Posted on 04/30/2005 10:08:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
When Bill Harris examines a bacterium's whip-like tail, he sees a food-finding, poison-avoiding machine the likes of which man can't build. That and other observations lead him to question evolution.
"It's got function; it's got purpose," said Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "In science, you follow where the evidence goes."
Harris is at the center of a contentious debate over science testing standards for Kansas schools. He and other advocates of intelligent design want to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution, particularly conclusions that change over time in a species can lead to a new one and that man, apes and other animals had common ancestors. Many scientists view intelligent design - which says some features of the natural world, because of their well-ordered complexity, are best explained by an intelligent cause - as creationism.
"They're trying to prove God, scientifically," said Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at the University of Alberta in Canada, who also describes himself as a born-again Christian.
In June, the State Board of Education expects to consider changes to science standards, which currently describe evolution as a key concept for students to learn.
A three-member board subcommittee plans hearings May 5-7 and 12-14, and intelligent design, or "ID," advocates expect nearly two dozen witnesses to critique evolution. National and state science groups are boycotting, viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution.
Intelligent design advocates haven't proposed citing ID in the standards or including it in lessons. Yet ID is under scrutiny because scientists fear there will be an attempt to sneak it - or even creationism - into the classroom. Critics contend intelligent design is a response to court rulings against teaching creationism in public schools.
Backers of intelligent design said opponents are trying unfairly to identify ID advocates with Christians who take literally the Bible's account of a divine, six-day creation. Advocates stress that ID doesn't identify the intelligent cause of creation - or claim that science can.
"You cannot, by seeing something that's designed, know anything about the designer," Harris said. "The data doesn't take you to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or some little green man on Mars. We're not being coy."
Critics of intelligent design scoff at such arguments.
"We're not talking about little green aliens," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa math teacher and former science curriculum designer affiliated with Kansas Citizens for Science. "What kind of designer has been around 4 billion years and has the power to do - literally - God knows what?"
John West, senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports [but doesn't really do] intelligent design research, said ID advocates aren't challenging explanations for changes within species over time. Instead, he said, the controversy is about how new species arise and whether there's a common ancestor for all life.
"From goo to you, via the zoo," Harris said. "That's the big Darwinian picture."
West pointed to the Cambrian Explosion - a sudden appearance of diverse, multicelled life during the Cambrian Period, some 500 million years ago. Where fossils for ancestors of Cambrian life should exist, he said, they are lacking.
"This is turning Darwin's theory on its head," he said.
Richard Schrock, an Emporia State University biology teacher, said the record is spotty possibly because Precambrian seas were more acidic, destroying potential fossils. With advances in genetic research, he said, "It's not causing a problem."
"They're fighting a losing battle," he said of intelligent design advocates. "The universities here, we're not going to be presenting intelligent design in our curriculums, because it has no scientific credence."
Among the 23 witnesses expected to question evolution during the hearings in May are teachers, chemists and biology, religion and philosophy professors.
Lamoureux said while such a lineup can look impressive, most intelligent design advocates aren't well-trained or work day-to-day in historical sciences such as paleontology or evolutionary biology.
"Are they bright guys? No question. Do they have good Ph.D.s from great institutions? No doubt about it," said Lamaoureux, who once planned to participate in the hearings but pulled out. "But if you're a dentist, you can't deliver babies."
West said ID critics "sling mud" instead of defending Charles Darwin's theory and their conclusions about evolution.
Schrock said scientists are frustrated because while ID advocates did not gain credibility among scientists, they were still able to create a political and social debate. He said that's because, "The level of scientific stupidity in America is terrifically high."
Lamoureux said intelligent design taps into the wonder the natural world can inspire - and into people's religious experiences.
"Rhetorically, it's unbelievably powerful," he said. "It's something most people can wrap their brains around."
|
It's survival of the fittest! May science win out over theocracy.
It hasn't been all that long ago that evolution laid out a scientific alternative to long-standing religious beliefs about our origins. I suspect the religions will eventually come to grasps with that, too.
Between now and then, the spirited battles will continue.
ID is creationism with a new title and different clothes. It's still the same old thing though. The Earth is round and it wasn't created in 7 days.
Typical creationist bending of the truth. They were boycotting, but have since changed their minds (as of ten days ago).
Well put. I agree.
It is folly for evolutionists and intelligent designers to deny the validity of the other. However, Evolution + ID = Creationism. Proof?? To seek it is itself folly.
We should learn all we can, knowing in advance that we will eventually hit a wall that can't be breached.
Those insisting on evolution as the only answer, while refusing to hear any other explanation, are simply anti-God liberals trying to negate anything remotely suggestive of God.
I believe it
That settles it.
You just have to love the open minds of you "scientists" and objective thinkers...../sarcasm
............YET. (See 'Nanotechnology' which is a product of the 'Scientific Method' which, in turn, is a product of 'Western Civilization', the same as 'Evolution')
Quite so. If one can "prove" the existence of God, what does one need faith for?
Just as "All roads lead to Rome" one must eventually arrive at creationism. Otherwise, there is always something "out there" beyond the present proof. There is the unending "Well then, what caused that?", no matter where you end up.
The logical answer will always be, if you care to deal in logic, something must have created it or the wimp-out of agnosticism. Then the "something" becomes the focus and will never be proved for the foregoing reasons.
To label any theory, and that is what evolution is, a theory, not a fact, "Claptrap" labels you and limits the respect for your ideas.
Try to stay on the topic.
"What kind of designer has been around 4 billion years..."
Well, the "designer" I'm thinking of has been around longer than 4 billion years. These guys never want to step up to the plate and swing at the question "What existed before the big bang?" as far as I've seen, because the question by definition cannot have a testable answer. Or maybe they are such stubborn atheists.
I have no difficulty squaring the existence of a higher power with evolution. There's *something* out there.
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.