned with the evolution of living organisms by means of random mutations and natural selection.

DROSOPHILA

The "guinea pig" of the evolutionist to which we all owe a debt of gratitude for our understanding of the role of mutations in evolution. Trillions of generations of these rapidly breeding little flies have had their wings crumpled and their eyes damaged by strong mutagenic agents to provide us with a genetic insight into how man evolved from the prehominid brutes in a few thousand generations.

EVOLUTION

A truly perfect scientific theory which explaims in detail how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly. The theory of evolutions is so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it. (see Law).

GEOLOGIC COLUMN

A precise hierarchy of fossilized animals and plants of known age found in successive layers of stratified rock with the simplest and oldest at the bottom and the most highly evolved, i.e., most recent, at the top. Uninterrupted columns of this type may be found in any book of geology, paleontology or evolution. Bits and pieces of the column may even be found in the stratified rocks of the earth, but since these layers are often out of correct order and very incomplete, one should study the geologic column in books, not nature.

HOPEFUL MONSTER THEORY

A concept first introduced out of necessity by the geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, which states that evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monsters." After being widely discredited for many years this idea is being reintroduced, out of necessity, as a serious theory. The great leaps forward implicit in this theory entirely account for the absence of the "missing links." (See Punctuated Equilibrium)

INDEX FOSSILS

Fossils of animals whose ages are precisely known from the age of the rocks in which they are found, thus, serving as a means for accurately dating the rocks in which they are found as well as the age of any other fossils that may be contained therein.

LAW

In science, a statement of fact about a sequence or phenomenon that has been invariably observed to occur under known conditions such as, for example, the theory of evolution. (see Evolution).

LAW OF BIOGENESIS

Simply states the obvious...that all life comes from pre-existing life. This law, which was confirmed by Redi and Pasteur, permanently laid to rest the ludicrous idea of the ignorant ancients that living organisms could spring from inanimate matter. It should be emphasized that this law in no way precludes the slow origin of living organisms from inanimate matter through the process of evolution - after all, we are here, aren't we? (see Abiogenesis).

LIFE

The only term in this dictionary that defies definition since it has been said that "the division of matter into living and nonliving is perhaps an arbitrary one. It is a convenient method for distinguishing, for instance, a man from a rock." (quoted verbatim from The Origins of Life, by Cyril Ponnamperuma, 1962, H. P. Dutton, New York, p. 36).

MICROSPHERES

Primitive cells which have been artificially synthesized from simple laboratory reagents. As the name implies, the principal similarity between microspheres and living cells is that both are small and sort of round.

MISSING LINKS

An inconceivably vast assemblage of plants and animals which are intermediate in their evolutionary development between all of the discrete kinds of plants and animals one sees either alive or in the fossil record. Unfortunately as the name implies they are missing.

MUTATIONS

A change in the genetic material (DNA) of the cell induced by hazardous chemicals or radiation which in addition to killing or maiming organisms will, given enough time and enough mutations, inexorably lead some organisms on to an ever more successful and adaptive life.

NATURAL SELECTION

That miraculous process by which incredibly complex and useful structures, such as the eye or brain, are culled out from a vast array of random and purposeless mutations. In the distant past this marvelous natural artificer has produced the whole scope of existence from molecules to man but today it appears to be limiting its activities to such mundane matters as controlling the relative numbers of white and black moths in England.

NEO-DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

An embellishment of the old Darwinian theory of evolution, it states that random changes (mutations) in the genome of an organism will be selected for, and thus contribute to the evolution of the new species, only if they ultimately lead to a greater number of offspring. Thus, an ever-increasing rate of reproduction entirely accounts for the evolution from bacteria to man.

ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY

A law first discovered by Ernst Haeckel which if pronounced correctly and with conviction, impresses laymen and students of science in the elementary grades. Simply stated, and thus less convincingly, it means that the embryos of all animals bother to provide a historical review of many stages of their evolution during their embryological development. Although this type of reminiscing is touching and is taught in almost every general science and biology text book, it is no longer accepted by scientists or even evolutionists.

PHYLOGENETIC TREE

A tree that grows mainly in textbooks of biology and which has a variety of both contemporary and fossil animals perched on the tips of its branches. This tree clearly shows how all of these animals branched off from common ancestors a long time ago. For some reason the common ancestors are never shown sitting in the crotches of the tree. Plants presumably grow on different trees which are rather rare.

PILTDOWN MAN

Once known by all true scholars of human evolution to be an ancient ancestor of man. This true "ape man" had the jaw of a modern ape and the skull of a modern man. Today this ape-man is not so well known among true scholars of evolution.

