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.

[scripter]

I've had my fun...

And I appreciate the LOL I had, thanks.

If Only Darwinists Scrutinized Their Own Work as Closely

Oh man - that fits so well here recently.

[VadeRetro]

You changed your acceptable criteria once you realized crow was your next meal.

I change nothing. Show me Eldredge praising the exhibit. "The horse is a good example" doesn't get you there. His using Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, whatever as props for his talk doesn't help you either. Every specimen in that display (each one a near-perfect skeleton, IIRC) is still good evidence. (Do you even understand, or will you admit to understanding, that the exhibit may present a misleading picture but all the specimens making it up are valid?)

Did you miss post 290? Did you realize that in Jenny's post Eldredge admits to using the horse exhibit when he was on TV? The same exhibit he called deplorable, speculative and imaginary?

I did not catch that he was using the exhibit items on TV, no. I do catch that he supplies a correct narrative for the specimens it contains and avoids the errors for which he criticizes the display. I do catch that he continues as of 1995 to make both of the statements I recognize as true and non-contradictory, which sort of makes me think my interpretation of what he says is correct here.

Are you finally going to admit Eldredge contradicts himself? I mean, c'mon, VR, the post you referenced supports the contradiction.

If he contradicted himself, I would not have agreed with both of his statements at the same time. You're still playing "Twist and Shout." Furthermore, you can't cite Eldredge as an authority when you want to while calling him a lair every time you don't like what he tells you. Note that I don't have that problem because I still agree with what you call "both sides of his mouth."

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Tacitus doesn't count as an original source. He lived centuries after Plato.

I know, but I like the notion that we could be living in Atlantis.

[AndrewC]

I know, but I like the notion that we could be living in Atlantis.

[VOA]

You'll notice its not working well in Islamic countries and not much better anywhere else.

Pretty amazing how parts of Christendom generated Newton, Kepler, Descartes, and a
string of similar minds...

But, maybe that's just part of the difference between a Judeo-Christian milieau and
an Islamic one...

But of course, Newton was not always a brainiac as evidenced by his being suckered
into a speculative financial bubble, and barking up the wrong tree in regards
to developing a method/device of establishing time at sea.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But of course, Newton was not always a brainiac as evidenced by his being suckered into a speculative financial bubble, and barking up the wrong tree in regards to developing a method/device of establishing time at sea.

And Galileo didn't believe that the moon caused tides. He thought tides were caused by the earth spinning. This is what got him in trouble with the Council of Bishops. Galileo thought gravity was astrology.

It is fascinating to look at how Christianity has created for us the greatest freedom anyone has ever known.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL! Good one!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

That's OK. I was struggling to keep up anyway.

[VOA]

It is fascinating to look at how Christianity has created for us the greatest
freedom anyone has ever known.

Not to say that everything is perfect in that sphere, but it sure has at least
proved out over the long run.

(And I'm not saying that a Judeo-Christian environment is a prerequisite for
the appearance of great minds/thoughts...but it certainly seems to engender and
feed them better than most systems...just my opinion...)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Re: Continental Drift. I knew a guy (plant fossil expert) who had drawn family trees of fossil plants on both sides of the South Atlantic. He did his work in the early 1950s before plate techtonics was a well-established theory. What he found was that very old trees consisted of identical species in both Africa and South America. Younger trees were consisted of slightly different species (though clearly descended from the older species) on both sides of the ocean. Even younger (still many millions of years old) trees were quite different. He attributed the split in the tree of trees as evidence for having Africa and South America joined, then later being separated. There is a clear cladistic bifurcation in the fossil record.

Of course, the problem with the splitting of Africa and South America (before plate techtonics) was in finding a mechanism.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are those who want to upset the whole applecart and devise a radical new science, free from the constraints of "naturalism", but without some indication that such a revolution would result in anything better than what we have or that it would be useful to anybody, least of all scientists, such a revolution is simply an invitation to chaos.

This shows the philosophical unity of the Creationists and the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists. Both seek to deny the scientific method as a means of gaining konwledge and both give precidence to feelings and an esoteric gnosis not subject to scientific analysis.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Santorini has a good claim to be the physical source of the Atlantis legend.

[HiTech RedNeck]

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."

More smoke and mirrors from scientists. "We've drawn the boundaries of our philosophical circle, and dammit we ain't gonna budge them, and the proof that we shouldn't budge is that whoever isn't inside the circle isn't inside the circle!"

[Doctor Stochastic]

As does Thera.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The Catholic Church (which ought not to have been the center of government, but that's another story) was not in its entirety opposed to Galileo. Galileo got caught in some unfortunate politics. It could have easily gone a different way, with the Church acknowledging his idea as a "hypothesis." Galileo and the Church would have gotten along nicely if the Church had gone with that option. Of course Galileo could have willingly resigned from Catholicism, but his personal faith in Christ did not make that an option. It seems that AAAS is trying to get American scientists to do to ID now, what the Catholic Church did to Galileo -- put their power, prestige, and influence behind denying the option to those who would consider themselves part of that group.

[Scully]

Thank you for the ping, Patrick!

[cornelis]

esoteric gnosis not subject to scientific analysis

Volley to you: Is naturalism to be conceived free from the constraints of anything that is not naturalism? It may be that the very character of this debate indicates that the pretended autonomy is often operative on any side. This is typical of warfare.

[cornelis]

This is typical of warfare

I'll qualify that. A typical duel.

[HiTech RedNeck]

God is always going to be bigger than nature.