Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
Scientists urge 'academic freedom' to teach both sides of issue
Posted: March 24, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Julie Foster © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
In an effort to influence high-school science curriculum standards, more than 50 Ohio scientists issued a statement this week supporting academic freedom to teach arguments for and against Darwin's theory of evolution.
Released Wednesday, the statement was signed by 52 experts from a wide range of scientific disciplines, including entomology, toxicology, nuclear chemistry, engineering biochemistry and medicine. Some are employed in business, industry and research, but most teach at state and private universities. A third of the signatories are employed by Ohio State University.
The statement reads, in its entirety:
To enhance the effectiveness of Ohio science education, as scientists we affirm:
That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;
That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;
That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;
That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them;
That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.
We oppose:
Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;
The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.
Signatories released the statement as the Ohio State Board of Education works to update its curriculum standards, including those for high-school science classes, in accordance with a demand from the state legislature issued last year. Advocates of inclusion of evolution criticisms believe the Ohio scientists' statement echoes similar language in the recently passed federal education law, the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Report language interpreting the act explains that on controversial issues such as biological evolution, "the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."
As part of its efforts to update the science standards, the Board of Education held a moderated panel discussion on the question, "Should intelligent design be included in Ohio's science academic content standards?" The debate was conducted during the March 11 regular board meeting and included two panelists from each side of the issue, who were given 15 minutes each to present their arguments. One of the panelists in favor of including "intelligent design" arguments (the idea that biological origin was at least initiated by an intelligent force) was Dr. Stephen Meyer, a professor at Whitworth College in Washington state and fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
Meyer has written extensively on the subject, including a column for WorldNetDaily in which he criticizes the PBS series "Evolution." The series, he wrote, "rejects – even ridicules – traditional theistic religion because [religion] holds that God played an active (even discernible) role in the origin of life on earth."
Additionally, Meyer co-wrote a February 2001 Utah Law Review article defending the legality of presenting evolution criticism in schools. The article states in its conclusion that school boards or biology teachers should "take the initiative to teach, rather than suppress, the controversy as it exists in the scientific world," which is a "more open and more dialectical approach." The article also encourages school boards to defend "efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this timely and compelling controversy."
Dr. Robert DiSilvestro, a professor at Ohio State and statement signatory, believes many pro-evolution scientists have not given Darwin's theory enough critical thought.
"As a scientist who has been following this debate closely, I think that a valid scientific challenge has been mounted to Darwinian orthodoxy on evolution. There are good scientific reasons to question many currently accepted ideas in this area," he said.
"The more this controversy rages, the more our colleagues start to investigate the scientific issues," commented DiSilvestro. "This has caused more scientists to publicly support our statement." He noted that several of the 52 scientists on the list had signed after last week's Board of Education panel discussion.
However, panelist Dr. Lawrence Krauss, chairman of Case Western Reserve University's physics department, said intelligent design is not science. ID proponents, he explained, are trying to redefine "science" and do not publish their work in peer-reviewed literature. In a January editorial published in The Plain Dealer, Krauss wrote that "the concept of 'intelligent design' is not introduced into science classes because it is not a scientific concept."
Promoters of ID bemoan "the fact that scientists confine their investigation to phenomena and ideas that can be experimentally investigated, and that science assumes that natural phenomena have natural causes," his editorial continues. "This is indeed how science operates, and if we are going to teach science, this is what we should teach." By its very nature, Krauss explains, science has limitations on what it can study, and to prove or disprove the existence of God does not fall into that sphere of study.
Krauss was disappointed in the Board of Education's decision to hold a panel discussion on the subject, saying the debate was not warranted since there is no evolution controversy in scientific circles.
"The debate, itself, was a victory for those promoting intelligent design," he said. "By pretending there's a controversy when there isn't, you're distorting reality."
But Meyer counters that a controversy does exist over the validity of Darwinian evolution, as evidenced by the growing number of scientists publicly acknowledging the theory's flaws. For example, 100 scientists, including professors from institutions such as M.I.T, Yale and Rice, issued a statement in September "questioning the creative power of natural selection," wrote Meyer in his WND column. But such criticism is rarely, if ever, reported by mainstream media outlets and establishment scientific publications, he maintains.
At the Board of Education's panel discussion, he proposed a compromise to mandating ID inclusion in science curriculum: Teach the controversy about Darwinism, including evidence for and against the theory of evolution. Also, he asked the board to make it clear that teachers are permitted to discuss other theories of biological origin, which Meyer believes is already legally established.
But such an agreement would only serve to compromise scientific research, according to Krauss. "It's not that it's inappropriate to discuss these ideas, just not in a science class," he concluded.
Start at paragraph 8.
...and he wants to make sure it stays that way by continuing to muzzle anyone who dares to speak against evolution.
LOLOL!
Absolutely wrong. Intelligent design can be falsified. All you have to do is prove how different genes, how different organs, how different faculties coevolved at the same time. Of course, the theory of evolution has no answer to those scientific questions so it tries to silence the criticism. What the evolutionists need to do is to start work on a new theory, the theory of coevolution to replace the already discredited theory of evolution.
