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.

[gore3000]

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.

That's not my fault. Evolutionists claim that the fossil record proves evolution. They cannot prove the descent of the platypus, then their claim is false - as I have said many times here. The platypus proves quite well that the soft-tissue features which the fossil record does not show are very important. Therefore paleontology and the fossil record are total bunk - also as I have been saying for a long time.

Furthermore - and this is what you constantly avoid addressing - there are numerous other species around, none of them even have half the features of the platypus I asked about. An animal can only descend from one species not from multiple species, even without the fossils, there should be something close to it from which it could have descended there is no such thing. So again, the platypus is a disproof of evolution.

[gore3000]

(BTW, just how random is random chance?),

Which makes me think of another question - in a total materialistic universe is randomness possible? After all, if everything is following necessary natural laws, how could randomness arise? For example, in computers, a totally materialistic artifact, it is very hard to get random numbers.

[gore3000]

You are a bore. The article said the exact same sequence, you said it was different. Exact means exact. Either you lied or the article lied. Regardless of which, the article contradicted itself by saying that both change in a gene proves evolution and no change in a gene proves evolution. Now if you want to continue discussing the meaning of "is" and the meaning of "alone" go talk to Bill Clinton, he loves to talk like that and I understand, he really does not have much to do right now.

[gore3000]

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

It implies it, and here's why: if God created life, how can evolutionists deny that He (say) created the platypus, or euglena, or the bat, or human beings? Because Darwin told Him to go to sleep?

[LoneGreenEyeshade]

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?

I don't know your beliefs on evolution. I believe in the Bible not evolution. And, as I'm writing this it is "light-hearted" because I am weary of the evolution theory debate. But couldn't resist sharing this with you: back several decades ago when I was pretty "lost"---smoking dope and believing in evolution because it was a great deal easier than believing in what I thought was a pretty mean God who was going to take away all my fun---I had a moment of profound clarity----what if the evolutionists have it backwards----maybe we are evolving INTO rocks. As I look around today, that would make sense!!!! :~)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It makes no sense to speak of randomness as a causative factor.

That's my entire point.  But the problem with the entire evolution debate is that it comes down to either random chance or ID as a causitive factor.  When many see ID, they immediately think of creationism.  But ID is neutral on this matter.  The nature of the agent in ID is not even postulated.  I've noticed that many evolutionists deny random chance, yet use it to explain the origins of life.  It seems to me this is like swatting gnats and swallowing camels.  It boils down to this, if it isn't random chance, then ID has to be involved.  If evolution is following rules, who made the rules?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The dictionary definition that you gave is not totally accurate.  There are theorems in mathematics which cannot be proven true, they only can be proven to be not false.  This may sound like semantics, but is actually a big difference.  For example, pi is assumed to be an infinite non-repeating series.  But this cannot be proven to be true, it can only be proven to be not false.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

For example, in computers, a totally materialistic artifact, it is very hard to get random numbers.

Thus far in the computer world, true randomness has been impossible to obtain.  However, I know of more than a few random numbers in the political world...

[gore3000]

I've noticed that many evolutionists deny random chance, yet use it to explain the origins of life.

There are many contradictions in evolutionary theory. Another is the homology argument, that similarity in features implies common descent. When pointed out that certain species could have no common descent even though they have homologous features, they say that's okay too. They also consider selection the cause of evolution when this is quite impossible. Selection only destroys life, it does not create it.

[VadeRetro]

That's not my fault. Evolutionists claim that the fossil record proves evolution. They cannot prove the descent of the platypus, then their claim is false - as I have said many times here.

No, Proof-Goof! The fossil record supports evolution, as do 28 or so other lines of evidence. Holes in the available data are just holes in the available data. They don't prove anything unless some theory insists for some reason that there should never be any holes in the data.

Furthermore - and this is what you constantly avoid addressing - there are numerous other species around, none of them even have half the features of the platypus I asked about.

