The evolving Darwin debate

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.

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.

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.

What's wrong with the notion that a more advanced civilization has "seeded" this planet?

The problem is that you are just transferring the question of abiogenesis from earth to some unknown planet. You are not resolving the serious scientific problems with such a theory at all. Also such an assumption is not science. Science deals with what can be tested, such an assumption is untestable.

Clealrly these people are insane ;o)

No, those educators are not insane, they are just very arrogant, very accomplished liars. They do not care about the truth, they do not care about education - that is why kids keep getting dumber every year, all they care about is their agenda, their atheistic agenda.

" the likelihood of any new kind of animal arising, with new kinds of organs, a new basic plan for existence etc. is a high-order infinitessimal, i.e. you are talking about a zero-probability event.

Now, it might be one thing to believe that one or two such events had ever occurred in the history of the world, "

The evolutionists cannot even prove that one such event has ever occurred, let alone the millions of times which totally new organisms have been created.

This crap is getting offensive;

The evolutionists have no problem attacking and defaming our beliefs, but when someone attacks them in the same manner they get indignant. Here is what I was responding to:

If Jesus were here now He would say:
"Render unto science that which is science."
"Render unto mythology that which is mythology."

The above is extremely offensive to Christians and was totally uncalled for.

If overwhelming scientific (not religious pseudoscience) disproofs existed, evolution theory would have fallen and the disprover would be a very famous and probably rich person. This is the way science works.

The way science works is that it proves its propositions. There is absolutely no proof for the theory of evolution but there is tons of proof for all other scientific theories. Half of what Darwin said in his books, on what he based his theory has been disproven by real science. The evolutionists never enter into discussion as to what the science is of their atheistic/materialistic philosophy because there is none.

"So Darwin was not PC? "Social Darwinism" was quite a fad up until WWII. But does the misuse of an idea make it invalid?"

You are absolutely wrong. Social Darwinism was not the misuse of Darwinian theory, it was putting Darwinian theory into action:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

That's your boy speaking, not social darwinists, not creationists, but your man himself, the immoral, the racist, the mysogenist Charles Darwin. And all the quotes given to you are not just a peripheral part of his theory but an essential part of his theory.

The evolutionists cannot even prove that one such event has ever occurred, let alone the millions of times which totally new organisms have been created.

The point is, that a non-idiot could potentially belive that one or two such events in the whole history of the world might have occurred but that, normally, i.e. when there is no quasi-religious reason for it, when a person starts to believe that an essentially endless series of such events has happened, you're looking at a much bigger problem.

In that case, the person is basically saying "Hey, you know, modern mathematics and probability theory and all that stuff is a bunch of BS, and I don't buy it.

You sound like Clinton, attacking everyone because of his own misdeeds, trying to belittle those who have done great things because your side has done nothing at all.

In what way was my pointing out your confusion of the Law of Gravity with the non-existant Theory of Gravity an "attack" on you (as distinct from an attack on your claim)? How was pointing out that Mendel's ratios are not only not "proven", but are not even factually true of numerous real world cases Clintonesque? How was my very politely demuring from your absurd implication that "relativity" tells us all we need to know about "atomic bombs" ad hominem?

For Gosh sakes, on that last point I even resisted pointing out to you that relativity theory deals with macroscopic phenomena, says nothing (directly) about nuclear interactions, and has little if anything to do with actually building "atom bombs".

Let us assume that I genuinely wanted to attack your claim that "gravity" is a "proved theory". Is there any possible way I could do that which would not cause you to squeal like a Palestinian caught with an explosive belt that you had been subjected to unfair personal attack?

It is easy to make predictions after the fact. The truth of the matter is that the fossil record does not prove evolution. It does not prove graudal descent. It shows that species arise and go away pretty much the way they started. However, the most interesting thing about the fossil record is that totally in contradiction of evolutionary theory practically all the species (except dinosaurs) found in the evolutionary record, are still found alive and well on earth. So much for natural selection.

Let's not go ad hominem, or we could have a field day with most of the Bible's characters.

Guess it is an insult to quote what the man said? Guess it is an insult to quote parts of the theory you so dearly defend? It is not an insult to call OJ Simpson a murderer. It is not an insult to call Clinton a pervert. It is a statement of fact. You may not like my calling Darwin by those names, however they are accurate and I have given proof of their truth.

It is also quite interesting that you equate an attack on Darwin as an attack on the Bible. It proves very well the truth of the article here. It proves very well what Christians have been saying here - evolution is an atheistic/materialistic philosophy, not science. Darwinism is your religion.

But saying that an idea was hijacked to justify evil deeds is not an argument against the idea.

Evolution was not hijacked by evil doers. Darwinism is the soul of Nazism and there is a direct connection to it through Darwin's big atheistic buddy Haeckel. Also, it was Darwin's other great buddy, the atheist Huxley who coined the term "amoral" as a defense of the immorality in Darwinian theory. Also see my post #214 for more proof of the perversity of Darwinism.

BTW - name one instance of the Sermon on the Mount being misused by evil doers (or the Ten Commandments).

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.