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.
Even if God used "evolution" as you understand it the correct word would be creation anyways!
Evolution is a word atheists use to deny and bash--belittle God!
So, you admit that God was high when he created the Duck Billed Platypus. To little guy has no ancestors. He exists alone in the hierarchy of species. He is God's little joke on science.
What have you to say about the rattle-less rattlesnakes of Catalina Island? God had a lapse of attention?
Man was created in the image and likeness of God, not the other way around.
And you point being...?
God is a concept Osama bin Laden uses to murder thousands of innocent people.
God is a concept the Jews use to justify the murder of all the first born of a bronze age nation.
I do not hold Mother Theresa accountable for bin Laden's actions just because they both believe in God.
I do not hold the Pope accountable for the murder of all the first born of ancient Egypt just because the Pope's God is same one who ordered the massacre.
Why should you hold evolution accountable for the way atheist use it?
One who says they believe in God yet limits the possiblities of God does not truely believe in God.
Back in the beginning, the list of links. Some of the evidence is there.
If you believe in evolution...God comes out mangled--dead!
Mind/word games---base running--scoring on homemade rules---sub-bush tribal league/witchcraft!
The man was actually worried that if those specific things were not found, it would render his ideas useless. They were found. Of course, in that was him admitting the possibility that he was wrong.
And as was mentioned, the theory today is far more than Darwin could have imagined, the science has progressed way beyond him.
A few posts back I showed how many things Darwin was incorrect about. Important things at the heart of his theory and his "predictions".
Scientists are wrong about a lot of things. The difference between science and religion is that we discard those things that are wrong, such as those ideas of his you mentioned. If science discarded those ideas of his so easily, why hasn't science discarded the whole theory? You've already shown it has no problems contradicting Darwin, why not contradict the whole thing? Maybe because they have enough evidence completely aside from anything Darwin ever said?
The above was a lucky guess and part of the chutzpah of the charlatan that he was. He also predicted that the fossil record would prove evolution and it has not done so after 150 years and 100 times more fossils.
Not proven to the few religious who reject it on religious grounds. As soon as you started writing about the barbarity and immorality of evolution, you admitted your objections are not actually scientific, but religious.
Can you show me the written connections? This is interesting.
That's us, but we're talking about nature where there's no morality, no right or wrong, only survival. If Darwin was suggesting that we take nature's way as a lesson for how to structure our societies, he was getting way out of his area of expertise and should have just shut up.
We were talking about doing evil things in the name of Christianity. He did. His writings are full of "God is calling me to do this" and so on. But we probably shouldn't get into Christian moral teachings, because then I could give up my daughter for a gang rape and be considered a righteous man. Many horrible things are justifiable in the Bible.
Good point, Darwin proposed natural selection (well, he didn't like the term, but that's what we use). It seems to me that killing off or sterilizing certain people isn't exactly natural.
No, evolution is the best scientific explanation we have based on evidence. Please come up with an alternate scientific theory to displace it. Fame and riches will be yours, I promise.
I believe in God.
I accept evolution as His way of doing things.
Factually, he's correct, you have to admit that. However, in the interest of doing the moral thing, with care to the value of the individual, we don't always pay attention to these facts. I think our moral health is a little more important.
If you believe in God--"evolution"...the result has to be CREATION/CREATOR no matter what the method--means are!
I accept evolution as His way of doing things....God = creator/creation(evolution)!
You can believe whatever you want---green cheese too!
Wow, this sounds like our conservatism -- no socialist state, if you're successful, keep the rewards of your hard work. Comments g3k?
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.