Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution's 'Dictatorship' -- Student Struggles to Get Opposite Viewpoint Heard
AgapePress ^ | 16 August 2004 | Ed Vitagliano

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: behe; crevolist; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,321-1,327 next last
To: Junior
Different mutation, same effect. I noticed the writer was from Loma Linda

About 6 months ago we had a creationist FReeper in his 20's who proudly beat us over the head on several occasions; "I am a student in medical school... I'm a med student... etc." When pressed (after his first proclamation) via FReepmail, he FReepmailed me back that he was attending Loma Linda college. I never made that public, of course, and neither did he. Go figure.
861 posted on 08/20/2004 5:17:05 AM PDT by whattajoke (.)(.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
We know that within the relevant fields there's a huge preponderance of credentialed opinion for evolution and against ID theory (much less creationism). The creationists not only concede this fact but endlessly lament the bias and unfairness of it all. Thus, you'd think they would always stay as far as possible from any kind of argument from authority. Nah! "Never mind the world-wide acceptance of evolution. I'm a MED STUDENT!"
862 posted on 08/20/2004 6:28:22 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777
The Second Law has application to any system where there is matter and energy.

The Second Law applies only when we consider a system and its surroundings together. The entropy of a system can spontaneously increase, decrease or remain the same. The Second Law states that the entropy of system plus surroundings must increase.

Your main gripe with me is because I apply the Second Law to an open system. Is this correct?

No, my gripe with you is that you considered a system of any sort, without considering the surroundings. I don't know how many times I need to state this to get it through, but the Second Law does not prevent the entropy of a system from decreasing, except in the limited case of an adiabatic system.

863 posted on 08/20/2004 7:01:06 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777
It will remain the same, if the freezer is unplugged or the freezer mechanism is nonexistent or broken!

I don't have time for this.

What is the "no effect other" mean? What does this imply about thermodynamic systems and the direction of processes?

'No effect other' means what it says. A refigerator produces far more heat than it extracts from its interior. The extra heat is an effect. The Second Law says you can decrease the entropy of a system as long as you increase the entropy elsewhere by a greater amount. When radiation from the sun, at 10,000 K, is channeled through living organisms and eventually reradiated by the earth into space, at around 300K, there is an enormous increase in entropy. That increase far overwhelms the tiny decrease in entropy resulting from living processes, inclusing evolution.

864 posted on 08/20/2004 7:09:04 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The Second Law applies only when we consider a system and its surroundings together. The entropy of a system can spontaneously increase, decrease or remain the same. The Second Law states that the entropy of system plus surroundings must increase.

Are you saying that the air can spontaneously cool away from equilibrium based purely on the environment. This would seem to violate the Clausius statement of the Second Law.

865 posted on 08/20/2004 7:42:52 AM PDT by nasamn777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

2nd placemarker of Thermodynamics


866 posted on 08/20/2004 7:52:51 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777
Are you saying that the air can spontaneously cool away from equilibrium based purely on the environmen

I'm not sure what this is intended to mean, but have you heard of radiative cooling?

867 posted on 08/20/2004 8:00:56 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Physician, heal thyself.

The irony with which you quote Christ is duly noted . . .

868 posted on 08/20/2004 8:31:35 AM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: D Edmund Joaquin

I think you missed my point.


869 posted on 08/20/2004 9:22:55 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The designer must have worked overtime on that one.

Only one day of six, actually. Yet, a different day than this one, a venomous, furred,
electro-receptor system equipped, egg-laying mammal.

A testament to both the efficiency and sense of humor of the designer . . .

870 posted on 08/20/2004 9:28:04 AM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
The observation of the genes does not mandate a common ancestor.

The gene is non-functional. The defect is exactly the same in humans, chimps and gorillas (but not in other mammals).

Far from torturing the data to fit the model, this observation is very easily and neatly explained by evolution: the mutation occurred in a common ancestor of these primates. (BTW, Vitamin C/L-GLO is one of hundreds of such examples).

The original topic of this thread is about what we are going to teach children in science class. This means if you or Behe or Dembski or whoever have a problem with teaching evolution, you are all going to have to come up with something else tangible for high school students.

871 posted on 08/20/2004 9:36:28 AM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 859 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
but have you heard of radiative cooling

Every spacecraft I have ever worked with uses this. :-)

872 posted on 08/20/2004 9:45:20 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

Placemarker


873 posted on 08/20/2004 10:10:58 AM PDT by balrog666 (Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people - Jesse "The Gov" Ventura)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I said:

Are you saying that the air can spontaneously cool away from equilibrium based purely on the environment?

And you replied:

I'm not sure what this is intended to mean, but have you heard of radiative cooling?

You are playing a game of obfuscation, like many evolutionists, concerning the 2nd Law problem with evolution. Spontaneous processes, such as radiative cooling, are not the issue! Certainly, heat from a hotter surface is radiated to a colder surface. This is expected -- a spontaneous process! The issue we are talking about are cases similar to the Clausius statement where heat is transfered from the colder reservoir to the hotter reservoir -- a nonspontaneous process!

874 posted on 08/20/2004 10:28:02 AM PDT by nasamn777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; nasamn777
The entropy of a system can spontaneously increase, decrease or remain the same. The Second Law states that the entropy of system plus surroundings must increase.

What is your definition of spontaneous, RWP?

875 posted on 08/20/2004 10:30:56 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Spontaneously organized placemarker.


876 posted on 08/20/2004 10:31:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (If I never respond to you, maybe it's because I think you're an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
In thermodynamics, a spontaneous process in one that happens in a finite time under the existing conditions. This sounds a little weird - a spontaneous process is in effect just a process that happens - until you consider that thermodynamics considers all sorts of limiting and even fictitious processes.

Example: freezing of water at -2 C is spontaneous. Melting of ice at - 2 C is not spontaneous.

877 posted on 08/20/2004 10:41:16 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
In thermodynamics, a spontaneous process in one that happens in a finite time under the existing conditions.

Well, that definition is equivalent to "what happens, happens". The dictionary defintion of spontaneous includes "Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. ". Now what happens to the surroundings of a closed system due to the events within the closed system? Nothing. It is a closed system.

878 posted on 08/20/2004 10:49:17 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Well, that definition is equivalent to "what happens, happens". The dictionary defintion of spontaneous includes "Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. ".

Thermodynamics uses a specific technical definition of 'spontaneous' which is not the same as the conventional definition. If you want to discuss thermo., learn the jargon.

Now what happens to the surroundings of a closed system due to the events within the closed system? Nothing. It is a closed system.

Heat can leave a closed system. What you apparently mean is an adiabatic system. Once again, if you want to discuss thermo., learn the jargon.

879 posted on 08/20/2004 10:55:41 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (www.swiftvets.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
What you apparently mean is an adiabatic system.

Well, if I apparently mean that, answer the question.

880 posted on 08/20/2004 11:02:29 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 879 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,321-1,327 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson