logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-07 03:18:09 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2004

  virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public schools
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public schools  (Read 2303 times)
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public schools
« on: 2004-12-12 16:09:58 »
Reply with quote

Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public
schools

By Charles C. Haynes

First Amendment Center

Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?

As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the
courts, another emerges to take its place.

The current contender is "intelligent design," a theory that according
to advocates at the Discovery Institute "makes no religious claims, but
says that the best natural evidence for life's origins points to design
rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection."

Having failed twice to persuade the U. S. Supreme Court that
"creationism" is a legitimate scientific theory, anti-evolutionists have
seized on intelligent design as the next great hope for getting an
alternative to Darwinism into the science classroom.

This year alone, challenges to evolution have been mounted in 13 states.
For example, a Wisconsin school board mandated teaching "various
scientific models or theories of origin." And a school district in
Georgia has been taken to court for putting a label on biology textbooks
stating that evolution is "a theory, not a fact."

But last month the Dover, Pa., school board took the boldest step of all
by voting to include the teaching of intelligent design in science
instruction.

Eighty years after Clarence Darrow debated William Jennings Bryan during
the "Monkey trial" of 1925, millions of Americans still don't buy
evolution. According to a Gallup Poll conducted in November, only 35% of
us believe that Darwin's theory is supported by evidence. Another 35%
say evolution isn't supported by evidence and
29% don't know enough to say.

Scientists take note. Despite winning court battles and dominating
textbooks for decades, evolutionists continue to lose the war of public
opinion. The science establishment blames this on "religious
fundamentalists." But that same Gallup Poll reveals that 45% of
Americans believe that "God created man in present form," while
38% believe "man developed with God guiding." Only 13% say "man
developed with no help from God." Resistance to evolutionary theory can
be found across the religious spectrum.

Theist evolutionists (including the current pope) attempt to reconcile
evolution and faith. But the prevailing view in science holds that
accounts of the origin and development of life are explained only by
non-purposive, undirected natural processes. Hence the appeal of
intelligent design to many people of faith. The design argument
challenges natural selection - leaving the door open for traditional
views of a Creator God.

Critics of evolution understand what's at stake. Of course, religious
alternatives to evolution could be discussed in public schools (in
social studies, perhaps). But intelligent design advocates aren't
content to be relegated to the "non-scientific" arena, especially in
view of the exalted place "scientific truth" holds in our society. They
seek to challenge evolution on scientific grounds.

But is it science? I'm not qualified to say, but a great many scientists
say "no." The National Center for Science Education and other
organizations representing scientists are leading the charge in school
districts across the nation, dismissing intelligent design as a
creationist wolf in designer clothing.

School board members in Dover and other places aren't buying that
argument. Because it's legal to teach "a variety of scientific theories
about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren" (as the Supreme Court
put it in Edwards v. Aguillard), they're anxious to find a theory that
might pass constitutional muster.

Enter intelligent design. Do school boards in Dover and elsewhere
actually know whether or not intelligent design is good science?
Probably not. In fact, few high school science teachers (who are being
asked to teach it) are prepared to answer that question.

It may sound reasonable and fair to vote for including "competing
theories" in the curriculum. But without first understanding what is and
isn't good science, such votes only lead to court battles - and bad
education.

If school board resolutions aren't the answer, who decides what, if any,
critiques of evolution get into the curriculum?

The short answer is - or should be - scientists decide. But many in the
science establishment worry that teaching the controversy - even
conflicts among scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory -
would open the door to creationist or other religious views. That's why
so many scientists and science educators oppose any attempt to expose
kids to debate over intelligent design or any other challenge to evolution.

But here's the rub. The strategy of exclusion may win court cases (at
least thus far), but it shuts down the debate. And shutting down debate
isn't good for academic freedom or critical thinking. Moreover, it
doesn't work. Without understanding this controversy (and some of the
historical and philosophical reasons for it), many students will
continue to resist or distrust the claims of science.

Yet wouldn't "teaching the controversy" simply confuse students and
undermine the prevailing theory? Not necessarily. Consider the April
2002 issue of Natural History with brief position statements for three
proponents of intelligent design - and three responses from
evolutionists. Surely there's room in the public school curriculum for
exposing students to this debate and helping them to engage the issues.

If the aim of science education is scientific literacy, then students
must learn the prevailing theories in science. But if we expect them to
believe what they hear, they must also learn something about the
conflicts and controversies surrounding those theories.

For anyone who cares about good science education, winning court battles
isn't enough. Winning the hearts and minds of students is what really
counts.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 1101
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. Web: www. firstamendmentcenter. org.
E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
hell-kite
Initiate
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.01
Rate hell-kite



feed me!
299741427 299741427
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public schools
« Reply #1 on: 2004-12-13 03:27:08 »
Reply with quote

Thanks Walter - this always makes my blood boil.

Maybe it's exactly what some fanatics want to hear (implicitly classifying
evolutionary theory as religion): but how about labelling the bible such,
"(Not even) a theory, (most definitely) not a fact?"

How about labelling everything "not a fact, cf. Kant et al."?

