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.

There is no recommendation in your post #542, only an observation.

Oh, that's just semantics! Observation ... recommendation ... what's the difference? Whatever Darwin said was a command! Don't you know that everyone rushes out and does exactly what Darwin said, might have said, or could have been misread by the most inattentive reader on earth to say? But Gore3000, fortunately, has spotted the truth! Darwin wanted to kill everybody! He was trying to prevent the day when there would be a Gore3000 to drive them mad!

Your failure to see may not be scientific evidence.

And your link is total nonsense. The evolutionists first tried to show that abiogenesis could have happened here on earth. That was disproven so like good liars, they now take it into space. The problem with that assumption is quite simple. No amino acids have ever been found on meteorites. If there had ever been any they would have been burned up on entry by the atmosphere. In addition, such proofs of life have been looked for both on the Moon and on Mars. Such proofs have never been found. What you and your atheist friends are trying to pass off as proof of life is not science, it is tabloid nonsense.

(To AndrewC: Is this the way you would understand our exchange on the Pope's statement?)

My post on the Pope's message, and it is important to note that I am not a Catholic, was meant to show that there were very specific conditions placed on evolutionary theories in that message in order to make them compatible with the Roman Catholic Church's teachings. One of which, is essentially that atheistic evolution is incompatible.(What is atheistic evolution? One that prohibits the involvement of God, namely --theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter). It is readily evident that many here describe Darwinian evolution in just those terms.

What's the matter with two species of Obduron?

The problem is that one is two teeth from South America and the platypus has no teeth. Tell me how did that lineage get established? Through evo-super molecular analysis of non-existent DNA? Also, kindly tell us the proof that these species had the following traits:
1. the mammary glands.
2. the egg laying.
3. your 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.

In addition, if you insist that those teeth had the traits mentioned, then you need to tell us from what specific species these Obdurons got the above traits.

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.

And nowhere in this paragraph does Darwin suggest what should be done regarding the situation for which he expresses concern. In fact, nowhere in the chapter where that paragraph occurs does he offer any such suggestions.
You claimed:
Yes it is and let me show you again where he encourages the killing of the weak, the imbecile, the unhealthy, even the poor:

However he does not encourage that anywhere -- at least nowhere that I've seen and you've not posted anything from him where such is encouraged. As such your claim is demonstratably false.

Further, Darwin's comments regarding the consequences of human medicine and war and other such factors on natural selection are his philosophy based on his interpretation of his theory. It is not part of the theory itself, it is what he believes are the consequences of the theory. That doesn't make them part of the theory (the theory itself does not predict what he stated, and he never put that in his theory) and it doesn't make eugenics a part of evolution. Evoluiton is biology. Eugenics is a social philosophy. Biology is a science concerned with what happens naturally with living organisms. Social philosophy is what people propose should be done (ie, doesn't just happen on its own) for what they believe to be a "good" society.

Your arguments regarding evolution are like trying to tie some negative philosophy derived from gravitational theory and arguing that it somehow negates gravity.

Thank you for your courteous reply. I agree with every statement in it. But my point about the Pope accepting evolution as being within Catholic teaching (with the caveats you point out), stands. Therefore, evolution in and of itself is not "atheistic." That's the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not claiming that everyone agrees with the Pope, I'm merely pointing out that it's possible to be a practicing Christian and a believer in evolution both.

Can you agree with that? I think so.

Can Gore3000? Obviously not. He/She/It seems to think that he/she/it has demonstrated that evolution must somehow be atheistic. I'm sure that's G3K's opinion, but as far as having demonstrated the general truth of the opinion ... well ... I saw more convincing slight-of-hand at my son's fifth-grade talent show.

Gumlegs, you already got your answer. I could care less what the spin is on the Pope's message from the atheist lobby.

Surely you mean "couldn't" care less?

I'm sure that's the case because you seem completely unable to deal with anything you don't like. The Pope's statement speaks for itself. It isn't going away and no one is spinning it. And, in fact, your response to it rather neatly demonstrates my contention regarding your inability to deal with anything you don't like.

I did not say that. I said that Darwin was an advocate of eugenics - just like Hitler. I also gave proof of it, the last time in post#572, by quoting from Darwin himself. Darwin's words can only be interpreted by people of sound mind (evolutionists of course excluded) as an endorsement of eugenics.

Listen carefully. In fact, write this down so you don't get it wrong later: Have some responsible person go out and buy you a sense of humor. Preferably one that comes with a set of clear directions. Have that person show you how to use it. Do not attempt to use it while taking medication, and only use it while under the supervision of a responsible adult. One day, you may find yourself being amused by things, and, in turn, amusing others.

And on this lighter note, I'm off to bed.

A happy Easter to all!

Oh, that's just semantics!

No, Gumlegs, what you are doing is not semantics. It is blatant lying. I posted the facts for all to see and judge for themselves. You are trying to deny the truth by constant lies, constant misrepresentations, constant repetition of untruths. People can read Gumlegs, they can think for themselves. They don't need to hear what you think to know what Darwins own words in post#572 mean. It is also quite dishonest of you not to address your points to me and to the post in which it was made, but then, to expect honest discussion from an evolutionist is ridiculous.

However he does not encourage that anywhere

Of course he is, calling it idiocy to give alms to the poor, to cure the weak and so on is advocacy of eugenics. It goes quite well with his theory of survival of the fittest, he is just helping it along. Let's remember also his final paragraph in the Origins " Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. "

That biological evolution is an important scientific theory....

many pro-evolution scientists have not given Darwin's theory enough critical thought.

the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

Oh happy days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone what to argue that God does not qualify as a scientist? No, I take it back.......please do not respond. I don't want to get 4,000 links to evolutionist theories. :~)

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.