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.
Try to contain your prejudice. That is not what I said at all.
All the disciplines I listed have an underpinning of evolution. People who believe the world is 4000 years old don't make very good geologists or astronomers.
Last time I checked, the theory of evolution was fashioned to fit observations in geology and astronomy. Since observations in astronomy and geology can't very well be manipulated for the benifit of evolution. You are confusing the tail and the dog.
No reputable scientists truly believe in strict creationism as an explanation for the universe.
Why not? The universe is so vast it is impossible for me to comprehend even the size of my tiny little corner of it. It would be a boring and limited place indeed if my beliefs and observations formed closed circle with our puny amount of knowledge.
If Darwin weren't alreadly long dead, this would do it.
Bingo
Let's rephrase the question.
Why did the designer sprinkle a few piddly human genes in the middle of a sea of dead retrovirus?
It is unbecoming when you wear denial in public.
It seems to me that not having even a clue about our origins, then dismissing one explanation as "impossible" and another as "probable" without being able to prove or disprove either is defacto "lousy science".
If that's what you take out of the various mammalian genome projects you surely miss out.
Still, I understand what you are trying to say.
How would you do it if you were the designer? What are the design flaws in your make believe genome you describe?
When a supreme being is used as a reason for existence, it becomes religion, not science.
Id claims that it is scientific, yet claims that the designer did it, you cannot have it both ways.
Either it is science, and no designer or creator can be used as a reason for it, or it is religion and therefore the designer is a must in the explanation.
If it says designer/God/Supreme Being, it is NOT science, it is religion.
Pretty simple concept, don't you think?
The latest trolls coming off the DU cyberdine assembly line combine the hyper-aggressive obstinacy of G3K with the very latest lawyering and obfuscationatory tactics.
behold the T(roll)1000!
And the converse. When science is used as a reason for non-existence of a supreme being, it becomes religion, not science.
The discussions here are not about science.
The creationists or IDers have an excuse. They bring their beliefs to the fore.
The other side deny they are arguing or evangelizing.
BWAHAHAHA! Beautiful!
(Sobering thought, isn't it?)
So which one is a public high school?
Below is a link to an article boasting of creating a new species of fruit fly. Within the article is hidden a glancing admission that it has not yet happened, but the scientists expect it at any moment. Pointing out that there is no new species yet would get you the "barefoot fundamentalist" response. But...there is no new species.
Not only that, but the research in the article involves micro-surgery of a fruit fly's DNA--not any sort of natural evolving. But pointing out that the scientist is attempting himself to become the "Intelligent Designer" of a new species--itself would prove that some intelligent interference is necessary...will also get you called a superstitious hick.
But the article got me thinking about the wonderful fruit fly and its great contribution to science. Consider how many thousands upon thousands of generations of this fly have done their mutating service to teach humans about recessive and dominant genes.
Over a hundred years of scientists in varying continents, all breeding flies. Separated by vast geographical isolation. Selecting out for various genetic traits.
These hundred-plus years should have *already* produced more species of flies. It has been the ideal laboratory with the ideal subject--the fly with a 24-hr generation.
I believe the interesting question, and hence the question a scientist will fear--"Why no new flies yet?"--irrelevant to the extravagant (and misleading) claims of this U of Chicago scientist.
Exactly my point.
Sciences job is to find natural, and repeatable explanations, for natural occurences.
Yes.
I'm not sure why you did not understand my post.
My point is those here use science to argue against God out of their own religious principles. They take science and pervert it in to a religion of sorts.
This dynamic is most easily manifested with regard to evolutionary theory, hence the incredibly zealous and dogmatic and nasty arguments on these threads by the religious evolutionsts.
Your scooter goes fine downhill.
Create a system flexible enough to handle a constantly changing environment (i.e. evolution).
Constant tinkering with the creation is for second rate software engineers. And even those guys could splice chromosomes together with a bit more skill.
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.