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.
Yeah right, like "Union construction."
You say this as though it had explanitory power, something beyond "I don't know".
No, it is absolutely untrue. The entropy of the system plus surroundings increases. The entropy of the system is free to decrease over time, as long as the total entropy of system plus surroundings increases.
Let us say there is a container that has helium and hydrogen. A divider separates the two gases for state number one. The divider is then removed, and the gases are allowed to mix for state two. Which system is more ordered? Is s1 < s2, s1 > s2 or is s1 = s2?
You clearly have a basic misunderstanding of the second law, which no doubt is the reason why you think it contradicts evolution.
You seem to jump to conclusions prematurely. Maybe you could claim that the statement is ambiguous, but your charge of my "basic misunderstanding" seems rather harsh. Also, given the vast literature of thermodynamics, your statement is unwarranted!
Yeah, right. Two words for you: Runge-Kutta.
So are you saying I am a liar? This attitude seems to show little respect for me. Also, it shows the attitude that many in the education establishment have concerning those who hold to Creationism. Ignorance and stupidity is assumed and their work and opinions are ignored.
Not all differential equations are a chug and plug type!
Sure it does. Something outside of physical laws initiated the universe. I know what that something is. You evidently don't.
Just lurking.
symmetrically self-cancelling placemarker (this placemarker exerts no influence inside of itself)
Brain now back to normal, ready for filling again placemarker.
I'm sorry; posing one instance of a system proceeding from order to disorder does not prove a general rule,
A container of water which had been sitting at room temperature is placed in the freezer. Does the entropy of container plus water increase, decrease, or remain the same?
Maybe you could claim that the statement is ambiguous, but your charge of my "basic misunderstanding" seems rather harsh.
It wasn't merely ambiguous. You posited an application of the Second Law in circumstances where it does not apply. Your entire specious argument becomes quite clear - that systems cannot become more ordered over time, therefore evolution cannot occur. The entire argument is based on a faulty premise.
This attitude seems to show little respect for me.
It is, I suppose, theoretically possible that someone with misconceptions about thermodynamics might be solving coupled partial differential equations for a living.
Ignorance and stupidity is assumed and their work and opinions are ignored.
There was no need to assume it in this case. Asking the direction of a process, while making reference only to the system and not its surroundings, with the implication that the Second Law can tell us the answer, betrays fundamental ignorance.
Bingo!
Asymptotic placemarker.
No, it was very simplistic, and if you feel that it is all you need to know in regards to the 2nd law, then you are sadly mistaken.
Well now that your brain is empty. In what units is entropy expressed?
You "real-deal" guys are giving the rest of us at least a partial education. Sometimes one of these threads can be better for absorbing the material than ten magazine articles.
I've seen Greene statements of such form in one of his other books. (The Elegant Universe or something like that.) He's a fascinating read but a week later I'm not sure what I've learned.
One may. YOU may. Looks like math to me.
You shoulda been a creationist. No math required, beyond 40 days and 40 nights.
I can think through math, with a gun to my head. The amazing thing is that some people seem to think in math.
Creationism has more math than that. You have the value of p, for instance, just with fewer digits to remember.
Ah yes. I hear that more and more mathematicians are abandoning Satan's math and embracing creationist math. Both theories should be presented in the classroom. Let the children decide. Open up the peer-reviewed math journals to alternate theories of pi. What are the grant-sucking math professors in their ivory towers afraid of? Think out of the box. End the tyranny! Pi is a value in crisis.
IIRC, in 19th C. Tennessee, a bill was put before the Legislature to make pi equal 3, at least in the Volunteer State.
Brilliant thread, btw!
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.