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.
We're supposed to keep the actual viral coat peptides confidential, but I suppose if someone were familiar enough with the literature and had a little background knowledge, they could figure it out pretty quickly.
BINGO! We have a Bingo! This is almost exactly my approach when I'm discussing this.
That being said, I believe ID is far more viable as a theory than many of the Theoretical Physics and Cosmology hypotheses I've listened to the past 20 years which attempt to "wrap up the loose ends". It seems a nod must be given in the classroom to the failure of the Darwinians to wrap up many loose ends despite many attempts to do so, and that some good scientists believe ID is a possible way out.
This type of teaser: telling future scientists that there is more yet to be discovered, is all to the good, not a death knell for science.
You're lucky to find a biologist who will even discuss the concept. It's rare to find anyone who does work in biology who's even curious about design. It doesn't bring anything to the table.
Divine intervention is another discussion entirely, though. ;)
That's because the anti-science crowd could destroy our civilization in 2 generations if science has to bow before theology on every issue. You'll notice its not working well in Islamic countries and not much better anywhere else.
Ok. Yours is an immunoassay. p24 is something different.
Sorry for the bluntness, but anti-ID'ers are just not paying attention. The Darwinian Ark is full of holes, and sinking fast.
Do you maintain that The Design Inference is a treatise on theology? (I'm assuming that you've actually read and understood what you are characterizing.)
We have our own internal names for the peptides we use, so I'd have to get help translating it to a public name. I know we use bacillus megatarium to grow one of them. I'm not sure if the other one comes out of the e. coli culture or not. I've been in the suite for the harvests though. PU.
Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and a Reality Check for ID
I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria. Now I'm a geologist, not a biologist, so some of the in-depth discussion was hard for me to follow, but the gist of it was that he is able to use reverse engineering as you would with any machine that is designed or like software for that matter, and making discoveries that he is able to publish on.
But whenever I read a description of some aspect of evolution, invariably the author (even if they're a scientist!) will lapse into the metaphor of writing as if the species was trying to solve a problem and so evolved some functionality.
Random mutation & natural selection is a design process. There's no evidence that there's any person per se behind it all, but it's a design process nonetheless. So analyzing a successful biological system as if someone had designed it is kind of a tautology. (Not that there's anything wrong with tautologies!)
Furthermore, he also discussed the design parameters of various bacteria functions and why many of these functions cannot operate without the presence of many (and in the case of some components, up to 50) specialized genes. If any of these genes are missing, that component cannot exist or function. His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function. What is left? Weak arguments for "puncuated equilibrium?"
The same argument could be made to prove that the modern free market economy must have been consciously designed by someone in charge to work the way it does. But any non-communist understands that economies evolve - even though it's made up of quite intelligent people who would happily try to design whole industries from scratch if they had the power. That should give one pause when considering the implications of Irreducible Complexity.
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.