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.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Uh, no, that's the whole point of science and the search for explanatory theories...

Oh I grant you that.  The problem is that such experiments as I have described are too often assumed to have proven that the results were obtained by random chance, when in fact, nothing of the sort should be construed.

My entire thema on this subject is that while I don't know if evolution is viable or not, not one person who believes in random chance as the causitive factor can prove it experimentally since such experiments are always set up by intelligent design.

For that matter, we might ask ourselves: "Just how random is random chance?"

[VadeRetro]

Well I finally caught up with the thread and it shows you to be a complete liar. Clearly you do not mind lying for evolution, making yourself look like an idiot for evolution, or playing childish games for evolution.

No, I'm not lying. It shows what's going on with you that you'd rather call somebody else a liar than admit an inconvenient fact. The human and chimp cytochrome c proteins are identical. Their respective genes for same have a single, non-functional difference. I don't know where or what the substitution is, but there are 10⁴⁹ ways to code that particular molecule with the vast amount of slop we have in the genetic code.

[VadeRetro]

You have lots of species to pick from - over a million living species and perhaps ten times that which are extinct. Can you not find just one from which the platypus's features might have descended?

You have been given four: two species of Obdurodon, one Steropodon, and one Monotrematum sudamericanum. We can't particularly see the evolution of the soft-tissue features, or even much back of the skull, but such is often the case with the fossil record.

It isn't a disproof of evolution or a proof of anything else that you only have so much data about the past.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It took me a long time to realize it also.  It's such a simple concept, but has far-reaching consequences.  At first, I was in denial, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized that there is no experimental way that we can prove the falsity of ID and the truth of random chance in evolutionary theory.  It just won't fadge since everything is done by ID.  Frustrating for random chance theorists (BTW, just how random is random chance?), but true nonetheless.

[VadeRetro]

With the center of gravity on that guy, he ought to fall over.

[VadeRetro]

In addition to which, when scientists, real scientists write the DNA code for a gene, they do not write it that way. They just use letters for each of the 20 amino acids produced.

Yes, that particular notation would ignore "silent mutations" that do not change the amino acid sequence. But that does not mean such silent mutations do not occur, or that no one notices them. It only means that a particular notation for a certain purpose ignores them. When using a gene as a molecular clock, you have to notice the silent mutations as well as the noisy ones.

[VadeRetro]

As I read it, the only non-redundandly coded amino is methionine.

OK, I missed tryptophan (TRP). There are two out of twenty that can only be coded one way.

[Gumlegs]

the more I looked at it, the more I realized that there is no experimental way that we can prove the falsity of ID and the truth of random chance in evolutionary theory. It just won't fadge since everything is done by ID.

Fadges? We don't need no stinking fadges!

If you truly believe your statement above "there is no experimental way that we can prove the falsity of ID ... ," then you have to admit that ID is not a scientific theory. Every scientific theory must be capable of falsification ... or it isn't a scientific theory. There is no middle ground here. (Random chance is a factor, not the factor, by the way).

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Fadges? We don't need no stinking fadges!

Would fudge work (yum)?

you have to admit that ID is not a scientific theory. Every scientific theory must be capable of falsification ... or it isn't a scientific theory. There is no middle ground here. (Random chance is a factor, not the factor, by the way).

In that case the "random chance" underpinnings of classical evolution are also in trouble, because you can't prove that either.  As far at the flipping the coin example that you used earlier, I can flip a coin and guarantee with a high degree of accuracy what it will be before I even see it.  In fact, any magician worth his salt can do that easily.  Because we cannot understand all the factors involved in a "fair flip" doesn't mean that it is truly random.

But I think of it less a theory than a theorem.  I never said that ID was true.  I just stated that it is not false.  Another two points: How do you know that random chance is a factor (since all experimentation and inductive logic making conclusions are themselves the product if ID) and just how random is random chance?

Every classical and neo-classical theory on evolution that I've seen assumes random chance at its heart, although many deny this.  The core argument is not how life may or may not change, but how life started.  If evolutionists admit that the start of life was due to anything other than to total random chance, they are admitting to an ID element.  If ID is an element to evolution, then random chance only appears random.

[longshadow]

Ah, the fascinating evolution of language in action! Remember, a troll such as gore3000 is not a creature who lives under a bridge.

Okay; then what exactly is that thing under the North end of the Aurora bridge?

If that's NOT a troll eating a fahrvfignewton, I've never seen one!

[Gumlegs]

Would fudge work (yum)?

Of course fudge would work! A lot experiments have a fudge factor!

