Evolution's 'Dictatorship' -- Student Struggles to Get Opposite Viewpoint Heard

AgapePress ^ | 16 August 2004 | Ed Vitagliano

[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.

[Ichneumon]

[A lot of people claim that Creationists distort science, but the reality is that Naturalists distort science effectively disallowing the possibility that God may exist.]

Are we suggesting that we start with the assumption that a specific God exists before examining the natural universe? Why should we make such an assumption, and why must it be the specific God that you would choose as opposed to one of a different religion?

Also:

(And that one was from a *creationist* site...)

Also, it's inaccurate to say that science "disallows the possibility that God may exist". If there were signs of (i.e., evidence of) some sort of intelligent "meddling" in natural processes from time to time, or even outright "miracles" (i.e. violations of natural laws), science certainly allows the conclusion that some powerful entity was involved.

However, it does not *presuppose* one -- just as it doesn't presuppose anything else, other than the premise that the universe is examinable and understandable.

[nasamn777]

I am saying we should open science up allowing the possibility that an intelligent agent has caused life (the ID perspective using Dembski's filter) or even the notion that God exists (the creation perspective which examines the Biblical account). Certainly, I have no objection of other religions examining other models.

But I do have a problem with Naturalists hijacking the sciences and demonising ID proponents and Creationists. Oftentimes those not versed in the sciences are led to believe that there are no rational arguments against the Naturalistic perspective favoring either ID or Creationism. Rather than present a balanced perspective admitting the limitations of Naturalism and the science established based on its assumptions, they falsely present evolution as a proven fact. Some problem areas are the following:

1) Irreducibly complex components are found in nature.
2) The assumption that mutations easily occur resulting in increased function -- they fail to recognize the coupled nature of complex systems and the intricate and detailed mutations that are required.
3) The thermodynamic problem and the lack of a mechanism for evolution: Thermodynamics requires a specialized mechanism allowing specified processes. Saying that NS&M act as the mechanism is tantamount to saying that a bomb is a mechanism for transportation. A thermodynamic mechanism requires the controlled use of energy by very specified gears, links, membranes and other devices all coupled together. The interaction of the components are critical. A large number of precise mutations are required resulting in extremely low probabilities, before added fitness is achieved. Effectively, there is not enough time for complex systems, like humans, to evolve. Notice that this involves both 1) and 2).
3) The fine tuning of nature presents problems for Naturalists.
4) The absence of transitional fossils required for macro-evolution.

I could go on but I will let this suffice.

Also, I should note that there are many ID proponents who like to distance themselves from Creationism because of the bias in the scientific community against them. I however believe that there are a number of valid arguments supporting Creationism -- just not enough people to advance the arguments compared to the horde (and their Billions of dollars)who are in opposition to it (directly and indirectly).

[jennyp]

Placemarker. Please do not move.

[PatrickHenry]

Wouldya believe it? Another TimeCube site: TimeCube is above God.

[Junior]

It is sad to say that the Naturalists have taken control and are unwilling to even allow a debate concerning evolution and the notion of a special creation.

A debate assumes some sort of equality between the positions. Evolution is science, complete with a huge body of evidence supporting it and fairly accurate predictive powers. Creationism has neither and is essentially a religious notion. The two are nowhere near equal in any shape, manner or form.

The issues aren't related to science -- the arguments are based more on philosophy and pseudoscience (e.g the notion that macro-evolution is established fact).

What is the magical mechanism that keeps "microevolution" from spilling over to "macroevolution?" We've been asking this question for years from creationists, and not one has ever been able to answer it. You posit the theory; where is your evidence to back it up?

[PatrickHenry]

What is the magical mechanism that keeps "microevolution" from spilling over to "macroevolution?" We've been asking this question for years from creationists, and not one has ever been able to answer it.

Fool! Along with the Intelligent Designer^tm there is the Cosmic Clerk^tm. It is the Clerk's function to keep track of how many times in the past your ancestral line has undergone mutations. This is a purely mechanical task, because the Clerk merely has to follow the Designer around and keep accurate records. Even the primitive, naturalistic mind should be able to understand.

And when some creature's ancestors have used up their alloted number of mutations, no more are permitted. It's really very simple. Why do you Satanic eeeevooo-loouuu-shunists have so much trouble with this concept? When the designed-in allowance of mutations is used up, that's it. Radiation has no effect. Chemicals in the environment have no effect. Lateral transfers from a virus have no effect. The creature's "kind" is fixed. Forever.

[Ichneumon]

Evolution works for me if the transition species, (missing links) can be found.

Here you go: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

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.

I agree.

[Ichneumon]

Placemarker.

[RadioAstronomer]

To discard possibilities just because they don't fit into the framework of your "neat" definition is just as unscientific discussing pink elves.

It was me that came up with pink elves, and you missed what I was driving at.

Here was your original question I was answering:

"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.

What I was trying to get across is that you cannot include a deity in any scientific theory. Just like you can't include invisible elves as well.

[RadioAstronomer]

It's a tough life in the ivory tower.

Yes it is in fact. Have you actually been there?

[whattajoke]

Y'know... if I see one more creationist misspell "tenets" as "tenants," it's going to join the infamous "hugh" and "series," I think.

[RadioAstronomer]

LOL! :-)

[PatrickHenry]

Hey, I just noticed your tagline.

[js1138]

Y'know... if I see one more creationist misspell "tenets" as "tenants," it's going to join the infamous "hugh" and "series," I think.

Extant placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Apostrophe Protection Society.

Its the website to visit for it's wisdom.

[js1138]

Good site. Got it's stuff together.

[PatrickHenry]

Of all the site's Ive seen, its the best.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is this the same CPA-in-the-Sky who adjusts the number of heads and tails to make the result agree with the Law of Large Numbers?

[whattajoke]

I can't possibly be the first dork here to come up with the tagline.

Your current one rules.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

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...

Are you serious? More often than not, it's an evolutionist who posts a science article and immediately starts to bait the other side. See post #'s 4, 7, 10, 11, etc. etc. on this thread.