Nothing in evolution says that all the branches of your tree of descent have to survive as long as yours does. For such to happen would require some enforcing mechanism that obviously does not exist and is not postulated. Therefore, the lack of said phenomenon proves nothing.

[VadeRetro]

You are a bore.

A bore, am I now? Earlier, I was a liar. Your position is unsupportable, but a Holy Warrior never apologizes to the evil, Satanic foe. No one, even you, could still be deluded that there's a shred of merit to your position. Rather than admit the obvious, you bluster, rage, then fall silent, then announce that the opposition is "a bore."

The article said the exact same sequence, you said it was different. Exact means exact.

A one-to-one correspondence in one direction does not have to be one-to-one in the reverse direction, as has been clear to anyone, even you, since I posted 775.

TTA always yields leucine. That's a one-to-one correspondence. TTG also always yields leucine. That's still one-to-one in the direction of DNA-to-protein, but not one-to-one in the reverse direction, protein-to-originating-DNA-triplet. In addition to this redundancy, CTT, CTC, CTA, and CTG also code for leucine. Thus, when you look at a protein, any of six possible DNA triplets might have generated any leucine in there. Correspondingly, looking at a gene, if you find CTC, there are five possible replacement mutations at just that site which will not change the resulting protein in the slightest. That is to say, there are five possible "silent mutations" for that triplet. Thus, humans and chimp can and do have an identical protein coded by a gene with one difference, the very thing you said was a contradiction and proof that everyone but you was lying, lying, lying.

Does anyone believe you can't see the flaw in your argument? That you haven't been able to see this since I posted 775? No, that's when all the name-calling began in earnest! So all this . . .

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. Just as you misrepresented my statements you knew darned well that the relationship between the DNA code and the proteins produced are identical. So yes, you have proven yourself a liar. Congratulations!

Oh, and by the way, the article you gave as proof of macro-evolution is still bunk. It is self-contradictory as I showed in my original post -before you started with the lies and obfuscations.

. . . is completely transparent deliberate dishonesty on your part. This, too, from the little whiner who runs to the admin moderator every third page crying to get a post deleted.

There's no pretending your wild accusations are honest, any more than you don't see demands to clean up your previous messes.

Some people on this forum think you're in your forties. Evidently you told someone that. I doubt it. I'd put you in junior high school at the oldest.

[Gumlegs]

For example, pi is assumed to be an infinite non-repeating series. But this cannot be proven to be true, it can only be proven to be not false.

1. A mathematical proof is not the sort of thing any scientist expects to find in the real world.
2. Your description of pi sounds a lot like any scientific theory accepted today.

There is a difference, though. If, someday, someone is able to demonstrate that somewhere out there, pi does start repeating itself (at the godzillionth decimal place), it's still pi. The definition will change. If, someday, someone has evidence that overturns a scientific theory, either the theory has to be changed to accomodate the new evidence, or the theory is discarded in its entirety. An example: A whole lot of today's science goes right out the window if someone ever builds a real perpetual motion machine.

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

Well I suppose it was unfair of me to expect someone who uses a clay pot full of acid as a computer monitor to fill in the gaps on the Marshfield map. I should say that you've given quite a chuckle to the PhD's here who looked at your posts. Maybe comedy is more your thing?

For the sake of posterity, I'll make an attempt to decipher your cut and paste "explanation". Although you've misrepresented the situation so badly that I'm sure there's nothing to be gained by doing so. In post #379, you said,

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

Then in post #517, you said,

"That junk DNA is not junk is not speculation at all. This has been proven. "

When I asked you to post the data, you replied in post #777,

"... if you keep repeating the above lie, I shall repost the above each and every time that you tell that lie again. "

So it appears that if I quote you, your statements become lies. If everything that you say is a lie, then when you say that what you said is a lie, what you said must be true. But if everything you say is true, then when you say everything you say is a lie, what you said must be a lie. But...

Oh no! I've gone cross-eyed!

