Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
We review here the current political landscape and our own efforts to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin. To mount an effective response, expertise in evolutionary biology and in the history of the public controversy is useful but not essential. However, entering the fray requires a minimal tool kit of information. Here, we summarize some of the scientific and legal history of this issue and list a series of actions that scientists can take to help facilitate good science education and an improved atmosphere for the scientific enterprise nationally. Finally, we provide some model legislation that has been introduced in Wisconsin to strengthen the teaching of science.
The past decade has seen breathtaking progress in evolutionary biology, thanks largely to the fruits of genome sequencing projects. The molecular footprints linking all life on the planet are now fleshed out in rich detail, and we possess a chronometer of molecular evolution going all the way back to early bacteria. This has sparked a renaissance of interest in speciation, development, and evolutionary aspects of disease susceptibility and resistance. The importance of evolution to biology was properly summarized by White House Science Adviser John Marburger when he said, "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Period. What else can you say?" (1).
In a parallel universe, a majority of Americans, 54%, do not believe human beings evolved, according to one poll (2). Only 38% agree with the statement, "human beings evolved from an earlier species" (3). Opposition to evolutionary theory has existed since Darwin. Efforts to eradicate or dilute the teaching of evolution persist throughout the nation despite consistent rejection in the courts. Conservative think tanks, religious fundamentalists, and influential magazines such as National Review continue their attempts to introduce pseudo-science into science classrooms. This movement has gained the support of such prominent politicians as President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Senator John McCain. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a onetime biology major, said, "our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud" (4). Even the definition of science itself has fallen victim to political attack; the state board of education in Kansas decided that the supernatural may now be taught as science in the classroom. Some have claimed that the challenge to evolution is symptomatic of a broader, more generic attack on science itself (5).
Scientists can no longer afford to let these challenges go unopposed. The wide gap between established facts accepted by scientists and the sentiments sampled in the polls reflects a failure of science education. For this, scientists, particularly those in academia, must take some responsibility. The remedies are educational and political and must involve scientists and non-scientists. Instituting an effective response does not require large blocks of time, nor need it involve debates with creationists: small actions can have large effects.
The road to Dover.
In 1968, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Arkansas law had a religious purpose — namely, to oppose teachings perceived to conflict with the biblical story of creation. Following this defeat, opponents of evolution adopted two strategies. First, they advocated the teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation, along with evolution. Second, they began to adopt scientific jargon to give creationism a veneer of science. Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, passed laws mandating this "balanced" treatment of evolution and creationism.
This set the stage for the Arkansas trial of 1982 (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education), which was almost entirely focused on the question "Is creationism science?" Judge William R. Overton stated in his opinion (6) that creationism fails to be a science because it fails to satisfy the following requirements: "(a) it is guided by natural law; (b) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (c) it is testable against the empirical world; (d) its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (e) it is falsifiable."
The issue returned to the Supreme Court in 1986–1987. The Court ruled 7–2 in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana’s law calling for the balanced treatment of evolution ("evolution-science" and "creation-science") violated the First Amendment "because it lacks a clear secular purpose" and it "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind" (7).
The creationists once again mutated and adapted. After the Edwards ruling, they set about removing references to God and creationism from their tracts. For example, as revealed at the Dover trial (8), the authors of the intelligent design (ID) text Of pandas and people: the central question of biological origins stripped the direct mentions of creationism present in early drafts of the text and systematically substituted the novel term "intelligent design" (9).
The evolution of creationism.
ID is the contemporary version of an argument that has a long history. It was given a succinct formulation by William Paley in the early 19th century. Modern defenders of the design argument contend that living things are too complex to have evolved by the process of natural selection; rather, their "irreducible complexity" is convincing evidence of the hand of an intelligent designer. ID theory’s contemporary advocates, who include Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, cite complex systems such as the blood-clotting cascade, the flagellar motor, and the human eye to argue that because these systems would be nonfunctional if even a single component part were excised, they could not have evolved by mutation/natural selection and therefore must have been "intelligently designed." The argument can be boiled down to this: complexity is itself evidence of a designer. In its current version, ID conveniently omits mention of God.
