Posted on 08/16/2004 9:40:47 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Samuel Chen was a high school sophomore who believed in freedom of speech and the unfettered pursuit of knowledge. He thought his public high school did, too, but when it came to the subject of evolution -- well, now he's not so sure.
In October 2002, Chen began working to get Dr. Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, to give a lecture at Emmaus High School in Emmaus, Pennsylvania.
Chen, who was co-chair of a student group that tries to stress the importance of objectivity on controversial issues, knew that Behe would be perfect, since the group was examining evolution as a topic. The author of Darwin's Black Box, a critique of the foundational underpinnings of evolution, Behe had presented his work and debated the subject in universities in the U.S. and England.
Behe agreed to come in February 2004 and give an after-school lecture entitled, "Evolution: Truth or Myth?" As the school year drew to a close in 2003, Chen had all the preliminaries nailed down: he had secured Behe's commitment, received approval from school officials, and reserved the school auditorium.
Then he found out just how entrenched Darwinist orthodoxy was in the science department at Emmaus. By the following August, Chen had entered into a six-month battle to preserve the Behe lecture.
As the struggle unfolded, it became obvious that those who opposed Behe coming to Emmaus didn't seem to care about his credentials. In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, Darwin's Black Box was internationally reviewed in over 100 publications and named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.
Instead, it was Behe's rejection of Darwinism -- in favor of what is called "intelligent design" -- that drove opposition. According to the Discovery Institute, of which Behe is a fellow, this theory holds "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
The head of the science department, John Hnatow, sent a statement to every faculty member in the school stressing that Emmaus held to the official policy of the National Science Teachers Association. That policy states: "There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place."
It appeared there would be no debate at Emmaus, either. Some of the science teachers would not even allow Chen to address their classes and explain to students what Behe's lecture would be about.
Chen said various tactics were apparently used to undercut the event, including an attempt to cancel the lecture and fold the student organization without the knowledge of Chen and other members; requiring that the necessary funds for the lecture be raised much faster than for other student events; and moving the lecture from the auditorium to the school cafeteria.
One science teacher in particular, Carl Smartschan, seemed particularly riled about the upcoming lecture. Smartschan took it upon himself to talk to every teacher in the science department, insisting that intelligent design was "unscientific" and "scary stuff." He asked the principal to cancel the lecture, and then, when the principal refused, asked the faculty advisor for the student group to halt the lecture. Smartschan even approached Chen and demanded that the student organization pay to have an evolutionist come to lecture later in the year.
Smartschan's campaign to get the Behe lecture canceled was surprising to Chen because the event was scheduled after school, and not during class time, and was sponsored by a student group, not the school itself. Nevertheless, Chen persevered. The lecture was a success, attracting more than 500 people.
In the process, however, Chen's struggle took its toll. His health deteriorated over the course of the controversy, to the point where he collapsed three times in one month, including once at school. "My health has been totally junked," he told AFA Journal.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney and senior policy advisor for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, is advising Chen on his options for the coming year. Fahling said, "Schools are not allowed to interfere with viewpoints with which they disagree, and schools cannot disrupt the right of the students to participate in the academic and intellectual life."
Despite the hardship, Chen said he would do it all over again because the issue is so important. "I feel that there's a dictatorship on academic freedom in our public schools now," he said, adding, "I refer to evolution education as a tyranny .... You can't challenge it in our schools. Kids have been thrown out of class for challenging it."
That tyranny can be intimidating to students. "Some of the students who support me are afraid to speak out, especially because they saw how the science department reacted," Chen said. "They have a fear of speaking out against it in their classes."
On the other hand, he added that some students "are now questioning evolution, some for the first time."
That may be the first step in the overthrow of Darwin's dictatorship.
You're speaking for whom here?
You said that evolution cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. It can be and it has been.
Moot placemarker.
For an afterschool student discussion group?
What do you think you're going to need?
A 50K seat sports arena with a rock & roll soundstage and laser light-show equipment?
Sheesh. I'm unaware of any church that doesn't have some kind of classroom sized multi-purpose room that can accommodate 20~30 people or so. Overhead or slide/movie projectors are also readily available, or can easily be donated by members of the congregation. Optionally, such items can also be readily acquired if the group has a bake sale or car wash. Religious youth groups do it all the time. If you were ever affiliated with one, you wouldn't consider such minor inconveniences to be an insurmountable obstacle.
Did you even read the article? 500 people attended this lecture.
Sorta like quantum mechanics...
Dimensio, thanks for the explanation, you know the subject better than I. Yes I can imagine the religious groups throwing a hissy fit. But hey, as a religious man myself I have to admit, fair is fair.
Modernman, Dimensio's post adds much to my answer to your question.
Really? You can turn single-celled organisms into horses?
Sounds like enough to start their own private high-school.
Problem solved.
Most of them have little exposure to it, it isn't something they work with every day. They devote as little energy to thinking about it as the non-scientist. Since it happens to fit their worldview, they accept it.
Lectures
University of Hawaii
Honolulu, Hawaii, May 1996
for Hawaiian Humanist Association "The Religion of Church and State" (3 Hours)
University of Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia, April 1995
"Church, State, and the Occult" (3-hour Lecture)
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California, March 1995
"Politics and Religion, the Two Hands" (3-hour Lecture)
University of California at Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California, March 1995
"Occult Theology - Modern Religion" (2-hour Lecture)
University of California at Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California, March 1994
"What the Church Did Not Tell You" (2-hour Lecture)
Ventura College
Ventura, California, March 1995
"The Story the Church Didn't Tell You!" (3-hour Lecture)
Jordan Maxwell continues as a preeminent researcher and independent scholar in the field of occult / religious philosophy. His interest in these subjects began as far back as 1959. He served for three and a half years as the Religion Editor of Truth Seeker Magazine, America's oldest Freethought Journal (since 1873). His work exploring the hidden foundations of Western religions and secret societies creates enthusiastic responses from audiences around the world.
Atomic theory and evolution are not on equal foundations. The practical applications of atomic theory are huge. A child can test elements of atomic theory.
As of yet, there are no corresponding practical applications of evolution, and no one can test elements of it.
I've always been curious about what evolution actually entails. Does your version of evolution include chemical evolution, or does it pick-up when creatures started crawling up onto land?
>The ID movement is significantly different than the Creationist movementOooh, good analogy! (placemarker)Absolutely, in the same sense the wooden horse was significantly different from the Greek warriors concealed inside it.
Congratulations, you have just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a tool for the ACLU and the People United for the Separation of Church and State.
Willie, there is no guarantee that those 500 people all share the same religious views. In fact there could have been quite a few evolutionists there looking forward to hearing Behe so they could better understand how to refute him. The school auditorium made for an ideal place for a diverse audience to hear a specific view, no matter how crackpot you may feel that view is.
Hmm, I just realized you could be a Slashdot-style troll. If so, touche', you got me. I certainly find it hard to believe that a real person would have these opinions.
Sure they can! If you see what looks like good design, that proves design. If you see what looks like lousy design or no design, that doesn't prove anything.
What could be more convincing?
Then there's
"The universe seems fine-tuned exactly to produce life AND THAT SHOWS DESIGN." / "Life in this universe would be impossible without intelligent intervention AND THUS DESIGN."
Really? You can turn single-celled organisms into horses?
Not what you posted. Spend more than 3 seconds considering what your posting, and you'll save both of us time.
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.