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.
Govt. assistance...food stamps/welfare---special judicial aid---recognition for the academically--mentally deprived!
A monopoly---PATENT via USSC!
No, a lack of perception is. Either that or lack of the habit of perceiving what is not there.
One day you will stand in Judgement before God.
And one day you will stand in Judgement before the Invisible Pink Unicorn, unbeliever, and be sentenced to eternity in the Great Manure Pile.
That is how your preaching sounds to me.
If you're going to resort to ad hominem again, I'd thought I'd point out a better, less assailable, source than a drugged-out musician. On the other hand, if you'd seen the act, he is somewhat taking your position (platypus as a joke on Darwin).
In an attack on evolution, he finally admits that both creation and ID are not scientific.
Being a non-religionist, so do I.
Definition is everything:
You may be right. He apparently was dumb enough to equate the two.
The big difference is that the charlatans make predictions using fuzzy wording so that they can shape almost any event to be construed as fitting their predictions. The predictions are also alone, that is independent of each other, or anything for that matter.
Darwin set up a scientific framework and said that for the framework to be true, these things must be found. He stated specifically, and did so within the framework. That some predictions were wrong shows that Darwin didn't know everything and that as we know, evolutionary theory has far surpassed him with advanced knowledge and new discoveries.
On your personal attack line, I also don't discredit Blaise Pascal's math genius because of the logical nightmare that is his "wager."
Don't worry, it's just a standard yearning for the "good old days." Every generation looks at what surrounds them and remembers when things were "better." For some reason, we always forget how things are actually better than before.
It's like trying to take Kent Hovind's "proove evolution" challenge. First, you'd have to get him to understand how science works, because the points he gives to be proven show a basic lack of understanding in the workings of science.
| set our variables | a = 1, b = 1 |
| so | a = b |
| multiply by a | a2 = ab |
| -b2 | a2-b2 = ab-b2 |
| factor out | (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) |
| cancel out | (a+b) |
| left with | a+b = b |
| put back in values | 1+1 = 1 |
| and we get | 2 = 1 |
I did long ago, no response. No evidence either in this world of your loving and caring god. Only indifferent nature. You think this is bad, sad, but it need not be. We have each other as a society the responsibility to make good, make reason, make purpose, not relying on a mystical father-figure to do it for us.
Self-responsibility is difficult, not the easiest way as religion is, but very satisfying as you know you did good yourself, not out of fear of hell or because of receiving commands to do so.
Don't forget, trade-offs go both ways. Whatever the philosophy, we'll gain or lose something. Just hoping that most people choose the good side of anything (bad examples, Nihilism on my side and fundamentalist killings on yours).
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.