However, ID is not a scientific theory. The premise for the arguments of Behe and other ID proponents is deeply flawed, scientifically and philosophically. Behe assumes that the component parts of irreducibly complex systems never had other functions in older organisms. This is contradicted by scientific evidence. The Dover trial transcripts are illuminating (see "The Dover trial") (8). Under oath, Behe was forced to concede that there are organisms that lack some of the mammalian clotting proteins. Proteins that are present in the flagellar motor have orthologs that are involved in unrelated functions. A recent elegant example of proteins acquiring a new function within a complex system can be seen in a structure that functioned in respiration in fish and later evolved to be part of the mammalian inner ear (10).
ID makes no testable predictions. There is nothing in this concept that allows for scientific investigation of the "designer." It is simply an argument by default; the failure to explain something is said to lend credence to a supernatural explanation. The attempt to promote this as science is deeply misguided. In spite of uncounted hundreds of thousands of scientific studies published in the last 50 years, there are still demonstrable gaps in what we know about the evolution of life on this planet. However, those studies tell us a great deal about how life came to be as it is and now form the foundation of modern biology. ID, by contrast, has produced nothing.
The Discovery Institute.
The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute, founded in 1990 by Bruce K. Chapman. Today, the institute receives more than $4 million per year from numerous foundations, most with religious missions. The center’s objectives are outlined in its "Wedge Strategy," which was leaked and posted on the Internet (11). The document states that the Discovery Institute "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Its goals are to see ID theory as the dominant perspective in science; to see design theory applied in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, and cosmology in the natural sciences and ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts; and to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life.
The Dover decision.
In Dover, Pennsylvania, 2005, 11 parents sued to reverse a school board requirement that the following statement be read to students: "because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations" (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District) (12). The required statement referred only to evolution. The third paragraph in the statement read: "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of pandas and people (9), is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves."
In his decision, Judge John E. Jones stated that ID is essentially Paley’s argument for the existence of God, with God left unmentioned. In short, ID is a religious doctrine. He noted that Behe "claims that the plausibility argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God"; thus, "ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." He characterized ID as "nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Jones stated that the Dover school statement forces a "false duality" on students by making them choose between God/ID and atheism/science and "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."
The Dover case was an important victory for science education. Judge Jones wrote a strongly worded, carefully crafted opinion that should guide future litigation (12). The transcripts of the Dover trial constitute an excellent educational resource, rich in testimony about the nature of science, the evidence for evolution, and the history of deceit in the creationism/ID movement.
The "teach the controversy" hoax.
The ID movement employs a tactic that appeals to the American tradition of "fairness and balance." ID advocates argue that since there is a controversy over evolution, we should "teach the controversy" in public school science classrooms.
The "controversy" is manufactured. Evolutionary biology draws strength from a supporting scientific literature extending across 150 years that includes literally hundreds of thousands of individual papers. Creationists offer no science. In some cases, they have misrepresented science in their efforts to debunk it. For example, in Of pandas and people (9), evolutionary lineages are presented as straight lines linking species, rather than as parts of a tree structure. The incorrect linear model is then used to argue that cytochrome c homology patterns do not conform to evolutionary predictions.
The "just a theory" hoax.
Creationists purposefully confuse the two meanings of the word "theory." In common usage, a theory connotes a statement that is tentative or hypothetical. This is the meaning implied in the frequent claim of ID advocates that evolution is "just a theory." However, science uses the term "theory" differently. When substantiated to the degree that evolutionary theory has been, a theory is regarded as a fact. Practicing biologists operate within the rich context of evolutionary theory, and no part of modern biology, including medicine (13), is completely understandable without it. Scientific arguments are not qualified with clauses that allow for a nonevolutionary scenario.
