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.

You know it's not that hard to click on a link.

It is not that hard to summarize an article, it is not that hard to post a paragraph supporting your position and then linking to the rest of the article. It is the height of arrogance to force the readers of this thread to wade through seas of verbiage to see if your point is correct.

Furthermore, your articles, and specifically the 29 garbages of evolution are just a pretty name, but they do not prove what they claim to prove. You and the evolutionists constantly misrepresent the content of articles and claim that they prove what they do not. AND WHEN YOU FINALLY POST WHAT ANY OF THESE EVIDENCES ARE I WILL PROVE MY POINT THAT THE ARTICLES YOU LINK TO IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION DO NOT PROVE ANY SUCH THING.

The Pope said no such thing. He said that scientific theories which deny the Word of God and attack the spirit of man are contrary to the faith and therefore untrue. He was describing evolution perfectly. It is not for nothing that those words came at the end of the end of his statement.

He said exactly that. He just failed to consult with you before he said it ... not knowing that you are the ultimate arbiter of science and faith. Go back and read the whole statement. Everyone on the face of the earth (except you), is capable of understanding that the Pope says evolution is not contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Of course, his definition of evolution is not quite the same as yours. He must be wrong. You might consider dropping him a line and setting him straight.

It is the height of arrogance to force the readers of this thread to wade through seas of verbiage to see if your point is correct.

This plea would be touching if you weren't always claiming that there's no evidence for evolution what-so-any. But let anyone link a substantive article (such as Theobald's that summarizes in barest outline 29 separate and distinct lines of evidence all pointing toward evolution), you cry foul on the grounds of "seas of verbiage."

There's too much evidence for us to be posting in-line on thread after thread just because you're born new and trolling for suckers on thread after thread. Get Duane Gish, Walt Brown, or Ken Ham to write 29 Excuses not to See the Evidence. Then you'll have something that summarizes your position to link in response.

From the article:

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence.
Later on the article states:

As stated earlier in prediction 3 , the phylogenetic tree constructed from the cytochrome c data exactly recapitulates the relationships of major taxa as determined by the completely independent morphological data (McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973).

As can be seen clearly from the above, the article proposes two contradictory views:
1. That cytochrome c perfectly explains the genealogical tree.
2. That cytochrome c is identical in man and monkeys.

Since man and chimp are from two different genealogical families, the above statements are clearly contradictory. In addition, since man and chimp branched apart over 5 million years ago, it is highly unlikely that if cytochrome c was a molecular clock for evolution (as evolutionists claim) that there would be absolutely no differences in the cytochrome c of man and chimp. Therefore this example is a disproof of evolution. It shows that the building blocks of nature do not follow an evolutionary path. It is also a good example of how evolutionists claim two sets of opposing facts as both being proof of evolution.

You merely distract yourself with the slow ticking of the cytochrome c molecular clock. I can think of no way that it helps you. It's a highly conserved gene to have had only one mutation since humans and chimps diverged. But we know there are differences in mutation rates across the genome, both because some genes are not very mutable (the mutations die) and perhaps also some genes are more actively guarded by repair mechanisms at copy time.

In any event, you have bypassed the actual point of that line of evidence, the spectacular convergence of the cytochrome c tree and the morphological tree. A designer has so much freedom. Why does the Designer of Life always mimic evolution?

The platypus has a lousy fossil history. There's just enough there to show it has a history. Evolution would predict that the platypus, whose young still have teeth, descended from mammals that had teeth as adults. The big Obduron teeth were thus no shock at all.

Amazing the predictions of evolutionists! They always seem to be made after the facts are unearthed and given as substantiation for the just unearthed facts! The loss of teeth seems to me as devolution not evolution and that the young need teeth is pretty obvious, they need it to break the eggs they are born in. The adults do not need such teeth because of their diet. So no, the lack of teeth in the platypus is proof that it is perfectly fit for its way of life. An animal with teeth would need to have followed a different lifestyle (if it was also fit for it) and consequently would have required different features. Of course, we cannot tell from a pair of teeth and a lower jaw what the features of such an animal might have been like. So we really cannot tell if this Obduron had any of the features of the platypus at all (and due to the different lifestyle, we suspect it did not).

