Revisiting intelligent design [Ohio's schools]

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH ^ | 09 July 2006 | Catherine Candisky

[PatrickHenry]

State Board of Education panel may look at guidelines for classroom discussion of science controversies

Less than five months after evolution won a round in the State Board of Education, some board members want to reopen the debate.

Colleen Grady, a board member from the Cleveland suburb of Strongsville, wants to add guidelines to the state science standards for teaching on such topics as evolution, global warming, stem-cell research and cloning.

Grady said she views her proposal as a compromise to ensure that differing views are considered when teaching such hot-button issues.

"We would provide a template so schools would be comfortable discussing controversial issues," she said last week.

Grady sits on the board’s Achievement Committee, which is expected to discuss the proposal when it meets Monday in Columbus. A vote on whether to recommend the proposal to the full board is not scheduled but possible.

Talk of revisiting the issue has raised concern among scientists who have long fought efforts that they say undermine Darwin’s theory of evolution. Now, they argue, some board members want to subject other areas of science to heightened scrutiny.

"This is so transparent," said Steve Rissing, a biology professor at Ohio State University. "These are not controversial areas of science."

In February, the board voted 11-4 to eliminate portions of curriculum guidelines for 10 th-grade science and an accompanying lesson plan calling for the critical analysis of evolution.

Critics argued that "critical analysis of evolution" was tantamount to calling for the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, the notion that some life forms are so complex that a higher intelligence, maybe God, had to be involved. Both, they argue, are religious beliefs unsuitable for the science classroom.

Committee co-chairman Jim Craig, of Canton, said he was aware of recent discussions of the issue, but nobody has shown him a proposal.

Getting a majority of committee members to agree on any recommendation will be difficult, he said. While Grady and a few others are pushing her proposal, others on the committee say that no more changes are necessary.

"I don’t think either side wants to get back to the point where it was," Craig said, referring to two meetings this year that were dominated by sometimes-bitter debate.

Deborah Owens Fink, a board member from Richfield who is supporting Grady’s proposal, said modifying existing language should be less controversial than ideas the board has considered in the past.

Specifically, Grady proposes taking existing language in 10 th-grade science standards — "Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning response to criticism and open communications are integral to the process of science." — and adding to it: "Discuss and be able to apply this in the following areas: global warning; evolutionary theory; emerging technologies and how they may impact society, e.g. cloning or stem-cell research."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Through your ad hominen attacks,..."

You can't be seriously accusing ME of using ad hominems after your little rant about *Darwiniacs*, can you? You really ARE hilarious!

"I looked at your reference and wasn't even a little impressed. "

I'm not surprised. I also know you didn't actually read more than 1% of it, as you didn't have time to read it and answer so quickly.

"You see, I also have a terminal credential in one of the hard sciences and lesser degree's in two others, so I do understand the scientific method."

No, you really don't understand it. Your understanding does seem to be *terminal* though, I'll argee with you there.

"Darwin argued that modern species "evolved" from different and more primitive species."

And the evidence backs that wonderfully.

"Now, given the billions of modern species and a huge fossil record to work with, a logical person would believe that there is, somewhere in the fossil record, a demonstration of this amazing phenomenon."

Here's a hint: That link I gave you provided numerous examples of such evidence.

"All I asked from you was just one example and you've not presented it. "

That's a *misstatement*.

"You give me instead, a fellow believer's treatise on scientific method."

Again, you actually have to READ the material; just clicking onto the link isn't enough.

"You remind me of a moonbat that called in to a radio talk show a while ago."

No ad hominems from you, nope... lol

"Okay -- where is the one fossil record example that demonstrates a modern species "evolved" from a different, more primitive, species. Saying that "the entire fossil record supports that conclusion makes me think that maybe you're that radio caller in disguise."

I already gave you the evidence. It's up to you to look at it or not.

So far you have provided no argument against evolution. Nothing.

[Coyoteman]

If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it.

