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.
That which we do not understand and we perceive as good, we attribute to a miracle of God.
That which we don't understand and we perceive as bad, well we don't blame God for it, do we? Or we say he was "taking little Johnny home to a better place." Well, why were you left here and not taken to a better place? Pretty mean if you ask me.
Selective perception is necessary to religions.
Knowing the evolutionary relationships between various organism, I would predict that "my protein"--that is, the one I have studied for the last few years--would be most similar between rats and mice, less similar between mice and humans, very much less similar between mice and fish, and quite different between mice and fruit flies. Experimental evidence confirms that this is, indeed, the case. "My protein" has certain areas necessary for its function, and other areas important for its structure. Since structure is more flexible than function, I would predict that most of the differences seen across species are located within structurally important areas, not functionally important areas. Again, experimentation has confirmed that this is the case.
LOL!
Great intro. I can see the reason for it because quantum theory is very weird, like off-it's-rocker insane weird in a common sense way. But it's cool.
Biblican inerrantists are funny. Can you tell us more parts the Bible that you believe as the literal truth where they disagrees with fact?
... damn, I didn't know my rabbits chewed cud ...
How do you know he was bluffing. Some special relationship with him that none of us had?
Unlike Biblical inerrantists, he pointed out a hole in his theory and admitted that opponents could use that to take it down, practically inviting them to go for it. It was also somewhat of an invitation for later generations to try to patch up that hole that he himself couldn't -- and they did as in the like I gave you.
You've been making a mockery of science for demanding absolute proof for a theory. Back to definition:
Proof: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.Where in there do you see a requirement for proof? Evolution fits this because:
What I love is the obvious play on words with "Evidences."
This isn't germane to biological evolution, but it's fun. So would you say John Quincy Adams and Sam Adams were the pinnacle? What about the evolution from lower folk preceeding them, up to them? Or did the family start with great power 500 years before, declining all the way to the lowly post of President of the United States?
Reminds me of that list "Why God could not get tenure."
They would be stupid to do so. Religion is a powerful tool in controlling the masses, and Hitler recognized this. That is why he had no problems with Christians as long as the church was controlled by the state. With such a setup, Hitler could control their souls as well as their bodies.
To allow non state-controlled religions to flourish is very dangerous, however. As I've said before, this was the reason for the suddet peace between the Nazis and the Catholic church after the Concordat -- Catholics were not a problem for him once it was recognized that he held authority over the churches in his country.
Fletch, claim trademark infringement now!
Darwin made predictions not found until the mid 1900s. Yep, that's way after the fact.
Always remember that you are a unique individual, just like everyone else.
People are currently fighting and dying for their sincere belief in their religion, and others are praising them for doing so. This is exactly what Patrick Henry described.
It's just because it doesn't happen to match your belief that you take it as insulting. But it's the same thing -- listen to your religious leaders, read your religious books, but don't stop to think that both may be not all completely correct.
I dated a girl who had just finished her biology studies and was about to go to work for Max Planck. She was so proud of "her protein."
At the turn of the millinneum, a man of the desert will bring down a mighty nation from the sky.
An idiot on the internet will bring down Darwin's theory of evolution.
... Nostradamus (the PH version)
Sad, ain't it? Even when you show them to their faces the means used to deceive them, they still believe.
No, you still don't get it. You never admit error, so you're going to make a point of never "getting it." TTA can be replaced with CTC and you still get leucine. There's a ton of possible substitutions which have no effect on the resulting protein.
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.