The "fair and balanced" hoax.
In the name of "fairness and balance," the media have decided to present "two sides" of this story. For example, a day after the Dover decision, National Public Radio aired a commentary by a Heritage Foundation fellow comparing ID to the Big Bang Theory, predicting that eventually it will be widely accepted by scientists (14). By giving uncritical treatment to "both sides," the media convey to the public the false impression that this is a genuine scientific controversy and that each has a substantial body of evidence and convincing argumentation. Journalists should be mindful of the fact that no science supports creationism/ID; 150 years of biological, geological, and physical science supports the modern synthesis of Darwin’s theory. The individuals with scientific credentials who support ideas such as ID actually constitute a rather small group, as recently described in a New York Times article (15).
The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax.
Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document, a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped.
The constant, unanswered assault on evolution is harmful to science and science education. ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Yet all of science education and practice rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces. Teaching our students otherwise disables the very critical thinking they must have in order to be scientists and is a fundamental distortion of the scientific process. ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself.
ID groups have threatened and isolated high school science teachers. Well-organized curricular challenges to local school boards place teachers in the difficult position of arguing against their employers. We have spoken with high school science teachers who feel censored in their efforts to teach the basic principles of science. The legal challenges to local school districts are costly and divert scarce funds away from education into court battles. Although these court battles result in the defeat of ID, they are draining and divisive to local schools.
Finally, the assault on evolution and science threatens our nation’s scientific and technological leadership. Political and economic agendas are interfering with the free flow of scientific information. For example, political appointees have ordered scientists at NASA to eliminate references to the Big Bang Theory and to cease to mention the eventual death of the sun billions of years from now in their comments and publications. Other scientists have been cautioned about speaking out on global warming. These actions disrupt the long-standing tradition of public policy based on the consensus of the scientific community.
[snip]
There is a wide range of actions that each scientist can take to facilitate good science education. Our experience has shown repeatedly that every action carries weight and represents a very productive use of time. Some of these require little time; some require a more substantial commitment.
Educate yourself.
A few hours with publications available on the websites of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the National Center for Science Education can help clarify the issues and provide the preparation needed for an effective scientific response to challenges (see Table 1). The decision rendered by Judge Jones in the Dover decision is a particularly excellent resource and is well worth reading in its entirety.
Write letters.
Write to legislators and newspapers. Write to school boards considering actions that might undermine science education. Write to government leaders. Respond to comments made by ID proponents wherever they might appear. The letters need not be long, and even one letter every few months will have a large effect. This is an activity that can and should fit into the schedule of every working scientist. Similarly, call in to talk shows featuring pro- or antiscience guests. Every letter written by authors of this paper has elicited a positive response. The ID program consists entirely of public relations efforts. They have had this playing field to themselves for too long.
Organize campus evolution groups.
This provides an informal way to husband campus resources in evolutionary biology. Seminar series are useful. Regular meetings to plan special events such as Darwin Day celebrations can serve as outreach exercises.
Organize educational support teams.
Scientists can be a compelling resource for teachers in K–12 science programs who are facing pressure from school boards or parents to alter good science curricula in ways that harm students. If a group of such scientists can be organized, individuals need not face unreasonable demands on time, and the group as a whole can provide valuable assistance to educators within the scientists’ state.
Participate in outreach activities.
Go to local schools and talk to classes about science in general and evolution in particular. Go to school board meetings when appropriate and talk to school board members. Talk to local business groups.
Organize educational sessions at national and international meetings.
Major scientific professional societies should embark on a concerted educational effort, directed both at educating scientists about the problem and arming them for an effective response. Resources also must be made available for science teachers at the K–12 levels. Travel grants, where available, should be concentrated on K–12 teachers to make attendance possible.
Revise textbooks.