Off,
Björn

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
Joe Dees
Heretic
*****

Posts: 5428
Reputation: 1.95
Rate Joe Dees



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile WWW
Re:virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public
« Reply #2 on: 2004-12-13 05:25:18 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (1.95) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.42
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public
« Reply #3 on: 2004-12-14 09:36:01 »
Reply with quote

Heh, the article from "The New Republic" in the last post (which was not dispatched to the mailing list) takes the historically proven approach of withdrawing God as much as necessary but no more

Anyway... since we are into textbook disclaimer stickers, keep these ones handy:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/textbookdisclaimers.pdf

Report to moderator   Logged
LenKen
Adept
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 94
Reputation: 8.00
Rate LenKen



Mi caca es su caca.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public schools
« Reply #4 on: 2004-12-18 01:50:34 »
Reply with quote

Here are some interesting “Disclaimer Stickers for Science Textbooks”:

    http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers

_____________

Gorogh <gorogh@pallowrun.de> wrote:
Thanks Walter - this always makes my blood boil.

Maybe it's exactly what some fanatics want to hear (implicitly classifying
evolutionary theory as religion): but how about labelling the bible such,
"(Not even) a theory, (most definitely) not a fact?"

How about labelling everything "not a fact, cf. Kant et al."?

Off,
Björn
       
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.

attached: index.html
Report to moderator   Logged

One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream.  
LenKen
Adept
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 94
Reputation: 8.00
Rate LenKen



Mi caca es su caca.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public
« Reply #5 on: 2004-12-18 02:08:19 »
Reply with quote

Crap.  I knew I should have sifted through all my e-mail—to see whether anyone else posted a link ot those disclaimers—before posting a link to that myself.  Grr.
    (I especially like the one about gravity.)
_____________

rhinoceros <rhinoceros@freemail.gr> wrote:

Heh, the article from "The New Republic" in the last post (which was not dispatched to the mailing list) takes the historically proven approach of withdrawing God as much as necessary but no more

Anyway... since we are into textbook disclaimer stickers, keep these ones handy:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/textbookdisclaimers.pdf
       
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

attached: index.html
Report to moderator   Logged

One man’s frozen sperm is another man’s low-carb ice cream.  
DrSebby
Archon
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 456
Reputation: 8.01
Rate DrSebby



...Oh, you smell of lambs!
18680476 18680476    dr_sebby drsebby
View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public schools
« Reply #6 on: 2004-12-18 02:31:15 »
Reply with quote


...i dont know if anyone caught this news bit but according to the FCC, of
all "radio content" complaints filed for the year 2003, 99.8% of them were
submitted by a group called the "parents television council" headed by a
Brent Bosell.  democracy at its best?


DrSebby.
"Courage...and shuffle the cards".


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged

"courage and shuffle the cards..."
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.42
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:virus: Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution in public
« Reply #7 on: 2004-12-18 08:31:18 »
Reply with quote

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

[LenKen]
Crap.  I knew I should have sifted through all my e-mail—to see whether anyone else posted a link ot those disclaimers—before posting a link to that myself.  Grr.
(I especially like the one about gravity.)


[rhinoceros]
I was not sure myself whether it had been posted before, but that didn't hold me back.

You meant this one:

"This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

A very good sticker. Let me try to do as it says and open my mind a bit
As the saying goes, "There is no gravity; the Earth sucks, like a Hoover".


Flat Earthers oppose theory of gravity
http://www.umsl.edu/studentlife/current/stagnant2002/story18.html

Lashing out after years of obscurity, supporters of the Flat Earth Coalition staged a protest outside the Physics Department last Monday, March 25. Waving signs that read "There Is No Gravity-The Earth Sucks," the group was demanding equal time for the teaching of their alternative to the Theory of Gravity in the University's physics classes.

"Every scientist knows there are more flaws in the Theory of Gravity than in the Theory of Evolution, yet the Creativitists get all the attention," asserted spokesperson Mandy Grouchy. "We demand that the Physics Department offer students our "Intelligent Vacuum" Theory, along with the Theory of Gravity. After all, it's only a theory.

Our organization believes that since our holy text does not mention a spherical Earth, it is wrong to assume the Earth is not flat," explained Grouchy. "But we are reasonable, and we developed a scientific-looking response. We know that space is a vacuum, and so the the other side of our flat Earth is a vacuum. This means that it is the suction created by that vacuum on that holds objects onto the Earth, not some anti-spiritual force called 'gravity'. This fact is clearly supported by our holy text. We are further supported our theory by finding flaws in the accepted but mistaken "Theory of Gravity."
<snip>


[rhinoceros]
In fact we Virians have been open minded enough to check other alternatives as well. See for example this thread from a couple yeas ago, when I was nitpicking on an idea of ol' Blunderov's.


A question of momentous gravity
"Earth does not suck, it's the universe that blows!"
http://virus.lucifer.com/virus/5508.html


Unfortunately that discussion was inconclusive, because the experiment  suggested for testing the theory wouldn't work... I think. But I do find a perverse satisfaction in this kind of left-brained jokes -- they are serious jokes

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed