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'm not denying Christian groups access to anything.
It's just that as a Christian, (Roman Catholic specificly), I firmly believe that church facilities are the best venue for religious meetings. Why settle for inferior facilities at the public schools?
I think I would be wary pursuing this line of argument if I were you. There is a lot about our understanding of the field that seems to make no sense, but sometimes we're forced to backtrack; e.g.,
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/hms-jdy052804.php
From the last line in the article: "Every time we thought we understood everything going on here, we have been wrong. There are additional layers of complexity."
Earlier you claimed it was a shame that the local churches were unwilling to hold the meeting. You seem to know more about this situation than the people who were actually in it.
In other words, the article is nothing more than a smokescreen which actually has nothing to do whatsoever with ID.
You can't have it both ways guys!
True, but even a sloppy design has a designer :)
Have fun. I'm busy pursuing the 1st Amendment angle on this myself and not really getting invovled on that side.
Well not really. The apparent "design" looks exactly what we would expect from a culmination of random mutations. We already knew for several decades what kind of DNA changes are caused by natural phenomena such as cosmic rays and UV light. The details at the genome level match these signatures perfectly.
Maybe it's because the primary function of a church is to serve as a gathering place for religious activities.
You seem to know more about this situation than the people who were actually in it.
I simply know the difference between a church and a school.
It's not my fault that others get so easily confused.
Or maybe it's because you ignore practical issues such as audience size, A/V equipment, convenience for potential participants, and so forth.
I simply know the difference between a church and a school. It's not my fault that others get so easily confused.
Fine, I'll make sure to tell those political, environmental, and other special-interest student groups that a school is no place for extracurricular activity of any kind, either. After all, a school is not a convention all. Or shall we just admit that you have a particular prejudice against Christian groups availing themselves of the same facilities available to other groups?
Dark Ages placemarker.
TIBS is well read and respected. Major is subjective. The Trends/Today series is pretty good. I'm not sure why you want to knock it.
As far as peer review, you can go to this technical level. It is a review journal, not a research journal, so fair enough, but a kind of evasion of the issue. Your description of it suffices to make the point. They don't publish articles from people who are not peers or have no standing in the field. That's the point. Agree or disagree with Behe he has published biological research in quite major (eg J. Mol. Bio) and well read journals.
He ain't going to win a Nobel prize, but few do.
So, if students wanted to invite pro-NAMBLA or pro-illegal drug groups in to speak at the schools after-hours, the school could not stop them?
Fair question, Modernman. I am not entirely sure.
What I am reasonably clear about, because of a number of court cases specifically involving religious groups, is that religious groups cannot be denied access solely based on the fact that their purpose or content is religious in nature. They can be denied access for other reasons, but those reasons must be applied fairly and evenly to all groups.
Perhaps religious groups enjoy extra protection thanks to the First Amendment that pro-NAMBLA and pro-drug groups do not have.
Also, perhaps groups advocating illegal activity can be excluded without recoures.
Let me put it in simple terms: the confidence factor that a sane person has in a scientific experiment such as burning hydrogen and having the byproduct always be water is far higher than the confidence factor in evolution.
Evolution does not propose one result, it proposes the possibility of many different possible results, out of which one result happened to occur.
Reviews are only as good as the reviewer. There was a recent TICB article on a subject related to my field that was riddled with mistakes and inaccuracies. These things are good for an introduction to an area you are unfamiliar with, but there is no substitute for going to the primary literature and interpreting the data for yourself.
You said it was peer-reviewed. Withdraw that, and the iissue is moot.
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.