Scientists engaged in textbook writing should be more cognizant of the need to educate future scientists and science teachers about evolutionary biology. Additional education is required to explain what science is, what defines a scientist, and how the various forms of the scientific method constitute a consistent whole.
Become more effective lobbyists for legislation that improves the atmosphere for science and science funding.
We urge scientists in all 50 states to work with their respective legislatures to enact legislation similar to the bill just introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature. This movement should appeal to a widely shared interest to uphold the standards of science education and should transcend political ideology.
Make yourself available at least occasionally as a local resource.
Creationists are not deterred by the Dover case. There are troubling situations brewing in almost every state. Scientists should use these new cases as teaching opportunities in their own classrooms and should be willing to testify and support the cause of science education in the courtroom.
Teach.
For academic scientists, there is no greater responsibility than the education of our citizenry, and there is no activity that has a greater impact. For too long, educational programs in biology at the college level have neglected to provide a solid grounding in evolutionary biology, despite its central importance. This background has been left to unstandardized mentions in core courses and to upper-level specialized courses that are often not required. A nationwide overhaul of these programs is essential. New introductory courses are needed to provide a background in evolutionary biology at the very beginning of all programs leading to science or science education degrees, and the courses should be required. New lower-level courses for nonmajors, pitched at a level appropriate for students with minimal science background, are needed to expose as many citizens as possible to evolutionary theory and to introduce them to science.
Work with your legislators.
Identify legislators who are friends of science and work with them, as we have in Wisconsin, to introduce legislation that supports and strengthens science education.
Work with clergy.
As Judge Jones indicated, the creationists have fostered a false duality between science and religion. A majority of people do not hold a literal young-earth interpretation of the Bible. The clerical community has a shared interest in keeping science and religion apart. They do not want religion to be presented as science and, like a large block of religious scientists, do not see any conflict between religious belief and evolutionary theory.
Whether in crafting a tax code, making health care decisions, evaluating the economy, exploring the resolution of world conflicts, evidence-based thinking is the best intellectual tool in our possession. In science, controversies are usually temporary. When scientists have divergent hypotheses, they usually agree on the key experiments that will favor one hypothesis over others. This is because there is a consensus that framing questions in a way that is subject to the test of evidence is the most progressive way to advance knowledge and understanding. In an ideal world, such principles ought to be widely embraced. Students should learn the difference between hard evidence and speculation. They should understand the elements of logic and clear, critical thinking. They need to understand how to suspend belief while gathering and evaluating evidence.
As George Orwell observed, "a mere training in . . . sciences . . . is no guarantee of a humane or skeptical outlook." Yet Orwell advocated universal science education if such an education was structured to focus on "acquiring a method — a method that can be used on any problem that one meets — and not simply piling up a lot of facts" (18).
Within universities, the cultural gap between the sciences and the humanities needs to be bridged. A useful approach is to create courses in critical thinking that combine science and the humanities. Ideally, such courses would include an exploration of contemporary problems from the combined perspectives of the sciences and the humanities, united in the common theme of evidence-based, critical thinking. Given that our universities play a large role in the training of the next generation of government and corporate leadership, investing in a future better guided by evidence-based, critical thinking is the most important investment we can make.
I am curious. Do you have an argument of substance to offer?
No we don't, since science does not deal in "proof". Care to try again?
and froth at the mouth at even the suggestion that they could, on some or many points, be wrong.
Wrong again. We cheerfully admit that we "could, on some or many points, be wrong". What we don't accept without a fight, however, is the various falsehoods, disinformation, fallacies, and personal attacks which anti-evolutionists dishonestly attempt to use in order to incorrectly claim that they've shown we *are* wrong. *Could* we be wrong? Sure. But not for any of the bogus reasons which the evolution-haters have managed to produce to date.
We don't mind the observation that we *could* be wrong, because of course we could -- so could anyone, on any subject. We do, however, object to being called liars, fools, members of a conspiracy, supporters of the devil, etc., for no damned good reason. In short, we don't bristle at suggestions we might be wrong, unless the speaker is being an a**hole about it -- which the anti-evolutionists have a habit of doing.
