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.
Although I am still reviewing the article about Lasers and the speed of light for the numerous experimental flaws, it is most appreciated. This is what keeps us science students honest, and by studying these flawed experiments, we can hopefully avoid those errors.
Without getting into too much detail, so far, the obvious flaws were the author's inability to account for the index of refraction and the difference in speeds between light and electrons flowing in a wire.
These are minor speed differences, but enough to cause the results which were reported.
For 7 years, I worked with a LIDAR system (Laser Radar) which measured the brightness of a 30 ns pulse of light as it traveled down range every 7.5 meters. I know first hand all about these minor differences and have made similar errors over the years. However, I was able to identify where I had gone wrong and corrected my experiments to account for these problems.
I know that this is not the subject of the thread, but you posted the information as a reply. For people not experienced enough in the subject, they may be foolish enough to believe that it was a valid experiment.
I beg to differ.
Moreover, there is more to Sansbury's theory than just an (rational as opposed to relativity) explaination for light not obey ing additive laws. He provides a theoretical basis for comprehending what the apparently infinite speed of propagation of gravity actually amounts to, i.e. the computed necessary speed of subelectron particles. Moreover, he provides a basis for understanding how gravity could have changed in the recent past on this planet (as my own studies demonstrate that it has) in describing gravity as an electrostatic dipole effect, rather than some basic force in nature.
Several of the physicists I mention view Sansbury's thesis as a rational explaination for the recent cesium gas experiments; in other words, the cesium gas creates a resonant condition of some sort in which the lapse time of the secondary effect which we observe as the "speed of light" essentially vanishes and, in fact, the measurements which were actually obtained were within the error bounds of the instruments being used for the speed of light through the gas being instantaneous.
Again, I have NO reason whatsoever to take your word for wanting to laugh Sansbury off.
Crude attempt at censorship in operation. If you are uninformed, Jeff Gordan wants you to stay that way.
Ever notice the women from the Mothers' March of Dimes out collecting money for research? Ever notice that they're ALWAYS asking for money for research to prevent mutations, and not for research to cause them? Think there might be a reason for that?
Not at all. Just full disclosure.
There are people who actually like those pop up ads, junk mail, dinner-time marketing calls, Spam, etc.
There must be a large overlap between the set of people who like that type of marketing and the set of people who passionately believe in Creationism, ID and the like. There are both very illogical concepts. Birds of a feather....
Close. Scientific laws are "relationships observed to be invariable between or among phenomena," and are expressed in mathematical formulae and not just general principles to be applied. Look at the laws of thermodynamics -- pure math despite the theoretical misapplications you usually see here. Also, look at gravity where we have the law of gravity expressed in math, and gravitational theory as a body of knowledge trying to explain everything else with gravity.
Who knows though, one of these days we'll maybe have the laws of evolution when they can say "according to this formula, a species under these conditions will evolve as so."
You may believe that, and the proponents may be pushing that, but as I've been following creationism for a while, I've seen it evolve into Intelligent Design as a relatively more scientifically palatable way of saying "God did it."
To accept ID as purely scientific, I'd like to see evidence for it. NOT supposed lack of evidence for evolution not explaining things, but actual evidence showing ID. You advance a scientific theory by showing actual evidence for the theory, not by showing weaknesses of opposing theories. At most, that tactic can destroy the opposing theories, but will do nothing to advance yours (unless you believe ID would only accepted if there were a vacuum of theory on the subject)
At that, according to the definitions of hypothesis, theory and law, I'd say Intelligent Design is still far back at the level of hypothesis, untested and unsupported scientifically on its own.
Get some evidence and develop a real scientific theory, then you can try for equal time in the classroom.
These are the mutations that would normally cause that line not to survive, thereby keeping those genes from being passed on. Other mutations may help the people survive, and those will be passed on.
Evolution has no compassion, only survival on a large scale. We, however, have compassion and wish to save those individuals affected by these mutations.
Actually, ID's founders really weren't interested in "creationsism." Creationists have seized upon ID because it assists their arguments. To fault ID for that is a bit like faulting medical advancement because religious hospitals use newly devised treatments.
ID uses a different method for criticizing current evolutionary theory. It uses mathematical modeling. According to this modeling based on information theory and only possible because of the advent of computers and their ability to crunch huge numbers, the probability of such a complex system is impossible given the amount of time available. Modeling is now used in every field from aerodynamics to quantum physics. If we're told there's a mathematical problem, then I'm an adult, I can handle it.
See my #57 above.
Do you believe that other intelligent life exists in the universe? Given the vast numbers of stars, planets, etc., there is a likelihood that other intelligent life exists out there. We won't go into UFO sightings and all the discussion in that area. But it's a valid discussion.
What's wrong with the notion that a more advanced civilization has "seeded" this planet? That accomodates the ID model and it recognizes that the origin of intelligent life could have an easy explanation elsewhere in the universe that we're simply not seeing yet.
And you believe in evolution, which amounts to an endless stream of probabilistic miracles, and are worried about other peoples' grasps of logic??
Wow! What a great job at deadpan humor. However, be careful. Someone might take you seriously.
Gravity is a phenomenon, not a theory. There is still no completely comprehensive theory of gravitation, hence the continued research into such arcane realms as Quantum Gravity.
...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;
...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."
Clealrly these people are insane ;o)
Check out The Access Research Network. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile.
Understanding evolutionary theory is central to my work as a biochemist. Not to say that intelligent design is not at work here; sometimes people in my field just have to sit back in awe at the sheer complexity of it all.
One of Philip Johnson's comments in his book Darwin on Trial is that scientific experts see weaknesses in evolutionary theory in their own field, but assume that evidence for evolution exists in other fields.
Do your own research and make your own conclusions. But you owe it to yourself to read the best of what the ID movement has to offer, and The Access Research Network is the best place to begin.
We use ID theory in every day life. Say I come across a book on the sidewalk. Should I conclude that the book was written by an intelligent agency (a human being) or that it spontaneously assembled itself by some as yet unknown natural process? Which theory regarding the book's origins is a better "scientific theory"?
Similarly, we see examples of irreducible complexity in the natural world. One well known example is the bacterial flagella.
From Is Intelligent Design Testable? by William Dembski
FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.
This is known as the "scientific method".
Every kid learns it in high school science if he is paying attention to the teacher, and not to the cute chick sitting next to him. I wasn't paying attention to the teacher in High School, so I learned it in college when there were only guys sitting around me.
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.