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.

But if you were a creationist, with no grasp of what evolution -- or any science --

If anyone does not have the vaguest idea of science on these pages it is placemarker Patrick Henry. He is the fellow that insults, attacks religion or writes absolute nonsense to distract from the thread. What you never do is discuss the science of evolution BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN SCIENCE you are solely interested in that it supports your atheistic beliefs.

In these threads it is the evolutionists who invariably refuse to support their viewpoint with scientific facts. They even refuse to honestly state what the theory of evolution is.

In addition, to call opponents names and demean them is they typical tactics of leftist ideologues who being unable to refute opponents with facts seek to demonize them with totally unsupported blanket accusations.

Why do the anti-Es insist that evolutionists consider life to be meaningless?

Perhaps because atheists support the killing of over a million babies a year because they are 'inconvenient'. Perhaps because atheists in the 20th century killed over 100 million innocent adults because they were 'inconvenient'. Perhaps because those who live only for what pleasures they can get out in life have no possible purpose other than hedonism.

Biblically, man was created during the initial creation phase, as were all the critters we see around us. However, we know from the fossil record that not all critters existed at the same time (or they'd be all jumbled up) therefore either they evolve from pre-existing critters or God pops in every so often to create a new species (which is not Biblically supported, as God rested from His creation on the seventh day). You knew what I was talking about; we've been over this same ground before. That you misrepresent what has been said is par for your course, but still "bearing false witness."

I don't condemn creationists.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds:

What are you hoping for? Boiling in oil? Burning at the stake? The rack?
1132 posted on 11/14/2002 5:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry

It's not very enjoyable, delving down deep into the motivations of these anti-science types. Kinda like turning over a flat rock.
1148 posted on 11/15/2002 4:18 AM PST by PatrickHenry

I've tried (as a compasionate man) to think of what it would be like to be a creationist. To begin with, having been intellectually abused as a child,lue.
1159 posted on 11/15/2002 7:30 AM PST by PatrickHenry [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1157 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

But if you were a creationist, with no grasp of what evolution -- or any science -- is all about, you might make such a claim about evolution. It's a common error.
1172 posted on 11/15/2002 10:51 AM PST by PatrickHenry

If the above is not demonizing, insulting and dehumanizing opponents, then what is?

BTW - I did not have to search far for the above quotes from the King of Slime - the four quotes come from the four previous posts he made.

Perhaps because atheists support the killing of over a million babies a year because they are 'inconvenient'.

How thoroughly odd that the politicians that vote for abortion all seem to be practicing Christians (few, if any, atheists have ever been elected to positions of power). Clinton claimed to be a Christian -- he even appears prominently in church -- yet he supports abortion.

It must be "internet therapy time" at the ol' asylum.
1186 posted on 11/15/2002 12:15 PM PST by PatrickHenry

More insults at opponents from the king of slime. You understood what he said perfectly, that's why you insult him. How about a refutation instead of a slime? How about showing the scientific evidence for evolution? Too lame for that?

As to evolution being atheistic, why do you deny it? You certainly are a poster boy for its being atheistic.

I've never seen so many strawmen created and knocked over in one post. Must be some kind of record. Are you aware that you're only debating with your own illusions?
1189 posted on 11/15/2002 12:21 PM PST by PatrickHenry

More insults from the king of slime! You are on a roll! Are you going for the record of most slimes without saying anything of substance? And yes the above is a slime. Unless you can show that you read minds you don't know what his illusions or thoughts are. You are just practicing the regular Communist/Clintonite method of calling everyone irrational who does not agree with you. Maybe it is you who is irrational, you certainly seem to think you have abilities which no one in his right mind would claim to have.

Evoution is a scientific theory, not a moral code.

If it is a scientific theory then answer the question:

STATE EXACTLY WHAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SAYS

also
STATE EXACTLY THE (alleged) HUMONGOUS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT - WHICH YOU ARE NEVER WILLING TO DISCUSS

However, regardless of the science behind it, evolution claims that man is just a more advanced form of a monkey, rat, lizard, cockroach, bacteria. Where is the moral imperative there? Where is the specialness of human life which makes it deserving of moral protection? Further Darwin exalted war, destruction, and eugenics. The total opposite of what humanity has considered moral for thousands of years. So yes, evolution is immoral in addition to its being unscientific.

Because species cannot mate with other species (and this is a scientific fact) it is impossible for them to transform themselves into other species and have someone to procreate with. -me-

After you have spent so much time on these threads, this argument is either utterly dishonest or incredibly stupid.

No, it is not utterly dishonest. A fairly small amount of genetic difference makes it impossible for organisms to procreate with each other. So for evolution to be true it has to show not only that species can intelligently mutate with all the perquisites needed for such a transformation to be successful, but it also has to show that whole groups of organisms can do so at the same time. So yes, it is a very serious objection to evolution and an objection which makes Gould/eldredge punk-eek utterly ridiculous.

It's a script, that's all. There's nobody home. Can't argue with a script.

The king of slime making another brilliant refutation! Is your name Freud? Do you do internet analysis or are you just so demented that you have illusions that you can?

(which is not Biblically supported, as God rested from His creation on the seventh day).

Since the rest of the Bible is about God's teachings and doings after the Creation, your justification for atheistic evolutionary theory is bunk. The Bible says that God created man and you - who claim to be a Christian - deny it.

How thoroughly odd that the politicians that vote for abortion all seem to be practicing Christians

Actually abortion was never legislated it was forced by the Supreme Court. No one voted for it. Also, politicians being well known liars and knowing that atheists do not get elected claim to be good Christians. Also your buddy Darwin was one such faux Christian. He never publicly pronounced his atheism. Many atheists do not announce themselves to be such. We see many of them on these threads.

You are probably the biggest dipsh*t to ever post on these threads. God created man, He simply did it as part of His grand program -- through naturalistic processes. Your inability to retain information from thread to thread, or even from day to day speaks loads for your mental faculties.

"God created man, He simply did it as part of His grand program -- through naturalistic processes."

Did God create man out of clay? If so, with what natural laws was God working in harmony with?

Did God create woman out of Adam's rib? If so, would you call this a "naturalistic" process as well?

God created man, He simply did it as part of His grand program -- through naturalistic processes.

Care to quote the passage in the Bible where it says how man - and woman were created? As usual you call me names for telling the truth. Sort of shows what you are.

Evidently, a large portion of the population supports abortion

The above is a non-sequitur to my post. You cannot vote against abortion because it was imposed by fiat by the Supreme Court. The only way to get rid of it is to impeach half the Supreme Court which none of the pansys in Congress are willing to do.

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.