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.
Science uses math, but mathematicians are too ignorant of science to invalidate science.
Jeepers, Vade! That is a sweeping declaration.
It’s not like Dembski is the only mathematician looking at the algorithmic nature of being. Off the top of my head, there’s Stephen Wolfram, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Max Tegmark, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Nicolo Dallaporta, Iain Stewart. And unless you exclude Cosmology, Physics and Astronomy from "science," they certainly appear qualified to me.
Some of the biggest names in science, like Newton, Einstein, Gödel were essentially mathematicians, relied on the work of mathematicians and mused about all that there is. Where would we be without Schwarzschild and Riemann?
IMHO, these mathematician-scientists are highly qualified to ask and answer the deep questions of science. And my prediction is that they will continue to ask and answer – and, yes, some of their answers may require rethinking in other fields of science.
That Dembski and Wolfram dare to look for algorithms in evolution should not be offensive. Just my two cents...
A closer look reveals Ichthyolestes and Pakicetus' true allegiance. The two have "several strange bones in their ears that occur only in whales", says Hans Thewissen, of Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine in Rootstown, Ohio, one of the fossils' finders.
They also have a bone in their heel characteristic of even-toed ungulates, such as deer and sheep. An analysis of both skeletons places them, and other cetaceans, in a related, but separate, group from the even-toed ungulates.
...
Earlier fossil studies related them to the mesonychians, an extinct group of meat eaters. The new discoveries send this idea "out the window", says Thewissen.
...
"Almost all the molecular data place cetaceans within the living even-toed ungulates, as a sister group to hippopotamuses," says evolutionary biologist Ulfur Arnason of the University of Lund in Sweden.
...
Arnason believes the two camps will remain divided, at least for now. "There's no point trying to reach some sort of consensus based on compromise. It has often been very difficult to reconcile morphological and molecular opinions," he says.
ID and the Information Theory merely point out the fact that an object does not displace its medium. Information, intelligence, and design are self-evident. We see it in physics, DNA, and life. These theories do not dismiss evolution, as you seem to think, they simply state there is more here to look at than the Theory of Evolution as it stands now.
Ahh, now you've done it! You're pointing out that Darwininian just-so thinking pervades their every thought.
You posted a doctored quote from Darwin. When I called you on it, you didn't deny that the quote was doctored. You then go on to post the same doctored quote in your posts nos. 842 and 863. And Darwin is the one who is "willfully deceiving his public"?
Must not think outside box. Must keep everything inside box. Must ignore the walls of box. (repeat as long as necessary)
Well, that's always true. You can take even the most elementry chemistry data, for example, and go seeking for more than mere chemistry. There's always the chance that the tooth fairy is somehow involved. But this is more of a psychological issue than one of science. Why in the world would one go leaping around looking for supernatural "explanations" when natural explanations are doing so well? Even when there is not yet enough information to provide a solid, data-supported scientific explanation, why go hunting in never-never land for an "explanation" that is inherently untestable and therefore doesn't really offer anything useful?
It doesn't help the ID-ists that such leading lights as trial lawyer Philip Johnson write books like Darwin on Trial full of warmed-over Duane Gish arguments.
Perhaps, because, despite your contentment, the current natural explanations aren't doing so well. Dr. Shapiro, among others, has that opinion.
That would be difficult in any event given the preponderance of evidence now that some kind of evolution has happened. But yes, the credulous clamor of a certain segment of the population for scientific proof of God makes the whole enterprise rather suspect. Another bit from that Dembski article:
Is intelligent design's appeal international? Does it cross religious boundaries? Or is it increasingly confined to American evangelicalism?I don't know if I'd say "increasingly" but I'd certainly go with "so far, largely."
I'm not criticizing information theory as discipline. At any rate, Dembski is not a founding father or leading light of same. He's a fellow who waded in ankle deep, scooped up a bucketful, and wandered off to water a garden of his own interest. Some of his critics accuse him of baiting and switching definitions of "information" (Shannon entropy, Chaitin-Kolmogorov information, and the layman understanding) at will. In a word, "equivocation."
For example, "Nothing is better than complete happiness. A ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness." The conclusion follows only because of the equivocation about the meaning of "nothing".And unless you exclude Cosmology, Physics and Astronomy from "science," they certainly appear qualified to me.
A scientist can write a grocery list, but a grocery list is not science.
