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 do ask in sincerity. thank you.
Look, my point is you don’t need to believe in ‘God’ to find scientific data in regard to ID.
Denton, Tipler, Berlinski… Heck, In 1969, Dean Kenyon coauthored a book entitled Biochemical Predestination and it was a graduate textbook that was regarded as the seminal work on the formation of living cells from the chemicals of an approximate 4 billion year old earth.
Let’s play name the creationist. (OK, see – this is sarcasm and it is in Don Pardo diction)
Oh please! The man believes in intelligent design, which is both reasonable and supportable. Werner von Braun (a true scientist who accomplished something tangible and measurable--never called a crackpot) believed in intelligent design-written down by his own hand with his reasons for believing.
The reason Evolution is accepted as a proven (almost) group of facts is precisely because of the scientific/educational totalitarianism shown in this article. There are still holes in evolution theory, and many of the texts used to support evolution are full of "facts" not supported by biology, which was a science the last time I looked.
If PC scientists have their way, environmental issues still only theories will be forced into the ONLY scientifically acceptable answers by the same sort of gulag that has pushed evolution.
I hate that the educational system pushed by lib Dems and a great many conservatives wants to do away with open debate, and stifle any speech by a dissenting person.
vaudine
How refreshing to finally find an intelligent statement regarding this thread.
Why is it so threatening to people that there is an alternative view, to something they disagree with, and can just as easily ignore?
No other aspect of science is so relentlessly attacked by those who, having absolutely no grounding in its tenets, seek to denounce it.
Huxley attacked… on what grounding in tenets?
These guys could do with some editorial review. I don't think they mean to say that the "preexisting intelligence" has been around in one form or another since the time of ancient Greece. But, perhaps that is what they mean.
Oh please, Werner Von Braun was a rocket scientist, not a biologist.
You can be a scientist and "believe" whatever you want, as long as it does not effect your work.
To say that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory is to risk being called a crackpot, why? Because the existence of a designer cannot be scientifically proven, therefore the "Theory" is nothing more then a shot in the dark, not even a hypothesis.
God did it is not a scientific statement, it is an excuse for being and staying ignorant of the actual causes.
Evolution has the sciences of Biology, genetics, paleontology, archeology, etc. etc ad nauseum.
Most of the sciences of today have thier basis in evolutionary theory, without evolutionary theory, they would not exist as scientific disciplines.
So to say there are holes, is truthful, but to say that it is therefore not proven, is false
Why would you expect a Creationists to be truthful, even about things easily checked?
He seems to shoot off a bunch of partial-truths or (in this case) non-truths and then attack his critics for noticing the mendacity.
That's what I wonder every time creationists attack evolution.
For example, check almost any thread here started with the posting of a science article (especially but not exclusively ones on biology, paleontology, or astrophysics) and you'll find a horde of creationists jumping at the chance to attack or challenge the finding, whatever it is, and rail about "evolutionists", "naturalism", or "humanism".
I met Andy Warhol once. (I think I also met the model who shot him, but I don't remember her name.)
That is one can off real trouble there. LOL.
I really meant for my sword to cut both ways, or a, "pox on both their houses."
God or supreme being can have many meanings. Who are we to define God?
Creationism works for me if someone actually proves space visitors in our ancient histories. (Read Genesis and the description of how God traveled at the head of the Israelites. Then describe to me how you think an Israelite of 5000 to 6000 years ago would have described a helicopter.)
Evolution works for me if the transition species, (missing links) can be found.
A little of each, or none may be true. That is why discussion should not be stifled on behalf of either. If you don't want to hear it, tune out.
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.