There are scientist who do not hold to the full blank check evolution THEORIES.
There aren't *any* scientists who hold "to the full blank check evolution THEORIES", because there's no such thing as a "full blank check blah blah blah". There is, however a non-blank-check field of evolutionary biology, which contains well-established theories concerning various aspects of the evolutionary changes which have occurred, and are still occurring, in the living things which live on this planet, and these theories are supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence and research findings along multiple cross-confirming lines.
Perhaps you should learn more about this subject before you misrepresent it again.
The evolution theories have EVOLVED into fact,
Wrong again, although they have become more and more validated by more and more evidence.
in their lock step ortohdoxy thinking of the education establishment, and they arrogantly attack as fools, rubes and religious extremist, those who even have a slight doubt showing on their HUMAN face.
You saw this in a comic book published by anti-evolutionists, didn't you? This is as poor a representation of evolutionary biology as is the depiction of slavering capitalists raping the environment which is a staple of the liberal TV cartoon, "Captain Planet"...
They label, without any qualifications, as FACT all facets of evolotion theory,
No we don't. Please stop making things up.
defending it as SCIENCE,
Evolutionary biology is science.
and suggesting that ANYTHING (not just ID) that does not rubber stamp their views is NOT science....
Wrong again. Many things *aren't* science, however, including "ID", but that has nothing to do with the fact that it "does not rubber stamp our views", and everything to do with the fact that "ID" fails to meet even the most minimal standards for a valid field of science.
As for religion in the classroom, most of the Founding Fathers wanted it there...(not theory...can be proven by examination of their letters and other writtings).
Gosh, really? Let's check in with, say, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, shall we? Here's what I wrote in response to the last person to make the same mistake you have:
I'm sorry that you're ignorant of American history. Madison and Jefferson both felt very strongly about the separation of church and state (even using that very term), and wrote of the importance of not using the public moneys or institutions to support one or more religions. In Madison's famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", he wrote strenuously against using public money to underwrite in any degree the promulgation of religious teachings. In another opinion, he wrote:
A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. [...] On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.In another essay, he wrote:Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.And:Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. [...] If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience!Writing of the success of the First Amendment's unique new approach to the age-old problem of religious/government entanglement, Madison wrote:It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.And in the same vein:Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.But hey, what would Madison know, he only *wrote* the First Amendment...As for Jefferson, he also wrote favorably of "a wall of separation between church and state" on many occasions, for example:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.Like Madison, Jefferson was likewise of the opinion that public schools should be secular. When the College of William and Mary wanted to become Virginia's state university, Jefferson would allow it only if that school divested itself of all ties with sectarian religion. The college declined, so Jefferson himself instead founded the first truly secular university, University of Virginia. Of his new University, Jefferson wrote:A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution.And to teachers at his University, Jefferson said:This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.And from a famous earlier historian of the US:... I questioned the faithful of all communions; I particularly sought the society of clergymen, who are the depositories of the various creeds and have a personal interest in their survival ... all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.The "complete separation of church and state" is no modern ACLU invention...
-- (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859The modern court cases upholding this principle of keeping religious advocacy out of the schools merely uphold the original intent and meaning of the First Amendment, and indeed make explicit reference to Madison and Jefferson's writings on this matter:
As the momentum for popular education increased and in turn evoked strong claims for state support of religious education, contests not unlike that which in Virginia had produced Madison's Remonstrance appeared in various forms in other states. New York and Massachusetts provide famous chapters in the history that established dissociation of religious teaching from state-maintained schools. In New York, the rise of the common schools led, despite fierce sectarian opposition, to the barring of tax funds to church schools, and later to any school in which sectarian doctrine was taught.So yes, just as I said, attempts to get religious views taught in public schools, whether overt or thinly disguised, are a violation of the First Amendment -- not just the modern view of the First Amendment, but the original intent as well.[...]
