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
No, I'm not. The assessment of Hovind's "thesis" is quite clear and stands on its own merits, regardless of who wrote it. Anyone can check the facts and anyone who wants to defend Hovind can get a copy of the thesis and dispute the facts. Perhaps you don't have the time or funds to do it, but there a lot of organizations who would do it if there were anything to be gained.
the other source of information on Hovind's credibility and character is AIG. Their presentation is also clear and to the point. Unless you have facts to prove them liars, I suggest you read what they have to say.
As you might have noticed, I have little patience with people who misquote and misrepresent other people's work. Prove to me that AIG is distorting the truth or lying, and I will gladly apologise. Prove to me that the analysis of Hovind's thesis is factually untrue and I will apologise.
Not only will I apologise, but I will attempt to get these people to correct themselves, and I will point them out as unreliable in future threads.
These genetic bits of information are turned off until they are triggered by the enviroment i.e. vacations, shoveling tent posts on the ranch without gloves...
In the absense of disrupters you have come up with an actual claim that can be debated. I assume that this is a subset of the argument that all observed variation is built in to the gene pool and no new genes occur. I do not have the expertise to debate this in detail, so I invite others to join in.
A few questions, though. Are you saying that the variations that occur in a bacteria colony started from a single cell are not really changes in the genes? Are you saying that mutations never occur? What about children born with chromosome counts that differ from their parents?
Gathering data is a process within the method and the method has an intended completion period. You do not gather data using the method, but within the method.
Macro Evolution theories have not completed the method, they are within the method. It is a theory with data holes and differences in hypothesis, all in process. While many may accept one or more hypothesis as a working theory it has not completed the method and other theories should be embraced as part of the whole discovery process.
scientific method: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws
How about a more honest one: Acceptance of the mountains of evidence from many different disciplines supporting the best model we have to date called the theory of evolution.
So if I understand you correctly...
You feel all of the genes which give rise to diversity within the species were all present from the very beginning. Just that some populations have an overrepresantation of certain of these genes.
You agree the basis for diversity is at the level of the gene?
Come on, Patriot university is an up and coming instituition of higher learning. I hear they are expanding by adding another bathroom to the split level.
Yet, I would hate the idea of having to constantly revise my dissertation...I guess technically that means you can never graduate.
Shock (( soon )) -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... awe --- you haven't seen anything - yet !
These aren't heritable changes. Not only that but these biological responses do not involve any actual rearrangement of your DNA.
Evolution deals with adaptation via heritable genetic material.
b-b-b-baby you just ain't seen nothin' yet!
Good song.
Should I apply as a prof there? hehe!
I say any love is good love,
So I took what I could get!
When she looked at me with those big brown eyes
And said, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Lose half your brains and all of your ethics and you'll be qualified....
You insult me sir! only half my brain? Sheesh 90% is what I was thinking.
It is obvious the school system never taught you what a theory is. That is the whole problem. Light waves are "only theory" but the theory is sound for use in prediction and control. So for Evolution and not for ID.
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.