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.

[balrog666]

Which science?

That would be the science of air conditioning.

[Right Wing Professor]

That would be the science of air conditioning.

Didn't a certain Wichita native and laser repair tech. claim to be adept at thermodynamics? He once assured us all, IIRC, that quantum mechanics had nothing to do with lasers.

[aNYCguy]

If a theory or hypothesis is robust, it can stand examination, debate, and criticism.

This is absolutely correct. The Theory of Evolution has withstood the scrutiny of research for over a hundred years. Still, scientists can debate and raise objections if they feel their research contradicts the theory. This is what happens in science.

Kids need to know that science in always in the process of revision. Thinking about alternative theories is the first step to becoming excited about the process.

Now, here's where I disagree with you. The purpose of pre-college education is to give students a brief overview and basic understanding of the prevailing, accepted fundamentals of a wide variety of fields. When creationists call for "equal time -- let the students decide for themselves!" This is unfair to a group of high schoolers who aren't prepared to spend years examining the primary research to make an informed opinion. If every "alternative" theory (i.e., one supported by a tiny minority of scientists) were presented to students, they would leave school with their heads spinning, having learned very little but having been thoroughly confused nonetheless.

That's why genuine attempts at scientific revolution go top-down: Formulation of theory, research, publishment in peer-reviewed journals, gained acceptance by the field at large, and finally, college, then high school textbooks.

The fact that creationists have largely attempted to start right at high-school textbook stage strikes me as a very telling admission that they are not interested in a scientific revolution, but a cultural/ideological one.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Alright, I have nothing insightful to contribute to this discussion, so I'll just relate a vaguely remembered anecdote.

I don't know if you folks remember the debate on "Firing Line" quite a few years back, where the same topic was being contested by two teams with divergent viewpoints, one of them being led by Michael Behe.

Well, there was an exchange between Peter Brimelow-as best I recall-and Barry Lynn.

The only thing about Brimelow's rebuttal that I remember is his statement to the affect that: "the scientific community hasn't yet found a way to create a feline/female hybrid..."

Anyway, that p***y Barry Lynn starts in on how Brimelow is a freak, just because he'd like to see the "Catwoman" fantasy realized; implying that he's some sort of sexual deviant.

Personally, I didn't see the problem with it myself. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some positions of Brimelow's which I take issue with, but I don't think that he could be criticized for wanting to see genetic engineering get to the point where it would be possible to see some form of Mendelian gene-splicing that could eventually create a real, live, cat/woman hybrid.

Am I totally off base here?

I mean, I know it sounds like a strange concept at first, especially if you're a chick, but just think about it.

I realize that scientists would encounter some difficulties at first. I for one, have some wicked allergic reactions to cats and they would probably need to invent some sort of woman that didn't have the body hair/fur that you'd customarily expect to see on a cat.

However, once they've got all the kinks worked out, I'm sure that whatever female-feline concoction they devised would be awesome.

Am I just being a total weirdo here?

Hit me back.

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

[Right Wing Professor]

Am I just being a total weirdo here?

Total.

But here's a pic anyway

[aNYCguy]

Go to a football field and take along a die.

Your analogy fails to take into account the vast parallelism of evolution. There isn't just one die being rolled every minute; there are large numbers of "die" being rolled every generation.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Thanks man!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Likewise, biased dies may be selected for.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Crooked dice player:

Yooze sayin' I rigged dis or sometin?!

[js1138]

I always thought women were basically cats. It's been a few years since I read Ayn Rand, but I seem to recall her fantasy of perfect sex to be catlike. Personally I always found the Neosporin bill to be a bit high.

[jennyp]

>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.

Shirley you cannot be series. Many's the day when I stagger in at the crack of Noon, and am greeted by a science thread from 6am whose first 50 posts are nothing but defensive creationist bravado drive-bys posted by people who aren't crevo regulars. It's not until PH comes by & pings the crevo list that I begin to read anything approaching rational thought.

[nasamn777]

The mechanism can be treated as a black box, which is one of the uses of thermodynamics. It can also be used to analyze the mechanism. The reality is that you need a mechanism to go from state 1 (p1,v1,T1) to state 2(p2,v2,T2) -- except in rare circumstances (e.g. natural weather conditions). Also, the notion of reversibility has everything to do with the mechanism. To allow the change typically you have to apply work that is constrained in specialized ways enabling the process to occur. The mechanism is the device that constrains the energy.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

I was kind of disappointed when I took one of those "Which Philosopher Would You Be Most Likely To Date" tests on MSN and found out that my ideal mate would be Ayn Rand.

I know she's really intelligent and everything, but c'mon!

I don't even think Alan Greenspan dated Ayn Rand for goodness sake.

[bluejay]

there were billions of different combinations over hundreds and thousands and billions of years

First bacteria appeared ~200 million years after formation of Earth. You don't have hundreds of billions of years.

the fact is that the correct combination occurring by accident was not only probable, it was impossible for it not to happen.

Could you please refer me to a paper or a book on evolution that provides calculations based on hard facts - what is the probability of these outcome, how much time was available for random variations to be tested?

[Junior]

Okay, we'll see. What is your understanding of the theory of evolution?

[bluejay]

If things are purely random, then it would take an impossible amount of time. Once a selection criteria is introduced, the time required is dramatically reduced.

I don't understand. How does natural selection reduce the time required for random mutations to occur and to be incorporated into the genome? Assuming it does reduce the time, how much time is required? One of the problems I have with evolution as a doctrine is a surprising lack of calculations that demonstrate that given the rate of mutation, the impact of natural selection, and the amount of time available the odds of life developing is X.

[Junior]

Creation science theories are posted all the time.

Name one. Explain the evidence supporting it. Explain how it is falsifiable. Give an example of a prediction that can test this theory.

[The Scourge of Yazid]

Charles Darwin:

Jean Baptiste Lamarck is my bitch! Now get my evolved ass a ham sammich ye stupid gits!

[Junior]

I always thought women were basically cats.

That explains your "pet" name for the fairer sex...

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Shirley you cannot be series.

Please don't call me Shirley. :)

As far as the "drive by's" go, I think both sides can be guilty of that from time to time.

Say, I don't suppose you know of anyone who can translate German? I have a link to an Anthropology article that I would love to have translated. Thanks.