Posted on 04/05/2005 7:42:56 AM PDT by bedolido
SEATTLE - (KRT) - Three years ago, the Ohio Board of Education invited a small but influential Seattle think tank to debate the way evolution is taught in Ohio schools.
It was an opportunity for the Discovery Institute to promote its notion of intelligent design, the controversial idea that parts of life are so complex they must have been designed by some intelligent agent.
Instead, leaders of the institute's Center for Science and Culture decided on what they consider a compromise. Forget intelligent design, they argued, with its theological implications. Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it.
They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school. Evolution controversies are brewing in eight school districts, half a dozen state legislatures and three state boards of education, including the one in Kansas, which wrestled with the issue in 1999 as well.
"Why fight when you can have a fun discussion?" asks Stephen Meyer, the center's director. The teach-the-controversy approach, he said, avoids "unnecessary constitutional fights" over the separation of church and state, yet also avoids teaching Darwin's theories as dogma.
But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science.
There is no significant controversy to teach, they say.
"You're lying to students if you tell them that scientists are debating whether evolution took place," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit group that defends teaching of evolution in school.
The Discovery Institute, she said, is leading a public-relations campaign, not a scientific endeavor.
The Discovery Institute is one of the leading organizations working nationally to change how evolution is taught. It works as an adviser, resource and sometimes a critic with those who have similar views.
"There are a hundred ways to get this wrong," said Meyer. "And only a few to get them right."
Ohio got it right, he said, when its state Board of Education voted in 2002 to require students to learn that scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
Scott said it was a small victory at most for intelligent-design supporters, but Meyer considers it a significant one - a model other states should follow. Minnesota has adopted similar language.
The School Board in Dover, Pa., however, got it wrong, Meyer said, when it required instruction in intelligent design. (The matter is now in court.) Intelligent design isn't established enough yet for that, Meyer said.
He also criticizes the Georgia school board that put stickers on biology textbooks with a surgeon-general-like warning that evolution is "a theory not a fact." The stickers were a "dumb idea," he said bluntly. (A Georgia court ruled they were illegal, and the case is under appeal.)
In Wisconsin, the institute hopes it helped the school board in the small town of Grantsburg switch to a teach-the-controversy approach.
In each place, the institute says it responded to requests for help, although it's working to become more proactive, too. Some critics suspect the ties are even closer.
The Center for Science and Culture opened in 1996 as a part of the already-established Discovery Institute, which also studies more earthbound topics such as transportation, economics, technology and bioethics.
Founder Bruce Chapman - who has worked as an official in the Reagan administration, head of the U.S. Census Bureau and Washington's secretary of state - became interested in intelligent design after reading a piece Meyer wrote for The Wall Street Journal.
Meyer, then a philosophy professor at Whitworth College in Spokane, Wash., was defending a California professor in trouble for talking about intelligent design in biology class. To Chapman, it was an issue of academic freedom.
He invited Meyer to come speak at the institute. The more they talked, the more Chapman and others at the institute became interested in offering a home to Meyer and others interested in intelligent design.
Intelligent design appealed to their view that life isn't really as unplanned or unguided as Darwin's theories can make it seem.
"It interested me because it seemed so different than the reductionist science that came out of the 19th century ... that everything could be reduced to chemistry," said John West, a political scientist and center associate director.
The private institute has an annual budget of about $3.2 million, and plans to spend about $1.3 million on the intelligent-design work, Chapman said, mostly to support the work of about three dozen fellows.
The Fieldstead Charitable Trust, run by Christian conservative Henry Ahmanson and his wife, is one of the largest donors to that effort. Chapman declines to name more.
Meyer, the center's director, is a tall, friendly man who has undergraduate degrees in geology and physics and a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Cambridge, where he wrote his doctorate on the origins of life.
He says he's no creationist. He doesn't, for example, believe in a literal reading of the Bible, which would mean the Earth is about 6,000 years old.
He doesn't dispute that natural selection played a role in evolution; he just doesn't think it explains everything.
He often points to the Cambrian Period, a time more than 500 million years ago when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. Meyer and other Discovery Institute fellows say those groups show up too fast, geologically speaking, to have come about through natural selection. That's one of what they see as controversies they want taught in school.
