Posted on 05/06/2005 10:47:50 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
CHARLES DARWIN’S theory of evolution is facing a new challenge in America from Christians who argue that life shows an “intelligent design”.
The Kansas Board of Education has begun taking evidence from anti-evolution scientists in a bid to rewrite the state’s teaching standards to ensure that pupils learn alternatives to evolution that suggest a guiding hand in the origin of life.
Kansas is one of a growing number of states to consider authorising schools to teach religious alternatives to Darwin — but a four-day hearing of the Kansas board has outraged mainstream scientists, who are boycotting the meeting and holding protests outside.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science declined an invitation to testify, arguing that the hearings would confuse rather than educate the public.
“This is a showcase trial,” Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said. “They have hijacked science and education.”
On the first day of testimony in Topeka, the audience heard lectures on “primordial soup”, fruit-fly mutations and whether human beings were related to worms as six anti-evolution scientists argued that the theory of evolution could not explain gaps in the fossil record, the complexity of DNA or the origin of life itself.
William Harris, a professor of medicine who specialises in omega-3 fatty acids and co-founded the Intelligent Design Network, said that Darwinism clashed with the biblical teaching that life was created by God. “Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools,” he said. “This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications.”
Other witnesses included Jonathan Wells, an embryologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who described himself as “an old Berkeley antiwar radical”. “The way Darwinian evolution is usually presented is that the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no controversy about it,” he said. “That’s clearly not the case.”
Dr Wells, who holds PhDs in theology from Yale University and in biology from the University of California, Berkeley, confirmed under cross-examination that he was a member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.
Pro-Darwin scientists distributed an internet posting outside the hearing in which Dr Wells declares: “Father’s words, my studies and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”
The anti-evolution scientists faced sharp questioning from Pedro Irigonegaray, a lawyer defending Darwin at the hearings. He said that he fantasised that he was defending John Scopes, a Tennessee biology teacher who in 1925 was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution at what became known as the “Monkey Trial”.
“The delicious fantasy of being in a courtroom-like environment, with the overhead fan slowly twisting and being able to question witnesses about all of these issues, is very appealing,” he said.
The US Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of biblical beliefs, or “creationism”, in state schools in an Arkansas case in 1987, forcing Christians to embrace “intelligent design”.
All three members of the Kansas sub-committee support a change in the standards to tell students that evolution is only a theory, not a fact, and to include alternatives. The full Kansas school board, which is controlled by a 6-4 conservative majority, is expected to rewrite the standards in June, joining Ohio, which took a similar step three years ago. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia are also considering Bills to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class.
The TOE attempts to explain the fact that species change over time. It does this both historically by studing fossils and contemporaneously in the lab. Species adapt, mutations happen, selection occurs. I don't think you'll find many folks who disagree with that.
But the TOE is not a fact, in science theories occupy a position in the hierarchy above facts. Now guys like Dawkins would have you believe that Neo Darwinian Theory explains it all from soup to nuts and while doing so disproves a Creator. Well, I know Dawkins is a bigot but he's your bigot and he represents a school of thought that has brought about the blowback you are seeing in Kansas and elsewhere.
Such is life but since you're a states powers kind of guy I would hope you're not one of those cheering on the sidelines if the feds order Kansas to do what the Darwinists want and the residents of Kansas don't want.
Oh and by the way, states don't have rights. God granted rights to individuals. States have powers and the only powers they have are the ones the people give them.
You don't have to be a scientist to debate science - but if you're going to argue about science and evolution, and especially what should be taught in SCIENCE CLASSES, don't you think it's important to really know what you're talking about?
When you say something like 'i don't think evolution (common ancestor, species jumps) has been proven' a scientist will look at you like you're crazy, because you've just generalized an entire library's worth of thought and concepts into a single sentence - evolution as a mechanism, natural selection, phylogeny (of every organism on earth or just humans?), speciation, etc, etc, etc, and boiled it down to "I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN PROVEN" which puts the icing on the cake because you seem willing to disregard vast amounts of observations and theory without offering a testable alternative, while completely ignoring the fact that science doesn't even claim to be able to prove anything anyway and is only about finding and failing to disprove the most reasonable explanation that fits the evidence?
Since you seem to know the definition of fact, I'm at a loss as to why you assume I'm talking about any kind of theory. What I said:
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution = change over time.
Fact = observed phenomeon.
If you're willing to precisely define the 'theory of evolution' without using generalizations, I'll gladly discuss it. Because it seems to me that the 'theory of evolution' is a media buzzword that encompasses so many things it's impossible to know what people are talking about.
I didn't think my response to you should go on and on explaining the different aspects of the theory of evolution. I figure you're familiar with them. Why, can someone PLEASE tell me, the problems with evolution (and surely you are aware of them so I don't have to go finding a bunch of different sites) shouldn't be included? Are you saying there aren't any questions about evolution? No "we're not too sure about this" in anything regarding age of the earth, fossil dating, lack of fossils, few actual transitional fossils? I think the Emperor has no clothes!
The TOE attempts to explain the fact that species change over time. It does this both historically by studing fossils and contemporaneously in the lab. Species adapt, mutations happen, selection occurs. I don't think you'll find many folks who disagree with that.
My question is, right, then what is the theory of evolution?
Now guys like Dawkins would have you believe that Neo Darwinian Theory explains it all from soup to nuts and while doing so disproves a Creator.
Yeah, some misguided people may use evolution to push an atheist agenda, but science is never about disproving the existence of God; science is "How?", God is "Why?".
Honestly? In a properly instructed science class, any gaps in evidence or logic should already be being taught. Science by nature should be self-critical and constantly skeptical, constantly questioning.
If someone taking science doesn't understand that "we're not too sure about anything, really," then the teacher isn't doing their job (or they're pushing an agenda).
In current high school biology textbooks, how much print is devoted to problems with the theory of evolution? Last one I looked at, a couple of years ago, I don't remember seeing ANY criticism of the theory as it's promoted by evolutionist scientists.
Well, why should various aspects of evolution be treated with more scrutiny than, say, the theory of how plants transport sugars from place to place?
Criticism is implied by the fact that they're learning science. There's always a contrary view.
Should contrary views be presented in class?
Well one might say it depends on who you ask which renders the argument that the TOE is a fact worthless.
Pay attention. I never said the 'theory of evolution' is a fact because that statement is meaningless.
I said 'Evolution' is a fact. Then I asked you what the 'theory of evolution' was, because you seemed to have awfully strong opinions about something that, as it turns out, you can't even define properly.
Not really - there's too much information that needs to be taught already, and it's not really useful to turn science class into debate class.
I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher that chose to do that, however, provided that what they're teaching is scientifically sound.
No, fairy tales. Once upon a time.......
> But of course you can't back up evolution
Except for all that pesky genetic, observational and fossil evidence.
> who would be the greatest scientist of all time other than God Himself?
Highly unlikely that God is a scientist. What research does he do? One would imagine he'd have the answers without havign to go to all the bother of observing, recording, theorizing and experimenting.
What specific observational evidence are you talking about? Just a couple of examples, please.
Xenuaudit place mark
Some links to help you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002551.html
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.