Me: [Y]ou have to admit that ID is not a scientific theory. Every scientific theory must be capable of falsification ... or it isn't a scientific theory. There is no middle ground here. (Random chance is a factor, not the factor, by the way).

In that case the "random chance" underpinnings of classical evolution are also in trouble, because you can't prove that either.

Remember, we're talking about something being capable of being falsified, not being capable of being proved. And "random chance" takes in a lot of territory, including things we don't normally think of as being there.

As far at the flipping the coin example that you used earlier, I can flip a coin and guarantee with a high degree of accuracy what it will be before I even see it. In fact, any magician worth his salt can do that easily. Because we cannot understand all the factors involved in a "fair flip" doesn't mean that it is truly random.

Magician? A magician can manipulate the result, but that's not what I've been talking about. I don't really understand your paragraph. Are you saying that no given sequence of coin flips can possibly be random?

But I think of it less a theory than a theorem. I never said that ID was true. I just stated that it is not false.

And I didn't say it was false; I said it was not scientific.

Another two points: How do you know that random chance is a factor (since all experimentation and inductive logic making conclusions are themselves the product if ID) and just how random is random chance?

Every classical and neo-classical theory on evolution that I've seen assumes random chance at its heart, although many deny this. The core argument is not how life may or may not change, but how life started. If evolutionists admit that the start of life was due to anything other than to total random chance, they are admitting to an ID element. If ID is an element to evolution, then random chance only appears random.

Again, the theory of evolution does not address "how life started."

[Gumlegs]

If that's NOT a troll eating a fahrvfignewton, I've never seen one!

Which? A troll or a fahrvfignewton? Besides, everyone knows you can't eat a fahrvfignewton ... you have to get close to it to put it in your mouth. That makes it a nearfignewton.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So if I understand what you are saying, then something can be scientific and false and something else can be non-scientific but true.  Silly me, I always thought that science was in search of truth.

In any event, this definition throws out a whole class of mathematical theorems as non-scientific.  Since many of these theorems are used by scientists, does that make the ultimate work non-scientific?

Technically you are right about the theory of evolution not addressing the origins of life, but I know of no evolutionist who does not automatically make the unconscious assumption that it does (see the pre-biotic crowd).

I'm not so certain that chaos theory isn't applicable to random chance.  IOW, if we knew all the factors involved in the coin flip, we could predict with perfect accuracy the outcome.  Just because we don't know all the factors doesn't make the outcome random.  Its just that we don't know.  We can't prove it false - just like ID (note that I don't treat ID as a be-all that stands on it's own like evolutionism and creationism are supposed to do.  Rather I treat it as a small part of a larger picture that explains what random chance cannot).

[Gumlegs]

So if I understand what you are saying, then something can be scientific and false and something else can be non-scientific but true. Silly me, I always thought that science was in search of truth.

You must not understand me, then. "Falsifiable" doesn't mean "false."

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

Basically there is no Junk DNA which is what you are hanging your hat on. All DNA has a purpose.

Your post #379. Still waiting...

[Gargantua]

Selective perception is necessary to atheism. One day you will stand in Judgement before God. I wish you luck with your feeble equivocations and wordy excuses then. I'll pray for your eyes to be opened in the meanwhile.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I think that I do.  Basically you predict the behavior of a theory if one or more of the basic tenets or parameters to that theory are also changed.  I don't know if you are understanding what I'm trying to say.  I'm not necessarily claiming ID to be a theory so much as a theorem.  As a theorem it works much more nicely that random chance.

[BMCDA]

Oy gewalt! Being punished for not being gullible. Now that's hard. But who wants to spend eternity with such a deity anyway?

[jennyp]

Ah, the fascinating evolution of language in action! Remember, a troll such as gore3000 is not a creature who lives under a bridge.

Okay; then what exactly is that thing under the North end of the Aurora bridge?

If that's NOT a troll eating a fahrvfignewton, I've never seen one!

Oh, that's a troll all right. But it's a different kind of troll from the troller what trolls for fish. (Convergent evolution, so to speak.) But now you're using one definition of "troll" when the other one should apply. If this incorrect definition of "Internet troll" sticks and takes over the meme pool, will it be an example of meme transfer, meme duplication, or a memetically modified organism (an MMO, or "frankenphrase") taking over the native stock? Hmmm...

[longshadow]

Oh, that's a troll all right. [snip]

Your point is well taken.

I was merely trying to communicate the "word," though in a different incarnation, as the one in which you are using it apparently offended the delicate sensibilities of someone in charge of such matters...

And thanks for the pic.... it's been a few years since I'd seen the beast.