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

AAAS ^ | November 6, 2002 | Ginger Pinholster

[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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Doctor Stochastic]

My stenography need improving. Steganography. Oh well, a spell checker wouldn't have worked either.

[Nebullis]

IMHO, the information age itself will drive this search for the undlying algorithms even if the Intelligent Design movement were quashed.

I think you're quite right Alamo-Girl. Such algorithms of natural laws will be found by scientific research. That research need not be muddled by the political ID factor.

[w.t.sherman]

Hear, hear!!!

[gore3000]

"…no chemical bonds exist between the nucleotide bases along the message-bearing spine of the DNA helix, demonstrating that physical and chemical forces are not responsible for the specific sequencing in the molecule." - Heartlander -

Here we go again. Steve Meyer came up with the quintessential creationist slogan. Remarkeable in its stupidity and twisted intent."

Those who cannot refute, insult. We shall again take it as a concession, a very ignoble concession, but a concession nevertheless.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

However, we have found that in some circumstances by entering on the 2nd or 3rd base pair a gene is made to produce a completely different protein. Like the programmer who did this back in the old days, this is only achievable by intelligence. Reuse of code in different ways to do different things requires intelligent design, no two ways about it. As you said further on " Algorithms are the expression of intelligence". Such an algorithm, reusing code is a sign of very high intelligence. This is the stamp of the Creator not a sequence that says 'Made in Heaven'.

I happen to be very familiar with the old days of programming. I started board wiring a Univac 1004 and moved up to assembly programming on a Spectra 70/45 (equiv of an IBM 360.) As you say, we had 64K of memory and had to reuse code through indexing and real time patching of object code. We also used extensive overlays to reuse space. It was not at all simple and certainly required intelligence to make it work.

[gore3000]

jennyp, is there any real data going into these figures?

Of course not. There is no data for punk-eek. Just nice sounding hypothesis and lots of crayon work. Funny that every evolutionist with a set of crayons thinks him/herself a scientist!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the additional information and links!

[AndrewC]

Notice that AndrewC has left out a few bonds, such as van der Waals.

Yes, and van der Waals is less than the strength of hydrogen bonds which themselves are a tenth of the strength of covalent bonds. The chemical properties are determined by the chemical bonds. The physical properties are dependent on the other types of bonds.

H bonds in water are intermolecular forces. They are the forces which hold the molecules together in conjunction with Van der Waals' forces. The estimated strength of Van der Waals' forces in water is 18.5kJ per mole and 22.2kJ per mole for hydrogen bonds. Usually the strengths of H-bonds are in the range 5 - 40kJ per mole. Thus H-bonds are about one tenth the strength of covalent bonds and much the same strength as Van der Waals' forces.

These forces are strong enough to influence important physical properties but not strong enough to change the chemical reactions of a substance.

Contempt all you want. I said the same thing--- find out for yourselves. I also left out U.S. savings bonds, wanna gripe about that?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

For lurkers, stenography means "covered writing" or cryptography.

I have done work in stenography and nothing in genetics looks like stenography.

The prediction from ID is that they will find a dense, multi-layered embedding of information that looks like an "operating manual" in organisms. As I mentioned to jennyp at #597, IMHO others may get there through the backdoor of mathematics research.

[gore3000]

pick up a chemistry text, study the chemical interactions in DNA molecules and then make up your mind.

You pick it up and show Stephen Meyer and AndrewC to be wrong. This is the lamest excuse by evolutionists - asking opponents to disprove their own statements. Actually the proof that the DNA sequences do not follow a specific chemical sequence is quite simple - just look at it and you will see that they are arranged for a specific purpose, not according to any chemical affinities between the A,T, C and G molecules for each other in a linear way. In fact, the molecules are not specifically joined to each other in a linear sequence as the following diagram shows:

[Alamo-Girl]

LOL! I did the same thing with stenography instead of steganography.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the post!

Such algorithms of natural laws will be found by scientific research. That research need not be muddled by the political ID factor.

It saddens me that both sides of the debate have gotten bundled up with politics and ideology. I realize that many on the evolutionist side do not see themselves as being used for either, but if you click here you'll see that has the been the result.

[Nebullis]

I also left out U.S. savings bonds, wanna gripe about that?

I have no use for your increasing dishonesty.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for pinging me to your discussion!

[gore3000]

Alelle frequency is a function of populations, not of individuals.

A population is the sum of the individuals in this case so your argument is null. Your statement is as I said a very nonsensical truism and it does not in any way have anything to do with the transformation of species into more complex ones. Even if a subset of the population split off and had a different proportion of alleles than the main population, nothing new would have been created which is what evolution requires in order for species to have grown progressively more complex from the single celled organisms to humans. So the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequency is a cowardly redefinition of the theory. It shows that to find anything remotely substantiating evolution, evolutionists have to throw the essence of the theory away.

[gore3000]

I have no use for your increasing dishonesty.

[AndrewC]

I have no use for your increasing dishonesty.

You throw that around as if it now means something. It was you that started out by using me in your discussion with someone else. Now when I point out the common meaning of chemical bond and the relevant properties you have the audacity to call me increasingly dishonest. Well put your proof where your accusations are. Show me where van der Waals forces determine the sequence of DNA.

[Dimensio]

Evolution specifically rejects any supernatural intervention.

All scientific theories 'reject' supernatural intervention as much as evolution, and evolution only 'rejects' it in the sense that it is not a consideration. The supernatural is outside of the realm of science. This does not mean that there was no supernatural involvement in the origins of life (which, I know you insist is a part of evolution, but it isn't) nor does it mean that there was no supernatural intervention at work with the diversity of species, it only means that evolution does not predict and cannot test for such intervention, because such intervention would not be applicable to the scientific method.

[Dimensio]

What is the test for something that was intelligently designed? In other words, if the claim is that the Universe is obviously designed, what would an undesigned universe look like?