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.

[AndrewC]

On the flagellum, the explanation looks reasonable though even by the author's admission it is not quite complete.

After he refines his explanation of the origin of bacteria flagella, he might try a crack at other flagella.

Cilia and flagella are structures on the outer surface of eukaryotic cells that are involved in moving cells. Cilia are shorter than flagella and exert a coordinated rowing motion to move a microorganism through a solution. Flagella are longer and propel the cell by an undulatory motion.

Both cilia and flagella contain a highly organized bundle of microtubules called an axoneme, enveloped by an extension of the plasma membrane and connected to a basal body, an anchoring structure within the cell (Figure 8.22b).

Axonemes have microtubules arranged in a so-called 9 + 2 array-two central microtubules ringed by nine microtubule doublets (Figure 8.22b). The single microtubules in the center are complete, each having 13 protofilaments of tubulin dimers (Figure 8.19). By contrast, each of the nine surrounding doublets is composed of one complete microtubule (the A fiber) to which is fused an incomplete microtubule, carrying only 10 or 11 protofilaments (the B fiber). Closer inspection of electron micrographs reveals even greater complexity, as diagrammed in Figure 8.23. The outer doublets are periodically interconnected by a protein called nexin and carry at regular intervals sidearms composed of the protein dynein. In addition, radial spokes, each consisting of a head and an arm, project from the outer doublets to connect with the central pair.

About 200 polypeptides can be resolved by gel electrophoresis studies of isolated axonemes. Analysis indicates at least 6 proteins in the spoke heads and 11 others in the arms of the spokes. Much of this apparatus seems to be directly involved in the beating motions of cilia and flagella.

If ATP is added to isolated axonemes, adjacent doublets can be seen to slide past one another. The best current model holds that this sliding occurs by "walking" of the dynein sidearms along the adjacent doublet (Figure 8.24). Doublets slide past each other first on one side of the axoneme and then the other, with the length of the slide limited by the central spokes and nexin connectors. In this way, the sliding of doublets is transformed into back-and-forth bending of the whole cilium or flagellum (Figure 8.24). If connections within the axoneme are removed by careful proteolysis, ATP simply causes axonemes to extend and thin, as the outer doublets slide past one another with no stopping point.

It has been demonstrated that dynein has ATPase activity, with binding of ATP associated with the breaking of dynein cross-bridges. Thus, there are similarities between the mechanisms of the beating of cilia and flagella and the ATP-driven walking of myosin heads along the actin fiber, but there appears to be no relationship between the two systems at the level of protein structure.

[Junior]

The Pope DID SPECIFICALLY SAY that evolution does not contradict Scripture. Read the relevant link that has been posted dozens of times on these threads. Once in awhile you need to read and understand what is being presented.

[gore3000]

Cytochrome c is among the least variable proteins, and one must compare organisms separated by hundreds of millions of years to find sequence divergences over 50 percent.

A sequence divergence of 50% is humongous. The sequence of DNA is what encodes the function of a protein. Most proteins do not allow anything close to such change without losing function. In part 3 of the article posted cytochrome c was given as supporting evidence for evolution due to its malleability and its use to tell what species (supposedly) came first. The point of my argument is that the article "proving" evolution is self-contradictory.

[gore3000]

From the article on post#469:

Consequently, 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, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Evolution is just such a theory. In addition let's look at the name of the Encyclical: TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH. I am sure the Pope did not mean to say that the Bible is untrue so since evolution contradicts the Bible guess who he is saying is untrue?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

True, but meaningless. That there is designer X (the experimenter), says nothing whatever about whether or not there is designer N (the intelligent designer that designer X is looking for. "The N-telligent Designer!" I'll be here all week, folks! Try the veal!).

Although such experiments don't say anything one way or another about a cosmic designer agent, they do show that none of the experiments were the result of random chance.  As such, to infer that random chance is the selective agent from such experiments is shaky in the extreme.

[gore3000]

...will nothing be sufficient?

