AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

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.

"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.

This is to extend my reply to you at post 1326 as promised. Your original challenge was:

Perhaps you can name one ID proponent who is not Christian, but I can't.

On second blush, I’ve found two prominent non-Christian proponents of intelligent Design. I’m sure there are more, but it would take more time than I have to spend on this:

David Berlinski – Ph.D., Princeton, a mathematician and by various descriptions either atheist or theist, but clearly not Christian.

Michael Denton - noncreationist agnostic, geneticist and author of “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” and “Nature’s Destiny” ID Books

For those following the discussion, here are some interesting links:

At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design" - An interesting article on how the atheists might rationalize intelligent design, once proven.

Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology - An ID article responding to the criticism you raised.

Situating Intelligent Design in the Contemporary Debate

But isn't it true that design theorists are largely Bible-believers and that their reason for not casting intelligent design as a Bible-science controversy is pure expedience and not principle? In other words, isn't it just the case that we realize creationism hasn't been working, and so we decided to recast it and salvage as much of it as we can? This criticism seems to me completely backwards. For one thing, most of the leaders in the intelligent design movement did not start out as creationists and then turn to design. Rather, we started squarely in the Darwinian camp and then had to work our way out of it. The intellectual journey of most design theorists is therefore quite different from the intellectual journey of many erstwhile creationists, who in getting educated renounced their creationism (cf. Ron Number's The Creationists in which Numbers argues that the correlation between increased education and loss of confidence in creationism is near perfect).

Human Events

Meyer noted that not all those involved in intelligent design are traditional Christians. David Berlinski, a mathematician who spoke at the Yale conference, "might be theistic, but he doesn’t practice any religion of any kind," Meyer said.

A prime focus of ID is the inability of materialistic theories to explain the origin of information, such as that contained in DNA sequences. This approach has attracted other people who study or depend on information. "George Gilder is a Discovery fellow," Meyer said. "He believes that it is information that generates economic development. We got a donation from someone in the Seattle area who is a dot-com millionaire."

I found the last excerpt particularly interesting. It has been my opinion that even if the Intelligent Design movement were successfully quashed by evolutionists or YE creationists, it would nevertheless be explored by research in information theory.

Is Intelligent Design a Form of Natural Theology - An ID article responding to the criticism you raised

Well, not really. In the very first paragraph, Demski says that ID, in fact, is not yet a scientific research program, and that it has hitherto been dominated by extrinsic considerations

There are good and bad reasons to be skeptical of intelligent design. Perhaps the best reason is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program. Thus far philosophical, theoretical, and foundational concerns have tended to predominate. From the vantage of design advocates, this simply reflects the earliness of the hour and the need to clear the decks before a shift of paradigms can take place. Give us more time, and we'll deliver on the program. That's our promise. Skeptics are at this point in their rights to refuse such promissory notes, albeit without sabotaging our efforts to make good on this promise.

I refuse the promissory note, as Dembski says I should, and reiterate what Dembski himself admits; ID is motivated by theological considerations, and hasn't moved beyond its motivation. Dembski says 'yet', I predict it never will.

As for what Meyer says about Berlinski - hearsay, and I haven't been able to tract Berlinski himself down, beyond some creationist websites, though a claim is made in his name to be working on some grandiose scheme to disprove evolution using a genetic algorithm. I can't wait.

Thank you so much for your reply!

Considering your position, I didn't expect you to accept the information - but I couldn't let the original challenge go unanswered.

I predict it never will [move forward to a thriving scientific research program].

I believe that it will, either under the header of "Intelligent Design" or as a branch of "Information Theory" on the order of Wolfram's projects (A New Kind of Science.)

Care to make a small wager? A cup of coffee perhaps?

all the PH Placemarkers?

Blue-skipping placemarker.
Of course he [Buzz Aldrin] was a creationist. If he was a Christian he believed in a Creator.
There are no creationists. [but see above]
You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times.
The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right.
Wildly elliptical.
1⁷²⁰.
Nobel Prize for biology.
All discoveries disprove evolution.
DNA disproves evolution.
The fossil record disproves evolution.
Nobel Prize for creationism.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.
Parable of the Ant and the Elephant .

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

Psa 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High .