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Granted that pi wasn't exactly the best example.  What I meant that thus far the fact that pi is a non-repeating series hasn't proven to be false.  However, nobody has proven it to be true either.  However, there are theorems which can be proven true directly (e.g. using digit placement to prove whether or not a number is divisible by 11).

Also, if a perpetual machine is found, a whole lot of science won't necessarily be thrown out, because we don't know what principle such an engine would be founded upon.  Incremental changes are often the foundation of major breakthroughs.

[Gargantua]

"But who wants to spend eternity with such a deity anyway?"

I guess you'd have to thoughtfully consider the alternative. It's one or the other. No brag, just fact.

[Gumlegs]

Also, if a perpetual machine is found, a whole lot of science won't necessarily be thrown out, because we don't know what principle such an engine would be founded upon. Incremental changes are often the foundation of major breakthroughs.

But a whole lot will because if the science is true, a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

Ping to Physicist! Got examples?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not necessarily.  What if we could use the perpetual motion of electrons, or if we could turn gravity into electricity?  The science wouldn't change, but our technical ability would.  Oh, I grant you that these don't create anything ex-nihilo, but still they could be considered perpetual motion machines.

[VadeRetro]

So it appears that if I quote you, your statements become lies.

Hey, I've had that experience too, except that when I quote gore, my statements become lies! Quote g3k and you too can be a liar and a slimer!

Here's g3k last month, in a post that generated a challenge:

Well there is a very good reason why we do not. Paleontology is not a science, it a self-fullfilling prophecy. If it has 3 earbones then they call it a mammal - even though they do not have the slightest idea whether it had mammary glands or not. Take the platypus again - it lays eggs. If it was not a living being paleontologists would say that it gave live birth - because what the heck it had 3 earbones. We know exceedingly litle about extinct species. In spite of lots of good dinosaur specimens we do not know if they had mammary glands, we do not know if they had scales, feathers, green skin, brown skin, purple skin, we do not know if they were warm blooded or cold blooded and a hundred other characteristics which are very much a part of a species, very much a part of the genome of a species and very much the concern about someone really trying to determine if evolution is true.

I was intrigued enough to reply in part as follows:

Evolution says that mammary glands on a dinosaur would be stunningly unlikely. Please do not skip this next question, it's very revealing of what's going on here. Do you understand what you are arguing against, evolutionary theory, well enough to say why mammary glands on a dinosaur are basically excluded? (Here it is again. Evolution has something to tell us. In ID/creationism, anything goes.)

That bit of idle curiosity on my part swelled and evolved until it had become the "Can C's think like an evo and reason why there were no mammaries on a T. rex?" challenge. Skipping much of the long history of that on a long thread, let's just say the subject eventually began to chafe gore and his memory began to play tricks on him.

[Me, to No-Kin-To-Monkeys] It comes from a statement that gore3000 made to me, that for all we know, dinosaurs had mammary glands.

A total lie Vade and you know it. Read below:

I can't tell you how this sounds this far along on this thread. gore3000 told me a long time ago that, for all you can tell from a fossil, there were mammary glands on dinosaurs."

1788 posted on 3/25/02 4:41 AM Pacific by VadeRetro

It seems whenever I am not around you delight in lying and misrepresenting what I said to others. It seems you are too much of a coward and too dishonest to debate the facts. Even your buddy Junior called you a third stringer for evolution. Personally, I think that was undeserved praise.

Can you see what he's backing off of here? Beats me.

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

Its like playing chess with a 2-year-old. All of a sudden, one of his pawns jumps 5 squares across the board and takes your queen.

I'm understanding why biologists duck the debate with certain Creationists. There's just no common ground for discussion. There's gotta be a better way to do this.

[VadeRetro]

The thing that gets me is that the worst of these guys run around the forum swearing that nobody ever answers them on their cogent and penetrating criticisms. If ever once nobody shows up to prove it false, it's suddenly true.