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.
No, actually, the word is "irreducible complexity," and the relevant claim is that IC systems cannot have evolved in any stepwise, naturalistic fashion. Therefore even a mere "possibility" (which you acknowledge) of a stepwise path, even by means of a "just so" story, is a refutation of the claim that this system must be attributed to "Intelligent Design" because it is "irreducibly complex".
Please read post 689 where JediGirl posts the link as "proof" (which I take to mean evidence- believable at least) "of the gradual evolution of the bacterial flagellum." The IC was mentioned in the "just so" story by the author who admits for the motility function it is IC. My comment does not admit to the possibility. It notes his suggestion of a possibility. Now it is "possible" that little elves go into shoemaker's stores and make Nikes™ but I will not accept it without "proof". After all the author writes -- When viewed as a motile stucture, the flagella is IC.
Post 469 was a reply by Gargantua to Dimensio and had nothing to do with the Pope
You seem to have found the article anyway, it was just a bit further down on post#478 - so why are you nitpicking? Why did you not do the others a favor and just link to the proper post? Is this a discussion about evolution or about my typing?
He has evolved into a ( - / .-. / --- / .-.. / .-.. )
He sure does. First of all you need to note the title at the top (also repeated later on in the text): TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH. I mentioned that in the post you responded to but it seemingly got past you. In reading it you need to realize that the 'praise' is conditional. He says for example that:
A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
He further recognizes that there are several theories of evolution: "Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations." This of course is in preparation for the blow at Darwinian evolution. He then gives the hammer blow and says:
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.
In case anyone misunderstood the meaning of the above he starts his conclusion with:
The Bible in fact bears an extraordinary message of life. It gives us a wise vision of life inasmuch as it describes the loftiest forms of existence. ...
It is significant that in St. John's Gospel life refers to the divine light which Christ communicates to us.
So as you can see, the Pope did not come to praise Caesar, he came to bury him. As I said in my previous post: TRUTH CANNOT CONTRADICT TRUTH. Therefore it is atheistic/materialistic evolution that is untrue, not the Bible (as if anyone would question that the Pope was Catholic!).
I certainly do not, and the above statement shows your complete ignorance as to how the cell works. Let me give it to you from an article since you will call me names if I explain it myself:
In addition:
PROTEINS
Proteins are polymeric molecules constructed from twenty building blocks called amino acids which are linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins are consequently often referred to as polypeptides. Polypeptide sequences vary in length from tens to hundreds of amino acids. The charge, size, shape and three-dimensional structure of a protein is specified by its amino acid composition and sequence. The three-dimensional structure determines function and biological activity.
From: Functions of DNA and Proteins
So your statement is completely specious. The DNA codes the amino acid sequence of the protein. In fact, what we call a gene is the DNA sequence that encodes the protein. In fact the way we often find what genes do what is by looking at the proteins, what the sequence for it is, and then looking for the gene that makes it. So the DNA sequence in the gene is the same as the DNA sequence in the protein.
Therefore, my statement was correct: the article contradicted itself and you contradicted the article in an attempt to save your nonsensical proof of evolution.
Proteins contain no DNA. This is worse than your "how many genomes per gene?" of last year.
And try not to cry.
Priceless.
Last year? There was a last year? When? Show some proof!
The genetic code consists of 64 triplets of nucleotides. These triplets are called codons.With three exceptions, each codon encodes for one of the 20 amino acids used in the synthesis of proteins. That produces some redundancy in the code: most of the amino acids being encoded by more than one codon.From The Genetic Code. Farther down on the same page:
Note all the redundancies. Lotta ways to skin a cat there.The Genetic Code (DNA)
*When within gene; at beginning of gene, ATG signals start of translation.
TTT Phe TCT Ser TAT Tyr TGT Cys TTC Phe TCC Ser TAC Tyr TGC Cys TTA Leu TCA Ser TAA STOP TGA STOP TTG Leu TCG Ser TAG STOP TGG Trp CTT Leu CCT Pro CAT His CGT Arg CTC Leu CCC Pro CAC His CGC Arg CTA Leu CCA Pro CAA Gln CGA Arg CTG Leu CCG Pro CAG Gln CGG Arg ATT Ile ACT Thr AAT Asn AGT Ser ATC Ile ACC Thr AAC Asn AGC Ser ATA Ile ACA Thr AAA Lys AGA Arg ATG Met* ACG Thr AAG Lys AGG Arg GTT Val GCT Ala GAT Asp GGT Gly GTC Val GCC Ala GAC Asp GGC Gly GTA Val GCA Ala GAA Glu GGA Gly GTG Val GCG Ala GAG Glu GGG Gly
What an utterly dishonest person you are. I have answered you three times already. The last time I even gave you the numbers of the posts to refer to. If you do not like the answer, I could care less. You are clearly not interested in honest discussion since you do not address what is written to you. Here is my answers to you - like them or not:
g3 still claims he can prove that there is NO junk DNA. - you-
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.
655 posted on 3/31/02 6:27 PM Pacific by gore3000
Since the evolutionist assumption that non-coding DNA was disproven, and since other evolutionist assumptions that "useless" organs were not useless such as the appendix and the tonsils, I think evolutionists have a very big credibility problem when they make such claims. Therefore, it is now up to the evolutionists to prove that non-coding DNA is indeed junk. It is an assumption without any proof to back it. The statement that non-coding DNA is not junk, has been proven. In addition, even with genes, we do not know what all of them do. However, enough have been proven to have a purpose that no one assumes that the rest of them do not have a purpose. Scientific assumptions are only legitimate when they have facts to back them up. The evolutionist assumption that junk DNA is junk is not science, it is total nonsense. As I said about medicine regarding the appendix and the tonsils, I can also say about biologists - lucky they did not listen to the phony theory of the Darwinists otherwise we would have closed up some of the most interesting discoveries yet to be made.
679 posted on 3/31/02 7:44 PM Pacific by gore3000
I already addressed the matter of non-coding DNA in posts 679 and 655 which were addressed to you. If you disagree with my statements there, why don't you address what I say there?
687 posted on 3/31/02 8:19 PM Pacific by gore3000
You want to discuss my answer, go ahead,but if you keep repeating the above lie, I shall repost the above each and every time that you tell that lie again.
You keep repeating that silly statement, obviously you do not know very much biology (probably comes from reading all that junk at TalkOrigins). See my post#769 as to why the above is absolutely wrong.
When you finally catch up on this thread, your cheeks are going to really burn. You'll brazen, of course.
Hey! Maybe you can get the thread pulled!
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.