That's easy! This one is also a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[From many - one.]

I never saw that association at all. Thanks.

I'm up for an extended discussion later today, pending resolution of some health issues. If I can't provide an immediate answer, I'll let you know it will be delayed.

[Coyoteman]

When evolution theory is taught in High Schools (or colleges), how is it taught?... Are the errors that have been dealt with -making revisions in the theory- taught, or is some specious pristine and non-assailable theory taught, leading students to believe the theory has not needed the application of what makes the process of science so valuable?

I had a lot of courses in grad school in evolution and related subjects. Two seminars (or three; it was a long time ago) dealt with "problems" in evolution.

Not a one of the things the creationists are always dredging up was included. Rather, the seminars were devoted to theoretical interpretations of data, and how different researchers had different approaches.

You can't teach this kind of thing in high school. Neither the students nor the teachers generally have the background.

[vetsvette]

"So far you have provided no argument against evolution. Nothing."

Ahhhhh, so we now get to the crux of the liberal argument -- if you can't prove it's wrong, it is, by definition, true. You should get a job at SeeBS -- Rather and Mapes left a couple of openings there for people with that mentality.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Ahhhhh, so we now get to the crux of the liberal argument -- if you can't prove it's wrong, it is, by definition, true."

Uh, no. The crux of the issue is you have not provided anything that shows evolution to be a *fiction*; all you have done is restate your claim and throw ad hominem attacks.

Why should I accept your claim against the evidence I provided you? Are you just incapable of critiquing it?

[vetsvette]

Evolution of plankton into plankton doesn't do much for me -- and evolution of horses into horses or whales into whales doesn't do much for the the argument about the "origin of species" -- not just because of the "gaps" that you admit exist, but, more importantly, because Darwin argued that species developed by chance through trial and error, with the less capable versions of the predecessor species simply becoming extinct through "survival of the fittest." Now, logic would suggest that this process would create infinitely more examples of the losers than of the winners in this game of random chance evolution -- but, alas, there is no record of that infinite numbers of less capable iterations anywhere. Very strange.

But, the big problem, of course, is the Cambrian Period, where over just a few million years, countless new species appeared on earth with no record at all of anything preceding them from which they could have "evolved." There is a huge fossil record of the periods before the Cambrian, but no evidence of any of the expected predecessor species. All these species just seem to have appeared spontaneously.

[freedumb2003]

I use the term CRIDer as a shorthand for Creationists and ID proponents, It is not dismissive. Call me an Evo, I have no problem.

The term 'Darwinist' is an epithet.

Big difference.

[freedumb2003]

I use the term CRIDer as a shorthand for Creationists and ID proponents, It is not dismissive. Call me an Evo, I have no problem.

The term 'Darwinist' is an epithet.

Big difference.

[vetsvette]

"Are you just incapable of critiquing it?"

Critiquing anyone's articles of religious faith is a waste of effort --

The absence of any fossil record support for where the innumerable species that spontaneously appear during the Cambrian Period could possibly have "evolved" is the mother of all "gaps" in Darwin's theory - a gap that your wish bias will not close.

If you would rather believe in Darwin than in some higher being, have at it -- I can't criticize your religious preference. Just don't pretend that it's science, rather than faith that you're arguing for.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Critiquing anyone's articles of religious faith is a waste of effort --"

That's nice. How about critiquing the link I provided that had tons of scientific evidence for evolution instead? Are you just not capable of doing that?

"The absence of any fossil record support for where the innumerable species that spontaneously appear during the Cambrian Period could possibly have "evolved" is the mother of all "gaps" in Darwin's theory - a gap that your wish bias will not close."

Again, read the links. The species don't appear *spontaneously*. There are connections with previous species. Your ignorance of this (willful at this point, as the info has been provided you) is not a very good argument otherwise.

"If you would rather believe in Darwin than in some higher being, have at it --"

False dichotomy. Most people who accept evolution also are Christians in the USA. I don't *believe* in Darwin, I have accepted his arguments.

