The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[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.

[Stultis]

Logical entailments?

Yes, of course. Deducible consequences. If a given theory is true then facts "A" and "B" should be observed, whereas facts "C" and "D" should not be observed.

If no arguments or observations logically entail any scientific proposition

Yes, because entailment/deduction runs in the other direction. Consequences are deduced from theories, leading to observations which then test the theory.

Reality is the final arbiter of all scientific claims. Facts have no significance in and of themselves, they simply are whatever they are. They are significant only with respect to their consistency or inconsistency with some theory.

Theories entail facts, but facts do not entail theories. Facts are objective and impartial. If you argue that facts entail theories then you rob facts of the neutrality that allows them to be used in testing theories.

You made a reference to Popper. Have you ever read anything by him? I find it hard to believe you have if you are having such a hard time understanding what I am saying. (Although maybe it is my own inadequacy in explaining myself.)

[Stultis]

If you think "proof" implies rank dogmatism, then you must have a rather poor impression of mathematicians.

No, I think having one standard of "proof" for scientific theories you agree with (or are indifferent to) and having a completely different standard for theories you disagree with (and then pretending that "proof" means the same thing in both cases) is rank dogmatism. This is what gore3000 has been doing, and what many other creationists do.

[Stultis]

Hadn't yet realized the degree of difference between how you and I were using the term "proof".

[AnnaZ]

"Unspun with AnnaZ And Mercuria on RadioFR NOW!

LISTEN LIVE WHILE YOU FREEP!

[Virginia-American]

What's the proof of the atomic theory of matter? In Pais' "Subtle is the Lord", an excellent biography of Einstein, I learned that Einstein came up with three totally different methods of calculating Avogadro's number ca. 1900-1905. The fact that they all give (approx) the same number is strong evidence that all three methods are meaningful, and that the number is correct.

It seems to me that the fact of common descent is similar. It was widely suspected before Darwin, and is supported by evidence from genetics, embryoloy, anatomy and so forth. Darwin's hypothesis that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain the diversity of life may be incomplete, but it's never been falsified by any evidence or experiment.

[gore3000]

Evolution says it is science, the statement you are making is essentialy 'because I am an atheist the answer to a question cannot be God did it, therefore evolution is true.' Now if you want to believe that you came from pond scum, that you are a distant relative to an amoeba and that your uncle is a monkey, that's fine with me. You can believe anything you want, but what you cannot do is call it science when you have absolutely no way to scientifically substantiate your claim.

I am not saying God did it, I am showing that evolution is total garbage based on science, based on evidence, based on facts. Seems that all the evolutionists here have to back up their theory is a lot of sophistry and rhetoric.

[gore3000]

It has never, and cannot now give proof of its main contention: that macro-evolution has ever occurred. - me-

Do you think God was high when he created the Duck Billed Platapus? Joan Osborn seemed to think so in her song "What if God Smoked Cannibus."

Since you do not believe in micro evolution or transitional species, you need to have some explaination for this creature that lays eggs and nurses its young.

I hate to copy an entire post, but this one is just too good and needs to be seen whole to really appreciate the myrth in it!

The answer is utterly fantastic! First we have the scientific theory of evolution according to a drugged out rock and roller! Of course, since she was drugged out she had it completely backwards. The platypus is proof against evolution as I shall show in the next post.

The last paragraph is of course a complete non-sequitur which shows the desperation of evolutionists. I am speaking of macro-evolution and he is speaking of micro-evolution - small adaptations to the environment which neither I nor anyone else denies. He also shows the total arrogance of the evolutionists (following Darwin whose proof for evolution was to challenge others to disprove it). It is the job of someone making an assertion to prove it. Nevertheless, since clearly he does not have the capability to do so, I shall be happy to disprove his statements in the next post.

[JediGirl]

(following Darwin whose proof for evolution was to challenge others to disprove it).

LOL! YOU'VE NEVER READ Origins of Species have you? Or any science textbook? lol, only your creationist "literature"?

[gore3000]

THE PLATYPUS


Home: Streams, rivers, and lakes of Eastern Australian coastal regions
Description: Short, dense dark-brown fur, 2 inch wide bill, hairless, webbed feet, flat, furry tail, up to 2 foot long body

The platypus seems weird to people because it lays eggs and is a mammal, but really it's just a creature that's just very specialized to do what platys do best -- swim, eat, and burrow! Living on the banks of bodies of water, the platypus burrows 50 foot long tunnels and uses its webbed feet to doggy-paddle around. The bill is a stream-lined nose and mouth for sniffing and snuffling up pond-bottom delicacies like shrimp! Perfectly designed for underwater life, the platypus has two layers of fur -- the first is short and dense and never lets water through to the skin! The second is longer and is the layer of fur that gets wet. The flat furry tail stores fat for the long cold winter in freezing waters.