Well, nothing can't prove something, so I guess we need some backup on the prokaryotes to eukaryotes descent. However, thanks for trying to answer the question with facts.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's kind of a meaningless statement. An experiement for any scientific theory requires a "designer" of the experiment, part of the definition of an experiment is that it is set up deliberately. If you can demonstrate that the entire universe is itself an experiment (or even just biological life itself) then you'll have something, otherwise you're just playing with words.

Not really.  All I'm suggesting is that saying that such experiments, because of their very nature, throw a very big doubt on random chance.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I appeciate your honest response. I agree that science education in high school is pathetic generally. I think my cat could do a better job. She trained me to let her out all hours of the day and night, and wait for her to come in.

LOL.  Which brings up an interesting point.  Which is the superior species???

[gore3000]

Vade said "It's a highly conserved gene

It is not a highly conserved gene, in the articles proof#3 itself it says that cytochrome c is used for molecular clock purposes because it changes so much between species. As to the rest, someone was lying by either ommission or commission. Does not really matter who. Vade has not given any reference for his statement. So we would need to see that to make a determination. Let me note one thing though - the total sequence of a protein is significant. If one cuts off or adds to a protein any length from either side functioning is changed.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL. Which brings up an interesting point. Which is the superior species???

I think the saying is, "Dogs have owners, cats have staff."

[VadeRetro]

. . . and the lack of IC for one part of IC structure has no bearing on the IC of the structure itself unless that particular part is IC which would then make the entire structure IC.

My head spins. Obviously, anything anyone ever deconstructs as evolvable will simply be discarded as "not a good IC example."

[Junior]

From the article on post#469:

Post 469 was a reply by Gargantua to Dimensio and had nothing to do with the Pope or his statements on evolution.  However, utilizing the amazing information in The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource, I tracked down Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man and discovered, once again, that you don't ever read anything all the way through:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory. [Emphasis mine]

[...]

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. [Emphasis mine]

Please note, the Pope specifically lays out what is within the realm of science and what is within the realm of religion.

[VadeRetro]

It is not a highly conserved gene, in the articles proof#3 itself it says that cytochrome c is used for molecular clock purposes because it changes so much between species.

Cytochrome c is the slowest-ticking of molecular clocks. That means it doesn't get mutations very often. That means you don't expect a big difference between man and chimp and there isn't one.

Do you acknowledge your protests about the mutation between man and chimp were based on ignoring the difference between a protein itself and the gene that codes it?

Do you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said there had never been amino acids found in a meteorite?

Do you acknowledge that you were wrong when you said DNA eliminates a whale-hippo relationship?

Are you ever going to get back to me on why, if the reptile-jawbone-to-mammal-earbone transition was just an artifact of Cuffey's drawing fakery, there's a parallel transformation occuring in mammalian fetuses? You had the nerve to spin it as "Lies, all lies." Why does this other line of evidence point the same way?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Still waiting for your proof that there is no junk DNA.

[AndrewC]

My head spins. Obviously, anything anyone ever deconstructs as evolvable will simply be discarded as "not a good IC example."

I don't see why. After all, that statement is practically an extension of the Darwinian argument for evolution. In any case if something is "proved" IC (something that Darwinian evolution denies as necessary for itself) then anything using that IC construct acquires the IC character, at least that is how it seems to me.

[VadeRetro]

Also let me note Vade, that you just keep repeating the same statement without addressing my response.

No. In the post you're responding to, I left off quizzing you and simply told you what was going on. There are the proteins (identical) and the genes (one non-effective difference). Interesting that you still acknowledge no failure of reading and/or comprehension but bluster and rage at others.

[Junior]

From your post:

Consequently, 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, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

From the actual Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

You were wrong about the post number, you were wrong about the gist of the Message, and you were misleading in the actual quoting of the material.  You are batting a thousand today.

[AndrewC]

You were wrong about the post number, you were wrong about the gist of the Message, and you were misleading in the actual quoting of the material. You are batting a thousand today.

Apparently he made the same mistake I did in trusting a posting. If you wish to chide someone for misleading posting jump on Gumlegs in post 478. He is the one posting the word spirit. I'll stick with his integrity, you all need to get your stories straight.