The upshot of these controversies, often long and fierce, is fairly summarized by saying that long before the Fourteenth Amendment subjected the states to new limitations, the prohibition of furtherance by the state of religious instruction became the guiding principle, in law and in feeling, of the American people.
[...]
The preservation of the community from division conflicts, of government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the state to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice. [...] The extent to which this principle was deemed a presupposition of our Constitutional system is strikingly illustrated by the fact that every state admitted into the Union since 1876 was compelled by Congress to write into its constitution a requirement that it maintain a school system "free from sectarian control".
[...]
We find that the basic Constitutional principle of absolute separation was violated when the State of Illinois, speaking through its Supreme Court, sustained the school authorities of Champaign in sponsoring and effectively furthering religious beliefs by its educational arrangement. Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between church and state speaks of a "wall of separation," not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. "The great American principle of eternal separation"--Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition--is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."
-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, the 1948 decision that forbid public schools in Illinois from commingling sectarian and secular instruction
classic Marxist/ACLU double talk...
Yeah, boy, that Theodore Roosevelt, what a Marxist and ACLU lawyer:
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
-- Theodore Roosevelt Address, New York, October 12, 1915.
Einstien, must have been an ID type guy,
You're batting 0.000 in this post...
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."That's about as direct an ANTI-"ID" statement as can be stated in the English language.
-- Albert Einstein, letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive
since he once said that God does not play dice with the universe. So, if they want ONLY science to be taught, will they not include what Einstein believed?
First, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but not everything that Einstein believed automatically qualifies as science. He believed he shouldn't wear socks either, but that doesn't make the non-wearing of socks a scientific discipline. Or am I going too fast for you?
Second, if you think that Einstein believed in "ID" -- in an actual consciousness as the source of the Universe, you're sadly mistaken (and have yet again been led astray by the misrepresentations and out-of-context quotes favored by the anti-evolutionists). Here's what Einstein ACTUALLY believed, in his own words -- note how little comfort they give to any "ID" fan or anyone who thinks that Einstein believed in anything like the Christian idea of God. Let's have a look at some of the quotes that the creationists like to sweep under the rug, shall we?
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task..."And:
-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter dated 24 March 1954, included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side".
"It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."And:
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in W. I Hermanns "A Talk with Einstein," October 1943
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman, Albert Einstein the Human Side
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."And:
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."And:
-- Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."And:
-- Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."And:
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Baptist pastor in 1953; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."And:
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in The New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Thoughts, New York: Ballantine Books, 1996, p. 134.
"Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees."And:
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," in the New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930, pp. 3-4; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, pp. 205-206.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."And:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world as far—as we can grasp it. And that is all."Einstein's "God", his "religion", was the deep spiritual awe he felt in contemplation of the majestic breadth and depth and orderliness of the Universe itself:
-- Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):62.
"The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a Rabbi in Chicago; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton University Press, 1981, pp. 69-70.
...and would they allow the views many to today's SCIENTISTS who don't hold to a blank check for evolution theories believe to be presented.... NO.
Not in science class if they're not science, of course not. And not in public schools if they're a veiled attempt to push a particular religious view, either.
They will shout down ANY desent from bowing down to their HOLY THEORY....afterall, THEORY is now SCIENCE.
LOL! You're doing a lot of "shouting" there yourself, son. And no, we don't "shout down" any "desent [sic]" (plus we actually know how to spell "dissent"), nor does anyone "bow down" to any theory nor do we expect anyone to, nor is evolutionary biology "HOLY". Are you sure you have any clue what in the hell you're talking about?
Theory is, however, part of science, you sort of got one partly right for a change.
My guitar did not evolve from a tree....
Nor did anyone claim it did. Duh! The reason no one claims it did is because a) there's no evidence indicating that it did, and b) there's plenty of evidence indicating that it was designed and built by humans.
