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 believe it was in Atlas Shrugged, but that's the imagery I remember. Claws and all.
But such a summary is hardly worth mentioning when faced with a real critique or scientific question.
That's the problem with evolution debates. One side thinks that one sentence is all they ever need to put into the debate. It is a religious mantra that does not bear scrutiny or questioning. Of all the reasoned criticisms I have seen leveled (which, of course, do not exist the instant they are out of your sight), every one has been dismissed rather than addressed.
And anytime someone points out that the only trick you know (other than your disdain for unbelievers) is that one sentence, you roar about how the level of debate has never risen above that level.
Said thread will have one of several features which tend to trigger the screaming dung-flingers. It will perhaps mention the Big Bang or Inflation without using the word "theory," or announce findings supporting one or the other to a high degree. It may make undue mention of radiometric dating techniques. It may make undue reference to dates older than about 4,004 BC. It may refer to the geologic column in a context other than a global flood. It may refer to or announce the finding of transitional species, which are not allowed to exist in creationist theology since their non-existence is disproof of evolution.
The important common element is that the author of the study or of the article has stepped on the landmine of someone's talking points for his religion. Cognitive dissonance is triggered. Reassurance must be sought or offered to others wavering in the faith, now seen as once again under attack.
Oh, come on, do us all a favor and state one. Put up or shut up.
Dodge.
Mutations occur thousands, if not millions, of times each generation; of all those mutations, some will be detrimental, most will be neutral, and a precious few will be advantageous. Even that precious few statistically might be quite large numerically, however, depending upon the size of the population.
That's not what he said, and you know it.
Sorry, I don't. Except maybe for Babelfish. (What made you think I'd know a German-speaker?)
I'm pissed!
(Whacks "VadeRetro" with King James version of The Bible. Goes back to creationist evolutionary chart, which curiously enough, ignores everything that occurred prior to the end of the Pleistocene Era.)
But it takes more than just a single mutation to produce a different species. And it usually takes more than a single mutation to make a major improvement to an existing biochemical pathway or to create a new or highly modified structure.
Natural selection acts as a ratchet for evolution: The first mutation spreads to a significant portion of the population, so that when a child is born with the right second mutation, chances are they also have the 1st mutation. Both mutations didn't have to pop up at the same time. This greatly magnifies the odds in favor of progress.
You're heading for a breakdown. Why don't you pull yourself to pieces?
</Groucho_mode>
**********Heat (q) in thermodynamics is exchanged between system and surroundings, or between two subsystems.**********
This is correct. System/surroundings can also be expressed as subsystem/main system.
************If a chemical reaction occurs in a closed adiabatic system, then q = 0, regardless of whether the contents of the system warm up.**********
This one is basically false. Thermodynamics is Greek for thermo: heat….. and dynamics: power or movement. So if Q = 0, then we have no thermodynamic system to begin with. However, it can be said that once heat is introduced within an a adiabatic system, it must stay there because this system will have adiabatic system boundaries.
"Adiabatic Boundary: An adiabatic boundary allows no heat to flow between a system and its surroundings. Thermos bottles have adiabatic boundaries,more or less. Adiabatic walls permit you to measure work by prohibiting heat flow. IOW, we really are talking about an isolated system that cannot change energy or matter with anything else."
We could revisit the DNA sequencing thread of a few days ago. Or the probability analysis. Or the logical problem of something that is almost entirely harmful (mutation) having such an incredibly positive effect. Or that none of this has actually been observed.
When your worldview can be expressed in one sentence, it is far to fragile to engage in honest debate.
I just thought you or someone reading along might be able to translate it. No worries.
I'M SEEKING YOUR APPROVAL DAMMIT! You're just like my first boyfriend, who never listened to my opinion. And like my older sister, who said I was just being a whiny brat. And like my father, who never validated my feelings. I NEED YOUR APPROVAL!!!
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.