Posted on 05/12/2005 5:17:22 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
May 12, 2005
Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933
Dear Dr. Abrams:
I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.
All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.
Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.
Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.
Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.
As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).
For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.
In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.
Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.
I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University
Source: Link
Ping
The first people of the earth had to endure winter for the entire twelve months of the year. Most of the land was covered by massive, moving layers of ice and deep snow. No trees or bushes, or flowers could survive in the harsh gripping cold. The lakes and rivers were frozen, so no water flowed. It was a land of endless cold. One day when the first people were out hunting they came upon a bear who had a sack around his neck. The hunters were very curious and asked the bear what was in the sack. The bear growled a reply that he had a sack filled with the abundance of summer's warmth and light. The hunters wanted the sack and offered to trade, but the bear would not part with his sack. The hunters begged the bear, but still he refused to give up his sack. When they saw that it was useless to argue any longer, they decided to return to their people and think of some plan to take away the coveted sack. The chief heard the entire story and called his people together to arrive at a plan of how to take the sack away from the reluctant bear. They decided to lure the bear to a great feast, fill him with food, and when he slept, steal the sack. A tempting feast of moose and caribou was prepared. The hunters searched for the bear and located him. They asked the bear to attend the feast in his honour and the bear readily accepted. The bear arrived in the evening, but did not have the sack around his neck. Although disappointed the people served the feast anyway. The bear ate his fill and fell asleep. The chief was frustrated and wanted the sack. He ordered four of the village's skilled hunters to follow the bear home and steal the sack by any means. The next morning the bear awoke and bid the chief and his people farewell. The four hunters followed closely behind the bear for about an hour when they came upon a large cave. Peering inside, they spotted the sack laying upon the cave floor with two black bears guarding it. The hunters were very courageous and they sprang into the cave to demand the sack. A fierce fight killed three of the hunters and mortally wounded the fourth, but before he died, he grabbed the sack and unleashed the abundance of warmth and light. Instantly, the air became warm and the sky filled with bright sunlight. The snow melted into rivers and lakes. The hills and valleys were covered with trees, flowers and bushes. Strange birds flew in great numbers and built nests and streams filled with fish. Every year since that time, Summer has come to the Dene.
Bless you, Prof. Skell. How very true.
No, we want to read about the Cree again!
The term "broken record" applies, a bit archaic, perhaps, but fitting to your absolutely brilliant commentary and reasoning.
Two replies, one likes my creation stories, the other doesn't. Sigh!
You wrote them? Truly looney. And as ever, CYTMN, absolutely brilliant.
"Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University"
Notice he is "emeritus", meaning retired. His "elightened" colleages would be attempting to hang him by what they would consider his "unevolved" testicles if he was still active in academia.
Notice also he is was a professor of Chemistry. The largest group of the scientifically trained that question Darwinisn tend to be those trained in the physical sciences.
I hope the NAS doesn't try to pull his membership.
Question: Do you agree that Professor Philip S. Skell is a scientist? A simple yes or no, please.
No, I didn't write them. I posted them. These were composed many years ago, and subsequently written down (as was the case with pretty much all creation stories).
As far as the "Truly looney" comment, that doesn't bother me.
But, riddle me this. If we now have to teach the full range of alternatives, don't you think the vast majority of time will be spent teaching stories such as these rather than the biblical version?
"Hey, I want this studied too! Its only fair to include all theories, you know..."
Cute but you miss the point. I don't believe that anyone is trying to force Biblical Creationism on school children in this Kansas case. That is a "straw-man" constructed by dogmatic evolutionists.
Cute but you miss the point. I don't believe that anyone is trying to force Biblical Creationism on school children in this Kansas case. That is a "straw-man" constructed by dogmatic evolutionists.
Sorry to disagree, but I think that is entirely the point. A number of their websites (try a Google search) clearly state that ID is a "camel's nose under the tent" and a "wedge" to get creationism into the curricula.
Historically it is systems of intellectual and economic tyranny and repression that prejudically limit consideration of alternatives. Such as the Holy Church that prosecuted Galileo. They demanded that people perceive the world in an artificial, proprietary way. The Sun revovled around the Earth. Didn't matter what reality was, or that people are individuals with G-d granted Liberty and Duty to see and act in the World as they can best muster -- the Prelates and Church refused to allow alternatives. For the good order of society, Church and the "glory" of god.
Today, for the good order of Educatuion, Culture and the glory of Science, the Prelates and Establishment of "Science" demand fealty to one way of interpreting reality -- designer-free evolution, G-d-less evolutionary mechanism.
Of course you turn consideration of reasoned and reasonable alternatives -- such as the obvious designed narure of Nature, and the consequent logical inference of a cunning, wise and masterful Designer -- into silliness, by raising a giant straw man, an platoon-full of straw men, you their Sergeant of silly-appearing creation stories.
Monty Pythonesque, sure -- but still an Inquisition.
Reality is snatching away the comfy chairs of the smug modern "scientists" who are more concerned with maintaining a proprietary belief system and comfortable establishment then they are fired in any deep love of exploration, curiousity or wonder about Creation and its magnificent and shrewd Design.
The creation stories are presented to make a point, of course.
Anyway, nice verbiage! We'll see you on the next thread. Way things have been going, that may not be long in coming!
Sort of like Cubism.
Since when do we have to teach all alternatives? We don't now. We don't even let the school districts decide. Judges pick 'em.
But don't you see? The fairy tale in Genesis is the true one ...
Hey ID people, where did the Intelligent Designer come from? Did it appear randomly?
"A number of their websites (try a Google search) clearly state that ID is a "camel's nose under the tent" and a "wedge" to get creationism into the curricula."
You statement is untrue. No true "ID" proponents have an agenda of getting "creationism" taught in the schools. Some "creationists" may be attempting to "ride the backs" of ID proponents to do the "camel's nose" trick. However, that does not make the proponents of ID guilty of a hidden agenda. I am a creationist, but I clearly distance myself from ID proponents. I strictly interpret scripture; a literalist unless the language is obvious metaphor etc. ID proponents do not. They have a more open view of scriptural interpretation.
I think that attempting to paint ID proponents as creationists is an unfair characterization. It insults both ID folks and creationists. The "creationist lite" monocker is an MSM/liberal strawman to descredit a middle of the road position (ID) by painting it as right wing.
BTW - The "camel's nose in the tent" argument has been used by the ACLU and their ilk for years to justify opposing harmless things. Are you in the same class as the ACLU in your reasoning?
Well-said!
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.