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
Quality of teaching style in no way guarantees quality of material. I have known some brilliant professors who can't for the life of them communicate their ideas. On the other hand, some very good speakers have nothing worth saying.
Ah, but the chance meeting of one who can do both can change your entire life!
Too bad they're as about as rare as real gold mine strikes.
He wasn't "comparing" you to Clinton. He merely used Clinton as an illustration. It may have been an unfortuneate choice for illustrating his point, as you have clearly drawn from it a conclusion that was not intended.
No one here on this thread wishes you ill, or wants to insult you, as far as I can tell .....
And all this time I thought that I was the only object of your cyber admiration. This is going to be a difficult adjustment for me ...
[Sound of one arm hugging.]
Your last sentence is unnecessary and maybe that's why your line of inquiry has me so confused about the point you're trying to make.
The scientific method uses data collection as one of its components. Maybe an example will help: You don't literally buy groceries by driving to the store, but grocery shopping requires driving to the store and said driving, as such, is a part of grocery shopping.
Data collection is a prerequisite for hypothesis testing. Theorizing (as used in science) generates testable hypotheses. Data collection, hypothesis testing and theorizing are all a part of the scientific method.
It would seem that you are particularly concerned about semantics, perhaps so much so that a simple procedure has become unecessarily complicated
I really don't know anything about Hovind or AiG and thus have no comment on them.
However, it does occur to me, especially with regard to spiritual matters, that I've heard stunning spiritual Truth from people who have no credentials at all. For instance, there was a little old lady in church who, speaking of Peter's attempt (and failure) to go out to Jesus who was walking on water said "sinking wasn't his job." To me, it was a profound explanation of faith.
And around here, on various threads, I've learned things from all kinds of people, including some with no established credentials. Likewise, I've hypothesized touching a number of subjects and had robust, wonderful conversations. Seems to me that drawing one’s own conclusions through learning, questioning, research and hypothesizing is a good thing per se.
I apologise for bringing Clinton into the thread. I did not intend to compare you to him. I did state in a number of posts that the public face of someone has nothing to do with the correctness of their ideas, and I stand by that.
I really don't know if Hovind is the most pleasant person in the world, or whether he spends countless hours in charity work. We have been trying to discuss his ideas, not his personality.
I am just a little offended that you choose to ignore the substance of posts and try to make me look like a bad person for pointing that out. that is called passive agression, and it isn't nice at all.
Further, for the record, I'd like to repost what followed my unfortunate colorful remark:
The argument is over how Hovind could have a Ph.D. from an institution that doesn't offer one, and whether the things Hovind says make sense. I haven't seen any evidence for either proposition. We have, however, been threatened with exposure of the lurid past of the people sponsoring AIG. Isn't this the same [kind of] argument?
You have no position on Hovind, but some here have been defending him. I think his defenders should concentrate on defending his ideas.
Now concerning spirituality, if one's spiritual ideas include assertions of fact that are contrary to what others believe to be verifiable facts, then the discussion can concentrate on discrepancies of fact.
Because prejudice clouds discussion, I do not quote Intelligent Design fellows in presenting my views. Instead, I quote scientists offered by the evolutionists.
The material is just as good from either side, but my views will not get a fair hearing if the conversation is distracted.
For the same reason that Darwin's theory is unaffected by the insinuation that he was a Marxist, racist, baby-killing kitten-eater, Hovind's ideas are likewise unaffected by the fact that some believe him to be a beloved, benevolent saint.
While generally thought of as limited to negative attacks, can't both technically be considered an ad hominem fallacy?
That is my point. I was simply making that clarification to your comment in post #158:
Scientists, in the meantime, will be content with gathering data using the scientific method.
Perhaps the term for that would be Argumentum pro hominem?
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.