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'll forgive me if I say that smacks of avoiding the question. Certainly biologists deal with it every day. Certainly astronomers deal with it every day. Botanists, geologists, biochemists all work in fields where evolution and evolutionary processes play a significant role.
Certainly many scientists deal with evolutionary procedures as an integral part of their work. These are not dumb people, these are not sheep. And overwhelmingly, they accept evolution.
I'll ask again. Why do you think the scientific community has overwhelmingly accepted evolution?
What issue?
Thanks for your input! Its very helpful.
Nice try, newbie.
But I'm a well-established long-time FReeper who has been here 5½ years longer than you. I've posted a total of 6,532 threads and 28,332 replies (not counting the ones in the OLD database where JohnRob can't generate the stats.)
You're not gonna get very far trying to stick an ACLU label on my calloused Buchananite hide.
As I stated before, I simply believe that religious activities are best practiced in church or private schools. If you want to pursue religious beliefs in public schools, you're simply opening the door to allow gov't bureaucrats to dictate what you can teach. IMHO, you're infinitely much, much better off cutting the puppet strings rather than trying to fight them.
Anyone with integrity would have accepted the correction by now and moved on. After watching him for a couple of years, I can tell you it ain't gonna happen with tallhappy.
Three card monty sharks have nothing on these guys.
May you both never forget:
"Ok, so you proved it in a lab. Using what? An experiment? And who DESIGNED the experiment? A Designer!"
Seriously, of course, you have no response because you are talking to yourself. Why would you say "retroviral sequences" by which I doubt you understand what you even mean, are useless.
Are you interested in biology or in belittling those who do not share you religious beliefs?
What's more important to you.
As an unsolicited contribution was it peer reviewed?
Methinks you are unfamiliar with the actual theory of evolution. Among the practical applications have been the studies of diseases and how best to combat them. As for testing the elements of evolution, every time a genome is mapped, it reinforces the phylogenetic trees built by biologists and paleontologists over the past century and a half -- that's quite a test, if you ask me.
You know, if you read a few of the layman's-level science magazines on the market, you'd get a lot better founding in actual work in the field than you apparently possess. I wouldn't recommend the more technical and peer-reviewed journals, as they can be real snoozers if you're not passionate about the subjects covered.
Where exactly did I say "they are useless"?
And, if there is such a thing as pigs with wings,...
You then explained thusly: This deisgner seems to have an inordinate fondness for retroviral DNA and broken genes.
OK, you didn't use the phrase "useless".
Why is it "incompetent" to include "retroviral DNA".
A variation on: "You did it in a lab? Proves nothing about what happens in the wild. You found it in the wild? Proves nothing unless you can reproduce it in the lab."
Always remember: Nothing is evidence of evolution; and everything is evidence of creationism.
Maybe Mr. Grumpy missed his naptime.
You take the term peer reviewed and harp on it as if it is the issue. I didn't argue and accepted your technical semantic correction. I said fair enough.
The issue is broader. What is the broader issue?
This started from the comments about Behe as a scientist. He has credibility in the field.
I'm not particularly interested in intelligent design as you are, but as far as I know the argument between the religious evolutionists, such as yourself, and IDers such as Behe has to do with flaws or weaknesses in various subsets of evolutionary theory -- the accuracy of molecular clocks for example.
IDers seem to use sequence data that doesn't fit with what would be predicted based upon specific theories as their best arguments for ID.
He published that sort of article in TIBS. Of course I'm sure it didn't say anything about ID in that review.
The oddest thing of all is that creationists are never wrong about anything above the typographical error/spelling level in discussion with the heathen evo. Even when they would seem to be obviously wrong, they aren't. Kinda spooky, that one.
Per the article you posted, we're talking about Intelligent Design and Evolution here, not Creationism and Evolution. Your Red Herring is starting to smell.
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.