Quite correct, a theory can (and should have) demonstrable proof behind it. A hypothesis is the accurate word for an unproven theory. Evolution is an unproven theory and has been so since its inception. There is absolutely no proof for the hypothesis of evolution in Darwin and science has been disproving Darwinian theory almost since its inception.
That is not falsification of Intelligent Desgin.
I wasn't aware of any evidence against the theory of evolution. Understanding evolutionary theory is central to my work as a biochemist. Not to say that intelligent design is not at work here; sometimes people in my field just have to sit back in awe at the sheer complexity of it all.
To think, for all these years, I was under the impression that light was just confused.
Isn't an electron also one of those wave/particle dualities?
Really? Tell me, then, why do we scientific geek types bother constructing elaborate phylogenetic charts showing the relationship between various organisms (usually with respect to a single gene), how similar they are and how long ago they diverged, if the theory underlying the charts is false? So many biochemical observations support the theory; please enlighten me as to the experimental data or observations which disprove it? Keep in mind that while a theory cannot be conclusively proven (it's like proving a negative), it can be disproven by a single well-planned experiment. If such an experiment exists, I am as well qualified as anyone to judge its validity and scientific merit.
IOW it is saying (albiet never openly or forthrightly, mind you) that there must be miracles somewhere. Where, you ask? When, you ask? What specific (or even hypothetically representative) acts are postulated to have occured by other than "natural causation"? Sorry, "intelligent design" has nothing to say on these matters. It suggests no research strategy to address them. Indeed the whole purpose of ID is to avoid addressing such questions. ID is the ultimate anti-theory.
You are persistently incorrect in you claims that scientific theories can, are or should be "proven". I and others have repeatedly given you both logic reasons why scientific theories cannot be "proven," and have provided you with historical examples of scientific facts and theories that where once considered as strongly verified but later proven incorrect.
I'm not going to engage in the wearying task of reprising those arguments or examples. (Three days from now, true to your inimitable form, you would just be pretending you never heard them and repeating the same arguments and assertions unmodified.) Instead its your turn to demonstrate your claim:
Please list three substantive theories, from any branch of natural science, that you consider to be demonstrably "proven".
Not true, at least by my understanding of what constitutes a "theory". Theories invoke some well developed set of causes, principles or mechanisms to explain some relevant set of scientific facts or laws. To my mind this is the key characteristic of theories, that they explain why the facts are as they are, rather than some way they might otherwise have been. (This is why good theories must be falsifiable, btw. The power to explain or account for some set of facts entails that the theory, if it be true, must prohibit the instantiation of many other sets of facts.)
Therefore, no matter how detailed or profound our understanding of "how it works" may become, evolution will always remain a theory simply because it is an explanatory principle used to account for numerous facts and phenomena in biology and related fields. Theories may be modified or falsified and abandoned, and they be more or less controversial, and they may be held with varying degrees of confidence, but they do not "graduate" or "advance" to being anything other than theories.
Indeed, quite the opposite of what you suggest, the more a theory says about "how it works," the more "theory-like" it becomes.
No, a hypothesis is
"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."Evolution is in part a theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "A hypothesis ins't a set of principles or statements, only a tentative explanation. A nypothesis hasn't been tested yet and cannot make predictions. Redefining science, the hallmark of the creationist. Or neo-creationist ("Intelligent Design") for that matter.
There is absolutely no proof for the hypothesis of evolution in Darwin and science has been disproving Darwinian theory almost since its inception.
Where did you get that from? If science had been disproving Darwin even since, there would be no Theory of Evolution now. It is only because of these 100+ years of science confirming his hypotheses that we have something called a "Theory of Evolution." But what can you expect, even Jehova's Witnesses were denying germ theory not too long ago.
Do you also propose to put those other origins myths into the science education too? They're just as scientifically valid as Christian creationism.
Let's see you freak when your kids come home and tell you they just learned in science class that the world is on the back of a giant turtle or something. Then you'd know how I'd feel if my kids came back with the Christian myths in their heads masquerading as science.
Note that this is for science class only. I'd love for my kids to take comparative religion and learn those things. I'd even sign up for a class on origin myths.
Actually, I liked it too, until I got to the part where it mentioned religion and religious doctrines. It's just so far outside of the science subject, why even mention it? To me it's like saying "when we teach English, we have to consider the implications of woodshop."
I don't hear anyone saying evolution or physics should be taught in the Sunday schools. Why? Because scientists realize that it's the wrong subject and don't try to intrude where they don't belong.
ID can't be falsified. It is based purely on an article of the religious beliefs of the proponents (the Christian God created the universe). You can't falsify faith.
When the listed criteria are met, ID will simply slide back further a notch (remember the progression: creationism turned into ID when it was too obvious to the layperson that creationism wasn't science). In the end, ID will be redefined to be something I have to admit is possible, but completely untestable and outside the bounds of science: God set up the evolutional system we see today, and all we're doing is discovering it.
Evolution however is completely falsifiable. Find an obviously advanced fossil in old strata for example.
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.