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.
Could you please describe how 'enlightened self interest' is a Christian tenet?
(This reminds me of Kevin Kline's version of Buddhism in 'A fish called Wanda'.)
Amazing isnt it? They all have a story that begins "I used to hate God..."
Why is that?
This is the problem with accepting Neo-Darwinian evolution and the proposed abiogenesis. Why should we treat the theory as fact given the many unknowns? Why should we accept that some unknown mechanisms enabled life to start and develop? Where are the clear steps showing the detailed transitions verifying macro-evolution (those cited already are a joke)? Already I have shown how coupled systems present problems for evolution. Why should we accept on faith that few mutations will result in added function? Complex-coupled systems would effectively shut down evolution.
Also, thermodynamics says that you can't get something for nothing. Things tend to wear out and corrode. Things tend to go from the ordered to the disordered. If evolution is true, one must explain the details of the mechanisms required for evolution. Thermodynamic mechanisms are detailed and require precision. You can't take a bunch of auto parts and throw them in a pile and expect a working machine to result. A thermodynamic mechanism must constrain energy in detailed and precise ways allowing specified processes.
When one looks at the evolutionary crap shoot game, there are problems with this supposed mechanism. The detailed processes are not specified. You are left with a random game of mutations which is at the heart of the thermodynamic problem (mutations are random and you need multiple specified mutations for evolution) . As we see in nature, random and semi-random applications of energy tend to follow the second law. Things will go from order to disorder. We should not expect the Neo-Darwinian mechanism to produce anything. The burden of proof is on Evolutionists to show that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism is actually a thermodynamic mechanism able to build amazingly complex machines. So far, they have not done this. Should we just accept the evolutionary dogma on faith because a bunch of scientists tell us to. This is the antithesis to the scientific process!
The same charge may be leveled against Creationists but there is scientific evidence supporting the accuracy of the Bible. Also, it represents the oral traditions that were passed down through history. The Bible has been used as the "manual" in several archaeological digs. Specifically, they used it to find the walls of the cities. I could write volumes on the cases where it was shown to match history. Also, many of the people and civilizations described in the Bible have been verified through archeology. Also, the story of the flood has been told, not only in the Bible, but in oral traditions of many cultures.
It does not hurt science to start with the assumptions of Creationism and see if better answers may be found. Science is also not hurt by examining the evidence from an ID perspective.
Watch out now, the preachers are about to attempt to save your souls.
Now you've done it.
Ahem, tornado in a junkyard again.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to deal with that this morning, but maybe someone else will take on the, uhm.... Challenge....
But you have just placed yourself in the "does not understand evolution" category, just letting you know that up front, and the "reading too many creationist websites" category as well.
Here is a quote that I think sums it up very well. SLOT = Second Law Of Thermodynamics
"SLOT says that in spontaneous events, entropy will tend to increase S2 > S1 -- but random mutations are spontaneous, speciation is supposed to be totally random/spontaneous and macroevolution says S2 < S1 --Something is dreadfully wrong here as two tenets of science directly contradict one another."
Abiogenesis is not accepted as a "fact" nor is there any dominant detailed theory of how it might have happened. Obviously a lot of biologists privately assume it happened, but scientists are careful in professional publications to distinguish between theory and speculation.
Natural selection is the mechanism that accounts of life not winding down. You obviously shield yourself from unwelcome ideas.
Furthermore... why did this all loving God allow them to descend to such pits of despair and depravity in the first place, especially if He knew (He knows all) that this person would "come around" some day?
Just like old times, eh? :)
But you have just placed yourself in the "does not understand evolution" category, just letting you know that up front, and the "reading too many creationist websites" category as well.
There seems to be a class of folk who can't embrace God without abandoning all reason.
There is no reasoanble connection with enlightened self interest as a concept.
How clever. You must live on the planet Academia.
Let me guess; my username was your first clue.
The guy who thinks Crick was an IDer, that Gould was an anthropologist, and seems to be under the illusion that metals have to be pure to act as catalysts? Well, since the post is about abiogenesis, one can't tell either way, can one?
Does this guy understand it?
Well, the first part, the chemical and abiogenesis part, I'll leave to others.
As far as the age of the earth, he is not correct, the age of the earth has been proven in a number of ways, from astronomy, to radiometry, to other aging processes, they all seem to come to the same answer within a million years or so, including the age of the universe, around 15 billion years.
He bases his entire premise on the fact that the age of the earth cannot be determined, which is not in fact true.
The age of the earth has been determined, and the age of the universe as well.
So, no, he does not understand it.
He sure does talk purty though.
Why do you think this to be true? A mutation may be caused by radiation may be at a position in a chromosome unrelated to the structure of said chromosome, but the energy comes from outside. Similarly for mutagenic chemicals.
Isa 51:6 ...and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Three clear principles are laid down for us in this passage.
1. Within the human races capacity, lies deterioration and death. (Because of the Curse)
2. The Salvation offered by the Jesus Christ's sacrifice can overcome this curse, and is unaffected by it.
3. God's righteousness is untouched by the curse.
Cling to that which is true and eternal, not that which waxes old and is but dust.
Didn't Crick believe in Directed Panspermia? Also, someone should tell the Anthropology Department at Ohio State that Gould wasn't an Anthropologist.
"Two prominent anthropologists passed away recently, Gordon R. Willey and Stephen Jay Gould. It's a bummer. I feel like I was weaned on Willey and Gould's works. Willey passed away on April 28; Gould just this past Monday, May 20. You can read Willey's obituary here and Gould's here."
http://monkey.sbs.ohio-state.edu/Newsletter/SP02/ed_corner.htm
You sure talk purty too.
He wrote a book examining the possibility. That doesn't mean he believed in it. He was aware, as is everyone who's thought about it for a minute, that it simply pushes back the origin question to an earlier time on another planet.
Also, someone should tell the Anthropology Department at Ohio State that Gould wasn't an Anthropologist
Go ahead.
Misunderstanding-of-the-Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics-is-amusing placemarker.
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.