The converse is true for living things, however (i.e., there is massive evidence that living things have evolved from simpler forms, and there is zero evidence that they were designed), which is exactly why an overwhelming percentage of science-literate people have concluded that living things *have* evolved, and guitars *haven't*.
Let me know if I'm going over your head or anything. I would have thought that these points would have been obvious enough even without the explanation, but I see that in your case I've been guilty of overestimation.
They spend so much time on ID because they think they're winning something on that front while the popular support for Evolution is from the beeswax seal
Do you actually know what "theory" means in science? Any clue at all? Your post would suggest that you are arguing from a strictly religious, not a scientific, view.
Here is a list of definitions of how some terms are used in science. You will probably not agree, but your agreement or disagreement has no effect on the way science is practiced. (Sorry.)
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
See post #425, below (I'm many posts behind).
Based on your posts, you have no clue as to what a theory is, or how science is conducted.
No, he didn't. At least not in any sense similar to the way that the "ID" folks (or even the traditional creationists) mean it. See the many quotes by Einstein in this post in which he makes clear his denial of any such belief -- and his impatience with those who would misrepresent his beliefs in an attempt to claim that Einstein believed in any kind of "personal God".
There are many scientists who think the same way, including some I have spoken to personally.
Although Einstein himself is not a good example, there are indeed countless scientists -- and millions of science-literate laymen -- who feel the same way. And there's nothign wrong with that. In fact, the *majority* of American "evolutionists" are also themselves Christians.
Even Kenneth R. Miller, the biologist who was the primary witness for the plaintiffs in the "Kitzmiller v Dover" court case which (correctly) concluded that "ID" is not science and is instead a Trojan Horse for religion, is not an atheist, as many anti-evolutionists presumed, but a devout Christian who has even written a good book on reconciling religion and science.
The vast majority of people who vigorously argue that science and belief in God are necessarily at odds are the *anti-evolution creationists*, not the evolutionists.
I don't see why a backing away from an ultimate creator is so necessary when men debate science.
It isn't necessary. Nor do they.
Unfortunately, however, far too many people insist on "backing away from science" when they ponder their religion.
Things evolve and that could be because God created them that way.
Yes, of course.
See post #425, below
Just one overview.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=450
If there is one thing that the "Discovery Institute" fears, it is scientific discoveries.
Their PR budget can only stretch so far...
Plausible, to me.
But I'm clueless about what you meant by:
from the beeswax seal
Thanks for your kind note.
And a dozen happy Snoopy dances to you and yours.
Been there enough times. Don't need to make another trip.
Besides, I suspect others have done or could do better.
This mountain has been round and round and round and rounded exceedingly much.
Heat without additional light is not always that attractive for extended discourse, to me.
This is BS. Care to try again, without the totally anti-science bias?
Christianity is about being reconciled to God through Christ and the work He did on the cross. How could the physical evidence for evolution possibly be consistent with that message? It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Science does not deal with the supernatural but the natural. The supernatural is beyond what it can measure or observe or test. So scientists are then unqualified to make any statements about it. Would you rather that they go about making ignorant statements on a subject matter ofwhich they know nothing, and thereby making fools of themselves and deceiving people into believing that they know more than they do; or would you rather advise them to stick to their area of expertise and leave the theological issues to theologians and philosophical issues to the philosophers?
And, by the same logic, would you not also agree that ID and creationism should stay out of science classes?
Well, that settles it doesn't it? Who needs science when you have bronze age scrolls.
You are welcome to trash them immediately at your preference.
Or, you could put them on a high shelf and wait and see what falls off at some point in the future.
Or, you could study the issues out more thoroughly than perhaps you have heretofore.
Or, perhaps Holy Spirit at some point in the future will remind you of such humble statements amidst much fulfillment falling all around you in vividly tangible and dramatic forms.
Your option, for sure.
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.