A point I have pondered for many years. Of course, it makes sense that if there is a God and He specifically created us (valid even if He used evolution as the mechanism), He would have conferred divinity to His children.

One of my issues with believing God is our Father is precisely this question of identity. A king's children (even if they are bastards) all know the identity of their father...this is generally not information their mothers would withhold from them, unless their lives were in danger for one reason or another.

The Bible urges us to consider God as our Father, and likens our relationship with Him to that of our earthly fathers. It is from earthly family relationships that we are to gain an understanding of our place within God's family. BUT, this implies that we already know who our Father is...a point which is ambiguous at best for me.

A point I have pondered for many years....One of my issues with believing God is our Father is precisely this question of identity. ...BUT, this implies that we already know who our Father is...a point which is ambiguous at best for me.

But you seek to fill the void. "Seek and you will find". "Knock and the door shall be opened." They seem like platitudes but they are precisely true. This is what Jesus has to say.

Jhn 10:24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense ? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
Jhn 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep .
Jhn 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
Jhn 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
Jhn 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Jhn 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Jhn 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?"
Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '?
Jhn 10:35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken ),
Jhn 10:36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God '?
Jhn 10:37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
Jhn 10:38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Paul started out as Saul, a persecuter of believers. He, being one of the fold, eventually knew and became an illuminator of the Word.

Funny that the slimers of evolution never quote me ...

When we do, you object. Remember "wildly elliptical," for instance? Or all the PH Placemarkers?

I remember them quite well. They are not quotes at all, they are convoluted and out of context mischaracterizations and rephrasings of what I have said. In other words have truths which make them complete lies.

There is plenty of things that I have said on this thread and which of course goes unanswered. Instead you folk pull and mischaracterize things from other threads so that the lack of veracity of your statements will not be seen. You also do not provide a link or any means for readers to verify the truthfullness of your attack on me. This is the tactics of liars. These are the tactics of dishonest people who cannot discuss issues honestly so they must try to destroy the person. These are the tactics of thugs and losers.

The arrogance of the man, that he presumes to correct lifelong Catholics on the matter of the Church's teaching.

The Pope's words are pretty clear and that is why you just insult me instead of discuss my statement:

I am glad you brought that up, gives me a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Below is a rather long quote which explains both the divinity of man and why Darwinian materialist evolution is in contravention of Christain Doctrine:

5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
From: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth

The key to the Pope's view is really centered on one word - 'epiphenomenon'. Epiphenomenon means a secondary phenomenon and caused by it. Certainly evolution claims man to be created by materialistic means, it also claims that man differs from monkeys only degree, not in essence. So definitely Darwinian evolution contradicts Christianity and that is why it is opposed by so many Christians and supported by so many atheists.

The Pope specifically says that materialistic evolution is false, the title of the encyclical is "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" and you can bet that the Pope is Catholic.

It is not a discovery, it's pretty obvious and pretty well established, yet your friend tried to deny it. -me-

No, my friend (I've never met him, but I can live with that) denied your presumption in dictating to God the means He should have chosen

Nope. Your friend just plain lied and when asked to back up his assertion that the Bible did not say that God created man he responded by changing his answer:

Care to quote the passage in the Bible where it says how man - and woman were created? -me-

God created metaphor, too.

I will take the above as an admission that my statement is true - that the Bible specifically says that God created man. Interesting that when evolutionists are called on to back up their statements they start dancing around and trying to confuse the issue.
1313 posted on 11/19/2002 5:33 AM PST by gore3000

The above are not quotes, they are mischaracterizations of my statements and in many cases completely made up. All you show is your dishonesty in never refuting a single thing I say but insulting me for proving your stupid theory to be absolute garbage. Let's take one of your lies: ' All discoveries disprove evolution.' I have never said that. I have said that all biological discoveries since Darwin tend to disprove evolution. I have given plenty of support for it. It has not been refuted in spite of the numerous times I have challenged you and your lame friends to do so. Reason it has not been refuted is that my statement is true. So you are left only with insults and misquotations as a way to refute me. Your dishonesty is blatant and shows quite well the falsity of your theory. A man who has the truth at hand does not need to use vile and dishonest means to support his position.

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.