'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 11/22/2002 | ALAN I. LESHNER

[ALS]

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

[ALS]

"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."

And what logic do you base this absurd assumption on?

[Jorge]

"Unless you are prepared to prove that all the quotes presented from evolutionists who admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record...are fraudulant..then you are in no position to deny them."

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!

Where is this "evidence"?

I'm still waiting to see it.

[ApesForEvolution]

Amen

[Derrald]

damn, ya got me there Jorge. I won't repeat the same worn-out arguments. I'll just say THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCELLENT ARGUMENT FOR ID without backing up my claim in the least. Sounds like fun! shall we continue our debate here on out, on your terms? Let me shorten the result for you:

Jorge: THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCELLENT ARGUMENT FOR ID

Reason: But it's been shown that there are indeed many transitional fossils

Jorge: THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCELLENT ARGUMENT FOR ID

Reason: And, the speed of light decaying is based on false studies

Jorge: THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN EXCELLENT ARGUMENT FOR ID

Reason: Good for you... I'm going to, uh, get my head out of the sand now...

[Aric2000]

Whatever you want to believe he/she/it is, is fine with me...

Just don't force your belief down my throat, easy stuff...

[VadeRetro]

If you think you can prove anything I posted is dishonest then give it your best shot. I bet you can't.

You posted exactly the Simpson quote dissected here and you're too dumb/dyslexic to understand the dishonesty?

Untangle this one for me, Sherlock! Aric chided you for citing George Gaylord Simpson in 1953 when so many important transitionals have been found post-1953. You waved this objection away by citing Nebraska Man, 1922. How honest was that?

Is this still over your head?

[ALS]

""Some seem to "get it" a little too late"

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."


Again, you are injecting your personal fears into a cartoon.
That's ok. People see different things in paintings. However, they don't usually blame the guy standing next to them for what they see.


getta grip, and see a priest for that hellfire fear thing you got going.

[gore3000]

There are MILLIONS MORE fossils now, and the transitionals, oh, my goodness, are THERE!!!

No they are not. The largest changes should show the greatest number of transitionals, but this is not the case. For example, the rise of mammals has practically no fossil evidence at all. Between the definite appearance of mammals after the end of dinosaurs the first bone which by any stretch of the imagination (or paleontological fraud) can be considered mammalian there are over 100 million years with no fossils. Oh and the single fossil is an upper head with the entire upper part consisting of a very involved paste up job. So your statement is absolutely false.

[ApesForEvolution]

You're a pretty sharp one rw...I admire your thoughts on this.

[Joe Republc]

"evolution is a theory, not a fact ....
So is Gravity, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Chaos, ...."


Gravity is a proven, tested, and falsiable scientific law.

Evolution as an explanation of the origin of species is not. It is theory with some big holes.

-- Joe

[goodseedhomeschool]

Do you teach world history? I ask that because some of the teens in a creation class I taught right before school began this year had a lively debate with their world history teacher (grade 10). The very first chapter in their textbook stated that "first (early) man was austrilapithicus) <I know I spelled that wrong. I had told them that they would get a hardy dose of evolution not only from their biology book but from other classes too. It really amazed them when they were aware going in at just how integrated evolution has become in all subjects at school.

[rwfromkansas]

At least one quote was old, old, old.

Are the others fairly recent (if so, they are pretty powerful)?

[plusone]

Here's something that I came across. Humans have 46 chromzones, but apes have 48. If we and the monkeys evolved from some distant, common ancestor, as evo's believe, then how many chromozones did it have?

[Derrald]

I'm using evolution. You said that the lizards would sprout wings to chase the butterflies. This shows you do not understand what evolution is. I, therefore, explained to you what evolution is. You were arguing against LSD-induced hallucinations of a beach bum, while believing that you were arguing against the idea of evolution. I was pointing you in this crazy place called "the right direction."

[ALS]

"Whatever you want to believe he/she/it is, is fine with me...

Just don't force your belief down my throat, easy stuff..."

Will you now join us in not having your belief forced down our throats?

[ApesForEvolution]

Nice dodge. /sarcasm

[goodseedhomeschool]

You know I take the Bible literaly and I am not ashamed of the Gospel.

[ApesForEvolution]

BTW, when will you stop shoving junk science down everyone else's throats?

[AntiGuv]

They have been tested mathematically. And ID won.

Would you care to elaborate on this statement. As I've stated above, the difference between scientific theory and mythological fantasy is that the former requires some level of empirical support. At best, it would appear that a mathematics model may challenge some trivial aspect of evolution; I fail to see how it would establish intelligent design as any sort of alternative.

Here, let me provide an analogy:

Histrionic personality disorder is a theory of psychological behavior. It is conceivable that one could devise a mathematics model which challenges the qualitative or quantitative consistency of traits generally thought to comprise histrionic personality disorder. If challenged comprehensively enough, this could cast into doubt the entire existence of histrionic personality disorder as a distinctive psychological profile.

This would not however establish possession by demonic spirits as the alternative 'theory' (though one may fantasize that as one's explanation..)