'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms

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

[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

[anniegetyourgun]

Neither is macro evolution! But hey, takes faith to believe either one....

[ALS]

"It is very impolite to DEMAND someone’s religious conviction. That is a very private area and does not add to this conversation at all."

Under normal circumstances you may have a point. HOWEVER, your boy elroy takes great pride in using a OTHER PEOPLE'S religion to bash and poke fun. You should know that by now.
So I don't know what your motivation is to ignore that fact.

[ALS]

The only thing myopic here is your personal opinion.

[ALS]

"BTW, after looking back on my posts, I was the one that was rude. I should never have stepped into your conversation. Please accept my public apology."

accepted

[GatekeeperBookman]

Thanks for the link to your wonderful forum! Great news.

I must be the only idiot who sees no conflict between Biblical Creation & Science. He runs the 'house', physics are His rules ( all of what we construct as scientific knowledge is, I believe, based upon physics ), set at or before the last Big Bang & Evolution is His highest order of tool.

I got no problem-maybe many others do. I came to this through the normal science courses at college, coupled with my Protestant up-bringing.

Must there be conflict between what we observe ( science for us moderns ) & the historical documents of our understanding of theology ( the Bible/Torah )?

I think not-but then I may not think well enough!

[GatekeeperBookman]

The government schools teach dogma every day-political trash that stops all free thought-& moral thought by the way. They kill minds.

What you call 'peer review' is like running wine through a sewer before bottling.

I say shut down the STATE run schools-give me a voucher for the money spent per child in my district & let's return to a free society. End mind control by socialists, communists, perverts & fools. Let me spend my own money & fire the government school-stop taxing me for these pits of stupidity.

The colleges of education are the dumbest place on any major campus-some small universities don't deserve the name university ( many colleges suddenly became a 'university' some 10-20 years ago in order to raise tuition ), so all departments are equally dumb.

Dr. Thomas Sowell said on live TV, "the education Department Building at Univ of Texas should be closed & the building dynamyted so it could not re-open". That is, of course, only the opinion of a Marine Corps pistol instructor. He just pretends to be an academician.

[GatekeeperBookman]

There is no magic-or Harry Potter would be non-fiction. Why must God provide us with docum,entation of His work? The transitional forms abound-we just lack the paper-work & detail. We also lack patience-put us back to 5,000 years before Christ & we would believe every animal a demi-god & every sight & sound to be a warning. Our own thinking has evolved-with some cathartic assistance about 2,000 years back.

Obviously, the laboratory of appropriate proportions to demonstrate Evolution is a bit large ( awaiting government funds & will likely be constructed in West Virginia )-but then what of the mutation of viral & bacterial organism, HUMMMM??? Must we find a billion of their fossilized & orderly mutated forms, all like ducks in a row to 'believe' they mutated or evolved??

[Binghamton_native]

Let's see. If I can count right, if apes have 48 chromosomes, and 2 of theirs linked together in humans, that would leave humans with 47 instead of 46. Did you mean to say that 3 of theirs linked together into one of ours?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Do you know of any specific scientific evidence that we were indeed intelligently designed?

Don't get me wrong, I think intelligent design is a fascinating hyposthesis, and it sounds more plausible than the idea that we evolved randomly, but I'm not sure that the inherent complexity of living things is enough to make intelligent design an actual theory.

[whattajoke]

Yeah... I just scanned through. Aside from Bellflower's "must be a parody cause no one is this ignorant" post #518, not much to see new here.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

By stating that, it is obvious that you are CLUELESS as to what the rules of science are.

OK, why not post the rules of science and then tell us how evolution fits those rules.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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

Specific examples, please...

[VadeRetro]

Specific examples, please...

At risk of being rude, allow me to jump in.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, seeing that you posted the rules and how evolution fits them in response to Racebannon, I say, never mind...

[Stultis]

Let's see. If I can count right, if apes have 48 chromosomes, and 2 of theirs linked together in humans, that would leave humans with 47 instead of 46.

The chromosomes come in pairs. 46 is the diploid or 2N number for humans (the number of chromosomes in somatic or body cells) and 23 is the haploid or 1N number (the number of chromosomes in eggs and sperm). The 2N number won't be odd. The fusion was of two of the 1N chromosomes. I posted on this chromosome fusion in the following messages from the "Evolution was, and is, a great notion" thread: #472, #479 and #532.

[CobaltBlue]

>>fragmented, discombobulated and ever changing<<

That the way science goes. I don't know any branch of science that you can't say that about.

[Steel Eye]

>>>Testing observations (and theories) against an objective reality provides a means of finding out errors and improving knoweldge.

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

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?

[Steel Eye]

>>> Welcome to the world of peer review.

Well I must say that I'm disappointed. I thought science was the place to go for cold, hard, clear facts. You are telling me that there are no "facts" and that all we have to work with are "observations" arrived at by consensus. It is no wonder so many seek reality, or truth, elsewhere.

[CobaltBlue]

I believe God created us, and I also believe that the way God created us can be learned through the fossil record, the study of genetics, and other types of physical science. All of which are also God's creations.

[js1138]

I seem to have lot an entire weekend reading THE BOOK. An interesting grading system for essays is revealed -- "A" for acceptable, "E" for exceeds expectations, and "T" for troll. This would save a lot of wear and tear on the server when responding the those who must not be named.