Scientists, however, say the Cambrian Period may not be completely understood, but that doesn't mean the theory of evolution is in trouble.
"They harp and harp on natural selection, as if natural selection is the only thing that evolutionary biologists deal with," said Scott. "Who knows whether natural selection explains the Cambrian body plans. ... So what?"
Scientists consider Meyer a creationist because he maintains some unnamed intelligence - and Meyer said he personally thinks it is God - has an active hand in creating some complex parts of life.
"I don't know what else to call it other than creationism," said Michael Zimmerman, a critic and dean at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.
Meyer, however, said he's a scientist who starts with scientific evidence, not the Bible. His goal - a big one - is to change the very definition of science so that it doesn't rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer is actively at work.
"Science should be open to whatever cause ... can best explain the data," Meyer said.
That would be a major change for science, which limits itself to the natural world. Scott said it would be a "science stopper."
"Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them," she said.
Scott said science isn't an atheistic worldview. In science, she said, "It is equally inappropriate to say God did it, or God had nothing to do with it."
The institute's call to "teach the controversy" meets strong resistance.
"There's no controversy about whether living things have common ancestors," Scott said. "There's no controversy about whether natural selection is very important in creating the variety of organisms we have today."
While the institute touts its list of 370 scientists who have signed a statement saying they have some doubts about Darwin's theory of natural selection, Scott's organization, in a parody of that effort, has a list of 500 names limited to scientists named Steve or Stephanie, in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known biologist who once wrote that evolution is "one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science."
Public opinion is mixed. Many Christian denominations, including Catholics, see no contradiction between evolution and their faith, but a Gallup Poll last November found that only about a third of the respondents think Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported by scientific evidence.
Meyer hopes the Kansas Board of Education will invite the center to speak at its hearings in May. Speakers will be asked to address the issue the center wants to highlight: whether Kansas' science curriculum helps students understand debate over controversial topics such as evolution.
Kansas Citizens for Science, however, has urged a boycott of the hearings, saying the proposals have been "rejected by the science community at large."
1. How does ID account for mass extinctions and species extinction? If the saber-toothed tiger was intelligently designed to survive in the designed environment, why did this kind become extinct?
2. What exactly is a "kind"? The cat family as described by zoologists has a distinguishing characteristic, namely retractable claws, as a modification of the finger bones found in other animals having bilateral symmetry. Are the "cats" a kind? Or are domestic cats, lions, cheetahs, etc., different kinds?
3. What is a "kind" in the plant kingdom? Botanists have recorded similarities in roses, apples, pears, and other fuits placed in the rose family. Are these a "kind"? What about the lily family with bulbs, or the ferns? Are gymnosperms a different kind? Are monocotyledons and dicotyleldons among the angiosperms different kinds?
4. Why do human fetuses have tails? Every fetal sonogram shows that tails are developed at some stage of development, and sometimes are still present at birth. What is the Intelligent Design explanation for this?
5. It is well-known that the heme molecule in animal blood is similar to the chlorophyll molecule in green plants. Both are based on the porphyrin structure. The heme porphyrin has an iron atom (Fe) at the center, whereas the chlorophyll porphyrin has a magnesium atom (Mg). There is great consistency amongst all animal groups and plant groups. Is this observed fact an example of irreducible complexity and intelligent design?
6.Sometimes there are caves with blind cavefish. In the area surrounding the cave, there almost identical fish that are not blind. How does ID account for the species being virtually identical except for blindness?
Intelligent design is not science nor should it be treated as such.
Thank God for that.
Your statement is quite imprecise, actually. Survival applies to individuals, whereas adaptation is a multi-generation genetic sort of thing -- they're not the same concepts.
Probably the most accurate statements are also the most unsatisfactory: "survival of the ones that didn't die before they mated;" or, "survival of the ones who produced the most offspring."
The point being that "lack of fitness" is not the only reason that things die or fail to reproduce; and "fitness" is not the only reason things survive and reproduce.
