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.

[AndrewC]

No a diamond is a crystal, but not all crystals are diamonds. Jesus was a man, but not all men were Jesus.

[AndrewC]

The Marx Brothers.

Hello Harpo!

And I'm not Karl.

[Gumlegs]

Groucho: You love your brother, don't you?
Chico: No, but I'm used to him.

[AndrewC]

Groucho: You love your brother, don't you?
Chico: No, but I'm used to him.
Groucho: Well what is his name?
Chico: Skid.

[foghornleghorn]

This is complete nonsense. The only difference between Evolutionary Theory and ID Theeory is that more people accept Evolution Theory as true. There is as much "scientific evidence" for one as the other. It is quite peculiar, isn't it, that these people are always happy to accept the truth of something on faith, as long as it rejects God, but not Blind Chance.

[foghornleghorn]

Nor can you quantify or "test" Darwinism, in the sense that you can gain conclusive physical "proof" of its accuracy. We are dealing with inductive logic here.

[foghornleghorn]

The fact that change takes place is not in dispute. The reason for that change, is.

[foghornleghorn]

Where's the "algorithm" defining Darwinism? But really, a theory is tested by its ability to predict. If ID can do that it deserves a harder look.

[foghornleghorn]

Yes, and the reason we "all" use a little preumption of design in our research is something called the Natural Law.

[Gumlegs]

Oh, you skid!

[Gumlegs]

Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt.

[AndrewC]

Is that why they called him Chico?

[Bonaparte]

"...the gospels were written by people who either witnessed or spoke with people who witnessed the resurrection."

Does a written account constitute scientific evidence that something actually occured? Is anecdotal narrative scientifically reliable? If I tell you that I just saw a man turn water into wine, then saw him walk on water, then saw him produce thousands of loaves and fishes out of nowhere, then saw him successfully command a storm to cease, would the mere fact that I reported this to you constitute scientific confirmation?

If I told you that the creatures of the Cambrian period evolved from distinctly different earlier life forms, but I wasn't actually there to see it and can't even produce fossil evidence suggesting that these ancestors may even have existed, would the mere fact that I reported these claims to you constitute scientific evidence in support of my claim?

" Since the average Joe... in the days of Moses couldn't count beyond the number of fingers and toes he had, the concept of 'billions' would have been difficult to grasp."

The average Joe in the time of Moses gazed upon armies of many thousands and gazed up at stars much more numerous than that. He understood quite well the concept of "too numerous to count." Allegory was therefore an unnecessary explanatory device. If he heard "multitudes," he knew exactly what that meant.

[Junior]

You can only see about 3,000 stars in a clear night sky. Billions is still a concept that would escape primitive folks.

Eyewitness accounts, while flawed, hold more validity than an allegory given to illiterate shepherds hundreds (if not thousands) of years before it was written down. Play telephone someday; simple messages get distorted rather quickly. Your attempts at equating the gospels and Genesis does not fly.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I always thought that 50 was too large to count: sin cuenta or cincuenta.

[Gumlegs]

Is that why they called him Chico?

The standard story is that it was a nick-name first used in a poker game. It was originally spelled "Chicko," indicating the correct pronunciation, and was a reference to how much he liked women. Slang at the time called them "chicken," as in the line in "Don't Put A Tax On The Beautiful Girls," by Jack Yellen and Milton Ager, "Don't you think the price of chicken's high enough now?"

Or did you have something else in mind?

[Virginia-American]

The ancient Greeks could only go to 10,000 (myriad). Archimedes had to invent special notation to calculate the mumber of grains of sand contained in a sphere the size of the Earth's orbit. The ancient Hindus were the first, AFAIK, to use numbers in the millions, billions, and higher.

[Gumlegs]

Working on the others ...

[Bonaparte]

"...an allegory given to illiterate shepherds..."

IOW, you believe that the above cited miracles of Jesus are believable because "somebody" said they happened. But you don't believe that the same God who turned wine into water, produced bread and fishes out of nowhere, walked on water and rose from the dead, could also literally create a woman from a rib.

[Junior]

He could literally create a woman from a rib. He could also zap everything into existence in six literal days. However, there is absolutely no physical evidence that He did so. Indeed, the evidence points to the world and life developing pretty much like evolutionists claim. Of course, God could have planned it that way, however as we cannot tell the difference the point is moot.

Scripture must be interpreted in light of the evidence, not the other way around.