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.
Anyway, not long ago I watched an umpteen-tape collection on Hitler, and it showed we were his inspiration for what finally became the Final Solution. Using Darwin's concepts WAY out of context.
Great series. It's British-made, and very biased against Hitler rather than just being a history. But the biased comments are so obvious against the actual facts mentioned that you can easily ignore them and just get the history.
Oooh, ooooh (raises hand), I'll take Jehova's Witnesses, they're FUN! My mother-in-law was one for a while and actively trying to convert me. The research I did to be able to respond to her -- wow! People believe this stuff? Do they give them something special in the water?
True, but given the fact that this particular theory (evolution) has been repeatedly disproven and has no validity, the fact that it has pathological political and social consequences has to be considered in determining whether or not public funds should be used to support it.
I have no problem criticising individual scientists for moral and intellectual failings -- even if they were just voicing the spirit of their time.
But saying that an idea was hijacked to justify evil deeds is not an argument against the idea. Atomic bombs do not invalidate physics, even if detonated in New York.
I suspect that eugenics will be back in another form. Rather than sterilizing or gassing the unfit, we will be "treating patients". GATACA is not that far fetched.
Any retarded female who wishes to live at public expense, in a shelterd home or institution.
But if you don't stop taking it, it has the same effect. The Pill is certainly less offensive than surgical sterilization, but eugenics is nevertheless still being practiced.
We're in agrement, I thought this was a particularly well-known example of the difference between laws and theories.
I'm still waiting to see this. You know there's going to be a Nobel Prize and tons of fame and fortune for the person who can take down evolution scientifically.
Not at all. We can already see the beginnings with the woman who had in vitro fertilization, and they picked the embryo that was missing a certain hereditary disease. In trying to beat the odds, insurance companies in England are already using your genetic profile against you to raise your rates.
Personal question: Does your cousin have any children?
Yes, that is what ID shows - systems that are irreducibly complex
Actually, I was asking for examples, especially of the method of proof.
Just as an aside, I spent nearly seven years in Protective Services, "supervising" parents accused of neglect. A high proportion of these parents were mildly retarded. I spent a lot of time trying to convince judges and others that children were better off with their natural parents, even if the parents needed help with things most of us consider ordinary.
I'm still waiting to see this. You know there's going to be a Nobel Prize and tons of fame and fortune for the person who can take down evolution scientifically.
It's been done repeatedly. The problem is that there is, in reality, no such thing as "proving" something; there is only such a thing as proving something to somebody's satisfaction. If the audience is too stupid or too brainwashed to deal with the proof, then the proof did not fly. Certain segments of American academia with their "peer-reviewed" journals are a closed loop, and I do not anticipate proving anything to them anytime soon. Under those circumstances, proving the case against evolutionism to judges, juries, and voters will have to suffice.
A little evidence would help here.
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.