Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
I know of no better example of understatement as a literary device. Nicely done.
(Willful misunderstanding of previous post). (Sarcastic insult). (Irrelevant fact). (Immaterial fact). (Incorrect fact). (Picture of platypus). (Non-sequitur). So yes/no, (conclusion wholly unsupported by anything preceding it).
Playing go is a bit more than the simple rules of putting a stone on an open line intersection and removing surrounded stones.
Well, this one was discussed already so you are really throwing me a softball here. From YOUR link:
Specifically, Drs. Sharp and Roberts were awarded the prize for their discovery in 1977 that some of the genes of higher organisms are "split," or present in several distinct segments along the DNA molecule. Those segments are separated by extraneous, "nonsense" DNA.
Of course you do not realize the meaning of the above, since your greatest contribution to these threads is placemarkers and you always skip over what I say.
What the above means is in short that the genes need a transcription mechanism in order for them to make a protein. This adds complexity to the question of an organisms functioning. The article explains it:
RNA SPLICING
According to the Nobel committee, the prize-winning work also almost immediately led to the prediction of a new genetic process. Coined "RNA splicing" by Dr. Sharp ("I can remember getting out my dictionary to see if this was going to be an appropriate term," he said), this process deletes the nonsense segments from the gene to create an understandable "blueprint" that the cell can read to produce a protein.
In this process the cell makes a copy (RNA) of the gene in question from the master blueprint (DNA). The nonsense segments (known as introns) are then clipped from this RNA, and the segments of real value (known as exons) are spliced together. The resulting molecule called messenger RNA then travels to a work site outside of the nucleus where it serves as the blueprint for assembly of the protein it codes for.
What the above means is that the gene itself does not make the protein, the RNA has to be told how and where to cut and reassemble the protein. This blows away the theory of evolutionists that a new gene could produce a new protein. It shows quite well that it takes DNA not in the gene to produce the correct protein. This leads to evolution needing more 'miracles' than just a completely new gene. It also needs a code to read the gene properly. This added complexity makes it much harder for simple mutations to have created new functions. The article goes on:
"I think the most likely possibility is that by having the gene in pieces, you can-in different cell types or through evolution-pick different pieces to make a [different] functional protein.
Not through evolution of course since there would be a need to first split the gene properly, then create codes for the various ways of rearranging it. This in fact has been found to be the case. In addition what this shows is that the gene is only the factory that makes proteins, the orders of what, how, and how much to make come from elsewhere in the DNA. What all this leads us to is that like a program DNA has data (the genes) and programming code (the DNA that gives the orders of when, how and how much protein to produce). In other words, organisms are intelligently designed.
Ah; but the bigger question is, did he create his formula by design, or did he stumble upon it by randomly varying the formula, and then selecting those variants that had "evolved" a greater propaganda effect?
Already he has confused probability (ableit high) with determinism. He is either being dishonest or ignorant.
Again you quote: "If regularity as an explanation fails, one should then see if chance is an acceptable explanation.."
And again Dembski confuses lack of regularity with chance and this statement is in conflict with your first quote.
Your quotes coercively prove my point.
I have read enough insults from you today. I could care less what else you have to say. Bye.
In a techincal sense (as used in journals such as "Chaos, Fractals, and Solitons" for example), randomness precludes chaos. Chaos can only arise in a deterministic system.
Given the tendency towards lapses in grammar, syntax, logic, and manners, I think someone's finally gone and done it - someone went out and assembled a million monkeys, and gave them all keyboards...
And a fantastic job you did on that! I cannot say what a relief it was to finally see that man walk out of the White House.
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.