PRIMITIVE

Old, inferior, poorly adapted, less evolved, shoddy, bungling.

PROOF

The assimilation of data in such a way that the desired conclusion seems to be the most plausible hypothesis.

PROTOZOA

As the name implies, these are known to be the first true animals on earth. If these primitive organisms had continued to adapt to their changing environment they might still be with us today.

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

An ad hoc hypothesis or alibi that claims the reason there are no known transitional forms in the fossil record is because evolutionary changes occur so quickly and the reason we can't see evolutionary changes in the laboratory is because they occur so slowly. (see Hopeful Monster Theory).

RADIOCARBON DATING

A remarkably precise method of actually measuring the age of any carbon-containing sample. Except for certain spurious (young) dates, radiocarbon, like other methods involving the decay of radionuclides will, given several absolutely safe assumptions, invariably indicate a ripe old age for any specimen consistent with a slow process of evolution.

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

One of the most fundamental laws of science which essentially states that nothing can increase in order, complexity, or information but rather everything form the universe to the one-horse shay will in time fall apart (not assemble). We may be sure, however, that the mind-boggling increase in order, complexity and information accomplished by the evolution of chemicals to man in no way violates this law or it wouldn't have happened.

SELECTIVE PRESSURE

That natural and highly selective pressure that actually forces particularly useful structures such as brains, eyes, legs, wings and long necks on giraffes to evolve by random mutations. Unnecessary structures such as eyelids on your navel fail to evolve by chance because there is no selective pressure for this.

SPECULATION

The single most powerful tool in the hands of the evolutionists.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

The most important contribution of Darwin to biological thought which states that only those organisms which are fit survive, or in other words, survival is the result of being fit. By this kind of logic it can also be proven that loss of vision is a principal cause of blindness.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

The belief that the evolutionary account of origins (where everything ascends from a very imperfect state to a more nearly perfect state) and the Biblical account of origins (where everything descends from a perfect state to a very imperfect state) are both true.

TIME

That miracle ingredient which in sufficient quantity can give scientific credibility to any hypothesis no matter how improbable. It is a well- known axiom of science for example, that given enough time virtually anything is possible - indeed you might even say it has to happen.

TREE

That which only evolution can make. (see Phylogenetic Tree).

VESTIGIAL ORGANS

Organs or other body parts, left over from evolutionary ancestors, which are no longer used or needed by an organism that has become more highly evolved by abandoning organs and getting simpler. Seventy years ago man had nearly one hundred vestigial organs such as the parathyroid, tonsils, coccyx, etc., but today he has very few vestigial organs because a good use has been discovered for most of these organs.

XERDEMA PIGMENTOSA

A disease of man in which certain enzymes which normally repair mutations of DNA fail to do so resulting in malignant tumors of the skin which are often fatal. Since it is well known that mutations were essential for the evolution of man from primitive cells, we must assume that too much of even a good thing like mutations is bad for us.

390 posted on 06/11/2003 12:49 AM PDT by razorbak

So... by dealing with subjective "observations", as opposed to more concrete "facts", we are actually being more objective?

Yes, we are being as objective as human falability, and the inevitable limitations of our knowledge, allow. We are also pursuing the most effective method we know of discovering and correcting the errors that we make: the method of trial and error, continually testing both facts and theories, and holding them always open for possible abandonment or revision.

It took a long time, for instance, to count the number of human chromosomes. There was a count that was reported (and widely accepted) as "fact" for, I forget, over ten years I think, that was later found to be wrong. Scientists continued observing: looking at different cells types, looking during different points in the cell cycle, using many different techniques to fix the cells, and experimenting with different stains to make the chromosomes visible. In all there were God knows how many thousands or millions of individual observations along the way, each fallible and subjective, but eventually the result was a human chromosome number everyone is pretty sure is now correct. If at any point one of the chromosome counts had been treated as a final and "objective" fact, then an error would have been enshrined and insulated from correction. Even the current number of human chromosomes, as confident as scientists are that they have it right this time, is still ultimately subject to revision if someone call come up with observations that would call it into question.

But limiting our definition of reality to only what we can observe, measure, and quantify, could in effect cause us to overlook, or even to scoff at the idea of, whole other dimensions. Could it not?

If that's what science did. In fact it does just the opposite. The whole scientific approach, especially the tentative and revisable status of scientific knowledge, is predicted on the understanding that we can only observe a small part of reality, and that there are inumerable phenomena and data that are not only outside of our observational grasp at any one time, but that we are totatally unaware of. Scientists know that in the future there will inevitably be obeservations that are totally unexpected.

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.