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.
I would guess the University of Hawaii. My freshman class in high school had 1500 students. ;^)
I disagree, I see evolutionist using science to show creationists that there is no threat to their religious beliefs.
Why evolution is a threat to creationism, I don't know.
Teach your kid creationism, fine with me, the poor kid will be awestruck when he realizes that science does not agree, but hey, they're your kids right?
Why creationists try and use science against itself, to try and prove something that is unprovable is beyond me.
Creationism is not science, and evolution is not religion.
Creationism is faith based, and cannot be proven scientifically. Every time it is tried, the factual scientific based theories are proven instead.
And the term "Religious evolutionist" is an oxymoron, I hope you realize that. And the term evolutionist, is also misleading.
A scientist who understands evolution as a scientific theory, would be very offended at such a term, because he would probably also be a Christian, or a buddhist, or a pagan for that matter.
The theory of evolution is not a religious faith, it is a scientific theory that is as close to fact as science can get.
Anyway, Those who understand evolution and science will argue with religious zealots, who try and misuse science to try and prove their religious faith.
I agree. As a believer I admit to the bias of my beliefs. But I also readily agree, that to ignore or deny what can be proven (science) is just plain silly.
Where I would disagree with you is the folwoing statement:
Science has NEVER claimed that there is no god, and science has never claimed that there is a god, science does not endeavor to answer the question.
While the above may the the stated creed of the scientist, I find little evidence of that in this thread. And, while the statement "God did it" may not be good "science", in the end, it may just be - a fact - as irrefutable as gravity. Does the fact that it can not be proven render it a theory "without merit"? Possibly. But I think it extremely foolhardy to dismiss it outright - as do many on this thread.
Ever write/submit a grant or a proposal? I have.
I knew you had it in for Astronauts and NASA, but I was unaware of your vehemence towards scientists as well.
Science does not have a choice but to toss it out wholesale, because "God did it" is unprovable.
Unless you can somehow get your God to come down and tell scientists, "this is how I did it" then it will always be unprovable.
When you can get your god to do the above, come back and we'll talk, but, until then, the existence, or Nonexistence of god, is beyond the abilities of science, and shoud be ignored.
God did it this way, etc, is bad science, as a matter of fact, it is not scientific at all.
Dimensio,
Thank you for a honest reply to the post. (and it only took 105 replies)
Yes! However, proven is a misnomer. Tested is a better word. Try to disprove that there are not invisible undetectable pink elves in your garden. Neither falls within the realm of science.
Mine are actually green, that's what my 3 year old claims, although I have no idea how she saw them, since they are invisible....LOL
"Wildly elliptical" planetary orbits Memorial placemarker
Bizarre. I posted some article last year or so about someone's fruit fly experiment. She keeps pinging me to demand updates on the guy's research. Hey, lady ... call the CIA or the FBI. Maybe Homeland Security. Leave me out of your fantasies.
That beats me - I graduated in a class of 750 ;)
Speaking of which, what is the going rate on E-bay for used floozies ridden by an Astronaut only on weekends?
The designer must have worked overtime on that one.
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
While we're doing reminders, in a couple of months I'll have the five-year anniversary of my registration on this website.
Agreed.
...and shoud be ignored.
Why? Just because you "say so"? To discard possibilities just because they don't fit into the framework of your "neat" definition is just as unscientific discussing pink elves.
I may not be right, but I'm willing to be taught - are you?
(and remember, we don't make the rules)
It's a tough life in the ivory tower.
Anytime the New Fly emerges, I'd be interested to know.
I dunno, but signed "Buzz Lightyear" astronaut doll-babies can be had for little money and less effort.
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.