Now the mystery of the platypus, in spite of your verbiage, remains. There are numerous living and dead species that we know about. No single species has even close to a half of the distinct characteristics of the platypus which I stated in the post you responded to. Therefore, it is way more than a lack of fossils that is at work here, there is a complete lack of even the remotest proof of any descent of the platypus from any single species. Therefore, as I have been saying for a long time, the platypus disproves evolution.

But why do you try to turn every thread you're on into every thread you've ever been on? "

I have explained that one to you already, but I guess you were not listening. There is only one truth, but there are a miriad of lies.

Why do you remember nothing, nothing, nothing?

See above. In addition, see how many times I have to post the same thing before it gets into the evolutionists head that the point has already been answered. Take the platypus for example. You have lost this argument many times and you keep dishonestly claiming that you have refuted it. Well, only way to prove you folks wrong (and your lies and insults as totally baseless) is to prove you folks wrong again.

Amazing the predictions of evolutionists! They always seem to be made after the facts are unearthed and given as substantiation for the just unearthed facts!

In this case, we know the early mammals had teeth, juveniles and adults. They are generally described as "shrew-like." Evolutionists say that the platypus descended from early mammals, even as you and I. It follows that teeth in adults disappeared somewhere in the platypus line. Evolutionary logic.

The loss of teeth seems to me as devolution not evolution and that the young need teeth is pretty obvious, they need it to break the eggs they are born in.

Are you sure you know how to be a platypus?

The adults do not need such teeth because of their diet.

Then maybe loss of teeth isn't devolution, a word I hate anyway. Evolution should converge a population to some sort of fitness. That's about all it has to do. (And it doesn't have to do that. Extinction happens, too.)

So no, the lack of teeth in the platypus is proof that it is perfectly fit for its way of life.

So it didn't devolve. You withdraw the observation.

An animal with teeth would need to have followed a different lifestyle (if it was also fit for it) and consequently would have required different features.

So I guess a platypus is fit.

Of course, we cannot tell from a pair of teeth and a lower jaw what the features of such an animal might have been like. So we really cannot tell if this Obduron had any of the features of the platypus at all (and due to the different lifestyle, we suspect it did not).

Obbie was bigger and retained teeth as an adult. That's what we know.

Now the mystery of the platypus, in spite of your verbiage, remains.

There's a scarcity of data points so far. That used to be true of whales, birds, and hominids, so don't get excited.

There are numerous living and dead species that we know about.

Yep.

No single species has even close to a half of the distinct characteristics of the platypus which I stated in the post you responded to.

I doubt everyone would agree. There are lots of funny animals out there.

Therefore, it is way more than a lack of fossils that is at work here, there is a complete lack of even the remotest proof of any descent of the platypus from any single species.

No.

Therefore, as I have been saying for a long time, the platypus disproves evolution.

An astounding non-sequitur. Bats have a worse fossil record than monotremes. They don't disprove evolution. Do you know why?

g3 still claims he can prove that there is NO junk DNA.

I did not say that. What I did say is that the assumption by evolutionists (made before there was any evidence either way) that non-coding DNA was junk was proven absolutely wrong. I have shown you two articles proving that assumption wrong. Andrew C showed you another one. Therefore the evolutionist assumption is totally wrong and it is up to evolutionists now to show that any of that non-coding DNA is indeed junk. Let me also say, that evolutionists also said for a long time that the appendix and the tonsils were useless leftovers from previous species man descended from. That 'assumption from ignorance' by evolutionists has also been proven wrong. Luckily for us, medical scientists did not listen to the garbage from the evolutionist theologians.

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.