The platypus closes its eyes and ears underwater! How does it manage to find its food in the murky depths below? With an amazing touch-sensitive beak! Platypus bills aren't like bird bills -- they're soft, flexible cartilage -- like the stuff our noses are made of!

Like a duck-billed cowboy, platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom with a swift kick! A platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog!

Mama platypus lays usually two eggs less than an inch long that stick to the fur on her belly. The babies bust their way out with an egg tooth, and then attach themselves to mom's belly-hairs. Milk oozes from glands nearby that soak the fur and the babies suck it up!

... The platypus bill is a finely tuned instrument with approximately 850,000 electrical and tactile receptors, which are far more sophisticated than those found in fish and can detect any movement in the murky water.
From: Platypus

So here we have an animal with some features seen only in mammals, some features seen only in reptiles, some features seen only in birds, some features seen only in snakes and some features seen only in fish!

So this is the question for evolutionists: where did all the varied features of the platypus descend from? According to evolution they had to have descended gradually from one single species having at least the ancestry of these features. So let's see, what species ancestral to the platypus had the following features:
1. the mammary glands.
2. the egg laying.
3. 3 earbones.
4. the poison spur.
5. the duck like bill.
6. the webbed feet.
7. the toothless mouth.
8. the electro-sensor in the bill.
9. the fur.
10. the cloaca.
11. the ability to vocalize and make different sounds.

Hope I do not have to wait for 150 years for an answer!

[gore3000]

Proven impossibility?

Yes indeed. The evolutionists were doing pretty badly trying to figure out a way for life to have come from inert matter 50 years ago. However, when DNA was discovered, it threw them completely off. The gene is too complicated to have been constructed by inert matter. The evolutionists and atheists have absolutely not the vaguest idea how they could even develop a hypothesis as to how life could have come from inert matter, let alone prove that such a thing ever did happen.

[gore3000]

What you need to do is cut the rhetoric, the sophistry and the misrepresentations. I have asked you for facts supporting the theory of evolution and all you give is a long discussion on the meaning of the word "is" and the meaning of the word "alone". You clearly are being deceitful and trying to cover up the fact that there is absolutely no scientific proof of evolution, none at all. I have told you several times how scientific theories give proof: by experiments, by formulas which can be tested, by applying the theories to everyday problems and many other ways. You continue to fail to give the proofs which other scientific theories certainly do give. So it is time to stop the rhetoric. It is time to stop the sophistry. It is time for you to back up your claims that evolution is science.

[VadeRetro]

You were pinged back on that other thread to answer for past dumb-dumbisms and face new evidence against same. There's a nice history of vertebrate evolution in there which puts the monotremes (that would include your pal the platypus) just where they should go in the story.

Anyway, instead of responding, I see you'd rather troll for suckers in fresh waters.

[gore3000]

Of course fast doesn't mean only a few years but many thousands of years. That may be slow compared to the lifespan of a human but for me that is pretty fast on a geological time scale.

And how did you determine that timeline of thousands of years? Did you just make it up or do you have an example of macro-evolution, of the creation and spread of new genes to support your statement?

[VadeRetro]

Anticipating quibbles, the ping to you is later, here, after Junior suggests it.

[js1138]

The gene is too complicated to have been constructed by inert matter.

Why do you continually slander matter? Are quantum phenomena so prosaic that for you, tunneling is mere dirt? Do you have any appreciation for the mysteries we have uncovered in the mere existence of "inert matter". What exactly is so inert about matter?

[gore3000]

"Everything that has previously been selected is available to build upon."

The above is absolutely incorrect. You cannot just "borrow" a gene and turn it into something else for a very simple reason: that gene is already doing an essential job for the organism and changing it will destroy the function it is performing and result in serious problems to the organism. Thiat is the reason why mutations are almost always detrimental - the genetic makeup of an organism is doing what it is supposed to do, mutating a part of it will destroy needed functions. Even if the mutation were not a death dealing one, it would render the organism less fit than it otherwise was and of course that would be contrary to your theory would it not?

[gore3000]

Well put. One of the opponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" in Science courses criticizes it because it cannot be examined by the Scientific Method.

So how can evolution be examined by the scientific method? Each time I try to ask scientific questions to evolutionists here all I get is rhetoric. What is the proof of evolution - scientifically wise?