The Theory of Evolution can be restated along the lines that certain characteristics provide a statistical advantage, not for survival per se, but rather for successful reproduction. (The idea is supported by the existence of many species for which one or both parents die immediately after reproduction....)
These observations are now being used to modify/question current theories about the formation geological features, many of which had been assumed to take eons to form.
Not by geologists.
Here is a better reply than I could whip up in a few secs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963744/posts?page=436#436
We can't have that because... uh, why not?
ok, now I at least have a better idea of your worldview and what you meant by "bad idea".
Wrong. The validity of ID as an explanation for biological phenomena is easily testable, and I'll give you proof: you can buy stock today in a biotech firm of your choice (and there are many, many choices available). From this, we must conclude that ID is an experimentally proven concept. Moreover, you'd be hard-pressed to claim that that particular form of intelligent design was not science.
The bottom line is that, regardless of whether or not ID is the actual explanation for phenomenon X, it must be acknowledged as at least a viable explanation. We can say exactly the same thing about the theory of evolution. For example, evolution may be a viable explanation for, say, certain strains of corn, even though the real explanation is something else (i.e., human intervention).
Your basic position boils down to what I indicated previously: that there's no way to tell the difference between designed and non-designed. It's beyond strange that you seem to be saying that this is not a valid field of scientific inquiry.
Your questions are basically of the "all or nothing" variety. I am not making that argument.
I understand your answer is: ID and creationists believe that "kinds" were created, but that they cannot define what a kind is. This would seem to disqualify ID as "scientific".
What is the relation between ID and belief in Noah's Flood? That is, many scientists conclude that Noah's Flood was impossible without violating almost all of physical science (physics, astronomy, geology, thermodynamics,...). If ID is accepted as "correct", does make Noah's Flood "true"? How does ID counter the arguments that such a flood could never happened without an uncountable series of miracles?
While I read yours, you read some of mine: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/physicalscientists.html
Creation-Science Research Center
It just so happens I have read those links., I have been debating this a long time. I thought my link summed it up pretty well. Better than I could in a few short sentences.
Perhaps I'm being dense, but I honestly do not understand the point of your discussion of "kinds." The best I can come up with is that you're constructing a strawman of how ID would treat the topic.
Oddly, last night as I was driving home I saw something similar -- it was a fireworks display, and quite spectacular against the mountains.... Same colors and such, just smaller.... (There's no point to the story beyond the fact that your dsescription strongly reminded me of it.)
Fireworks are cool. yeah.
OK, let's try these two questions:
1. How does ID account for mass extinctions and species extinction? If the saber-toothed tiger was intelligently designed to survive in the designed environment, why did this species become extinct?
4. Why do human fetuses have tails? Every fetal sonogram shows that tails are developed at some stage of development, and sometimes are still present at birth. What is the Intelligent Design explanation for this?
2. Do fetuses really have "tails," or are you simply reading "tail" into something that happens to look like a tail to you?
I'll read your site (already am) and you spend some time looking at the other side too. That's all I ask of any evolutionist - especially if they are teaching our kids!
I'll thank God for creation (for the both of us) - then we can debate how everything got to this point. I'm not all that sure that this debate means much to Him as long as His handiwork is acknowledged.
I do love this argument and will readily admit that I know very little in the scheme of things. However, I have been reading on both sides of this issue for a few years now and will continue to do so.
I will let pass your comments about my homeschooling as I answer to the God on how I raise my kids - not you. But that is not the point here is it? The point is; should we continue to allow our kids to receive only one flawed origins theory and intentionally ignore others? Even if you agree with evolution, do you ignore alternate theories?
I do teach my boys about macro-evolution but do not promote it as I don't believe it. Why can I not expect at least as much from public schools I am funding?
Probably the most accurate statements are also the most unsatisfactory: "survival of the ones that didn't die before they mated;" or, "survival of the ones who produced the most offspring."
Hmmm I don't know, just because a species reproduces it does not follow that it will survive in the long term. The most unhealthy of a species may flourish and reproduce because it has an immunity to a disease that all but wipes out its bretheren.
My point is that fittest and survival do not go hand in hand. Fittest is relative to what one means by fit.
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.