Again, you provide nothing that amounts to an argument against evolution, but instead you wallow in ad hominems and willful ignorance.

[Coyoteman]

If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it.

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[Gumlegs]

Now you've posted two pieces of evidence, which clearly is not not what vetsvette wants. (Although I'm still confused over whether it's supposed to be a "single fossil record" to prove it, or a "single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin."

Anyone care to post a "single fossil record"?

[Coyoteman]

Now you've posted two pieces of evidence, which clearly is not not what vetsvette wants.

Lots more where those came from:

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[Dimensio]

As I understand it, the fossil record supports micro-evolution but where Origin Of Species proposed gradual change with slow transitions the fossil record does not support macro-evolutionary transitions.

Your understanding is incorrect, then.

Isn't that why Gould and others proposed punctuated equilibrium?

Gould advocates punctuated equlibrium, and has expanded some on the concept, but the idea behind punctuated equlibrium was proposed in Darwin's time.

[PatrickHenry]

A few questions for advocates of intelligent design:

1. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?

2. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation? Or even a competing explanation?

Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition: The theory of intelligent design 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.

3. If the intelligent designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design? (Note: "intelligent designer" isn't capitalized because ID is alleged to be science, not theology.)

Related question for those who would claim that a thing with a "purpose" demonstrates design: What distinguishes a design that has "purpose" from something that has no purpose? How does one see "purpose" in a duck, or an ape, or a rock? If everything has a purpose, how is design different from mere existence?

4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify ID?

5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the variety of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct? (And no, the Fall doesn't explain it, because ID is supposed to be science, not theology.)

6. If complex organisms demand an ID explanation, why doesn't the designer (obviously a complex entity) require an even more intelligent designer who created it, and so on, ad infinitum?

It's no answer to raise the theologian's argument that God is exempt from the normal demands of scientific explanation. If ID is an idea that belongs in the science classroom, it must submit to scientific discipline.

7. The rapidly-growing biotech industry, which is profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, employs thousands of scientists. Why don't they employ "creation scientists" or ID theorists to exploit their insights? (If they did, the creationist websites would surely mention it.)

[Coyoteman]

If you have a single piece of evidence that actually supports Darwin, I'd love to see it.

Note the number of this specimen, KNM-WT 15000. This stands for Kenya National Museum, West Turkana area, specimen #15,000. There are a lot of fossil producing areas in Kenya. There are a lot of countries in Africa which produce fossils. There are a lot of countries on other continents chich produce fossils. That means there are hundreds of thousands of fossils kicking around.

I can post more if you want, but I don't want to use up all the bandwidth.

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[Dimensio]

Grady has zeroed in on the problem that Darwinists have never had the spine or integrity to openly acknowledge in their hysterical jihads to protect the one true "science." It is simply this: Darwinism, like global warming, is ultimately a device specifically designed and driven to advance leftist ideology and theology (atheism).

You seem to believe that repeatedly making unsubstantiated assertions of this nature somehow falsifies the last 150 years of research and discovery in the field of evolution. You are incorrect. Your continued repetition of false claims in no way weakens the the theory of evolution. I am curious as to why you continue to make such statements.

[From many - one.]

In view of the interpretation by MHG (and possibly others), I think it might behoove us on the science side of the issue to refrain from using CRIDer unless we intend to give offence. The interpretation is reasonable.

In highly emotional arguments my preference is to grant the other side all possible perks and stick to the primary issue; in this case that science comes down unequivocally on the side of evolution.

[JTN]

Actually the global warming thing is something I've wanted to pester the ping list about for a while now, but I didn't want to bother them on something so off-topic. Maybe this is a good time to bring it up.

So what does the evidence really show? Are any aspects of it as well-established as the press generally claims?

Also, I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear and thought it was great. What do those familiar with the literature say? Did he accurately portray the evidence?