What was the Blessed Leibowitz's list? "3 bagels, 2 cans kraut..."?
That Dembski and Wolfram dare to look for algorithms in evolution should not be offensive.
Vacuous sensationalism.
Hugs!
Information Theory, has it been hijacked? (1. Intro).
Information Theory, has it been hijacked? (2. Details)
Dembski Responds."Response? What Response?" (Wien's counter)
For all the length of his discussion of peer review, Dembski fails to refute any of the facts that I presented (critique section 8). Most important, he is unable to name even one statistician or information theorist who approves of his work in their fields, confirming my suspicion that there are none...
I hope I wasn't supposed to pick those up for him.
Er, thanks, I think.
You're not completely an idiot either ;-)
Arrogant, probably. I'm right, you're wrong, and it would be dishonest of me to imply, even as a social nicety, that I have the slightest reservation about that. Uncivilized, no. Nothing in civilization requires us to be nice to barbarians. I take a Victorian attitude; we should be compassionate to the peaceful savage, but when they're hammering at the gates, civilization gets out the boiling pitch (or the Gatling gun, to keep the metaphor straight)
Creationism is an atavistic holdover from a less-enlightened age of history, and when it attempts to use political power to regain what it has lost by the progress of the human intellect, the gloves come off.
There is no Nobel Prize in biology. Would you like to substitute 'Physiology and Medicine', or would you prefer 'Chemistry'.
That would be difficult in any event given the preponderance of evidence now that some kind of evolution has happened.
Absolutely. That evolution happened is for all intents and purposes, a fact. I think one can (and some do) legitimately ask, "Is that all there is?" but to leap from that question to conclude without evidence that an intelligent designer is responsible for everything to the exclusion of evolution strains credibility to the breaking point. The scientific answer is, "At this point, there is no evidence for anything else."
Following that vein, I would be dishonest to omit the following. I looked at CalConservative's list from post 100. It is a list of 100 scientists who agree with the statement, "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The implication was clearly, as I stated above, that because some scientists were urging careful consideration and evaluation, the whole notion of Darwinian evolution should be junked. There is also a clear lack of endorsement for anything else.
Frankly I was skeptical of authenticity of the list. I suspected more quote-mining and carefully considered word-smithing. So I picked at random Dr. Marvin Fritzler at the University of Calgary, and fired off an email. The email and response are reproduced verbatim below.
As a purely amateur endeavor, I am actively engaged in several online debates defending the theory of evolution against proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Recently, your name appeared on a list of scientists who, it was claimed, have abandoned the theory of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation as sufficient to explain the diversity of life. The list appears, among other places, at this link: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
To make this as absolutely brief as possible, would you characterize this as an accurate representation of your position? I have read the Univerity of Calgary's bio, as well as your own faculty page, but was unable to find any information, so I decided to contact you directly. I would like your permission to post your response on FreeRepublic.com.
Thank you for your time,
Condorman
And here is the response I received:
Thanks for your email and being part of the "debate/dialogue". I would encourage you to be more accurate in your statements. Below, you state "your name appeared on a list of scientists who, it was claimed, have abandoned the theory of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation as sufficient to explain the diversity of life...".
Your assertion is inaccurate because it misquotes the statement I 'signed'. The web piece you cited states:
"...100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." and "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
I am not aware of any statement that I signed or supported that states I have "abandoned the theory of evolution...".
That is your rewording and misinterpretation of the statement. See: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/DarwinAd.pdf
Do the current concepts of evolution, natural selection, and random mutation explain or account for the diversity of life on this planet? Wow! For an objective scientist that's a no-brainer. Anyone who believes these theories explain all biological diversity, information content in genomes, and a finely-tuned universe have a lot more blind faith than I do.
I don't mind if you post my response.
Marvin Fritzler PhD MD
Professor of Medicine
I realize that this moderate view is somewhat of a shock to the die-hards on both sides of the debate, and I expect flack on all sides. I argued with myself for a couple of days over reporting this, but I firmly believe I would be guilty of fabrication by omission if I failed to post our exchange. I believe from my sample of one that the list is genuine in that the scientists listed DO endorse the given statement. I also think it would be a mistake to hasten to any conclusions based on same. As Dr. Fritzler was quick to point out, that statement is NOT a rejection of evolution, nor is it an endorsement of anything else.
I'm wearing asbestos underpants. Flame on.
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.