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.
If you're trying to understnd how the genome got to be how it is, and if next-neighbor energetics affect it, you'd like to know that, no?
What if cis base pair interactions were of no consequence? What does this mean for ID?
It would mean Meyer's alleged statements about the independence of each element of the sequence are wrong. ID itself is unfalsifiable, and there's no way I would waste my time trying to refute it.
The vehemence of the defense must mean something.
Maybe. We're trying to use logic to understand the illogical. You can argue anything from the premise of an omnipotent higher being. That's why ID is unfalsifiable.
Similarly, van der Waals interactions between polarizable molecules can be quite large. The reason why gasoline is a liquid rather than a gas is (mostly) a result of van der Waals interactions between the molecules. Engine oil is harder to boil than water is. Liquid engine oil is also held together by van der Waals forces. Water is held together by hydrogen bonds.
Accepted. I'm just trying to keep up with the debate. I passed my college chemistry courses, but I damn-sure didn't enjoy them... heheh...
I think you've got it. Meyer's claim that cis-interactions are sequence independent is an effort to stifle understanding of the genome and its evolution.
I'll jot that down on a Post-It note. Weak AIG will hold it to my desk.
Beyond that:
“ If the genetical processes were purely chemical the law of mass action would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences in accordance with their concentration. On the contrary, the genetic message puts each amino acid just where it belongs, largely independent of their concentration.”
But the real question is why this DNA molecule acts as a machine with self contained plans and has 'purpose' (for survival of the fittest)?
See post #100
No argument with those observations, but break the van der Waal's attraction and what do you end up with?.... Vaporized gasoline, not another compound. Break a carbon-carbon bond of the gasoline in the presence of chlorine and what do you get?
Engine oil is slightly more massive than water.
Quite true - it was late and I wasn't thinking.
Hhmmmmm.....click here for an example of the kind of reception Dr. Behe has received when he has tried to have articles published.
Don't you love it when someone starts responding to things over 600 posts ago? ;^)
What a beaut.!! I guess you mean "cite" then "site"
(609) Yes, and van der Waals is less than the strength of hydrogen bonds which themselves are a tenth of the strength of covalent bonds. The chemical properties are determined by the chemical bonds. The physical properties are dependent on the other types of bonds.
I simply pointed out that van der Waals is evidently strong enough to allow a gecko to cling to a surface:
(630) And yet they are strong enough to hold geckos to walls (Discover, December 2002, pg. 16).
Your immediate response is to try to switch the subject:
(669) The lilliputs tied up Gulliver. Balloons stick to walls when charged. Does that make them chemical bonds? And do they determine the specific sequence of DNA?
Note, please, that my response had nothing to do with chemical bonds. It simply showed that other forces are evidently stronger than you believe.
BTW, it was the Lilliputians who bound Gulliver.
The data indicate differently. We have two examples of absolute theocracy: Medieval Europe and Islam. In neither case was there much in the way of scientific progress. It wasn't until the revival of classical education in the Rennaissance that European advancement took place.
Who tried the bait and switch? You mentioned geckos and walls, not sequences. Show me the mechanism for van der Waal's determining the sequence of DNA. Lots of something does not make the characterization of that something as strong. Gravity holds the earth in its orbit. Does it make the sequence of DNA occur?
Lilliputians fine. Next time I'll be sure to spell it all out for you.
Well then I guess your statement deserves the laughter it now has earned.
What, exactly are you talking about? Your last few posts have made no sense at all. Or should I have said "cents"?
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.