The Teaching Of Creationism

[ElishevaBarsabe]

Let's just hope the fundies don't try and decide algebra is the devil's work, too.

Well, it must be, mustn't it? I mean, "algebra" is an Arabic word.

 

[Jerry_B]

And I think science has got a pretty good handle on evolution, which (on this Earth) only goes back for a fraction of the age of the universe according to the Big Bang theory. If BB turns out to be wrong (as it may well do) then that does not necessarily invalidate what we now know about evolution.

Yes, I know that - but what I meant was that the question of 'who designed the designer' hits the same conceptual and logical brick wall as 'what happened before the Big Bang'.

 

[rynner2]

...what I meant was that the question of 'who designed the designer' hits the same conceptual and logical brick wall as 'what happened before the Big Bang'.

Debate about BB is all very well in its own place, but it distracts from the arguments about evolution - a smoke-screen the Creationists may be only too happy to use, having so little of real substance to say in their own cause!

 

[rynner2]

A question of creation

A POINT OF VIEW
By Harold Evans

In his weekly opinion column, Harold Evans considers the current fight in the US over evolution, which spreads from classrooms to courtrooms.

President Bush is down on his ranch in Crawford doing what he likes best for relaxation - attacking timber with a chainsaw. As a warm-up, just before he decamped to the Texas White House for the rest of the summer, he sawed into a leafy, living branch of science - Darwinian evolution.

He did it with his usual nonchalance, in an off-the-cuff response to a reporter, by coming out on the side of religious activists who are campaigning for public schools to retreat from Darwin and teach something called "intelligent design" or ID.

In a nutshell, the ID activists maintain that many forms of life are too complex to have been the result of any random - indeed mindless - natural selection. A highly intelligent supernatural force must have designed, say, the human eye or the neurology of the brain.

Yet, as Charles Darwin demonstrated in his book Origin of Species in 1859, we weren't designed by any hidden hand in a single brilliant moment, but have all evolved from lower orders - ape to man - over hundreds of millions of years.

Bush didn't saw through the Darwinian branch entirely. He said that ID should be taught alongside evolution "because part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought".

That may sound harmless enough - free speech and all that - but coming from a president already known for his disdain for scientific research, notably on global warming and stem cells, it has further dismayed the scientific community and many others.

Rebuttal

They see that phrase "different schools of thought" as putting faith and science on equal footing. But to the scientists, ID is no more than a priest in lab workers' clothing. After Bush has finished pronouncing on science expect to see headlines like Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ, said the columnist Paul Krugman in the New York Times.

Of course, a president can't ordain what is taught in the public schools. That is a matter for the states and their elected boards of education, but he could encourage the Justice Department to support challenges to Darwin.

Certainly his words have given impetus to a motley collection of anti-Darwinians who are laying siege to the boards in at least 20 states.

They have already won a first round in the small Republican farm town of Dover in Pennsylvania, where last October the school board ruled that ID should be given equal status with evolution. Eleven parents and the American Civil Liberties Union are now challenging the Dover board in a federal lawsuit - about time someone made a fight of it.

Science teachers and scientists in the state of Kansas made the mistake of boycotting similar school board hearings, saying they didn't want to dignify ID with serious rebuttal. As a consequence, it looks as if Kansas is also on the brink of opening its classrooms to ID.

Equality

More epithets are sure to fly because the president's apparently innocuous few words are seen as another shot in the culture wars in America, where the frontier between religion and politics is jealously contended.

The founding fathers thought they had settled the question of the role of religion in a free and plural society by enacting the First Amendment. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

They were godly men but were determined not to confuse religious authority with earthly power as was the case, they felt, in the England they had left behind.

All men are equal before God, wrote John Adams. So all men should be free to worship God as they pleased, be they the original Puritans or those who followed to create the world's most diverse religious community - Dutch Mennonites, Portuguese Jews, French Huguenots and so on through the alphabet of American denominations produced by waves of immigration.

But with succeeding waves of foreigners crowding the big cities there were immense social changes and with the changes immense anxiety among the settled population. Few peoples have had to adjust as much and as rapidly as generations of Americans.

One can sympathise with how evangelical Protestants reacted to what they saw as assaults on their traditional values from cultural turmoil. They clung to the certainties of the bible as the only expression of man's hope of salvation. Theirs is a touching and simple faith. Lark Myers, a shop owner in Dover, says: "I definitely would prefer that God created men than that I'm the 50th cousin of a silverback ape."

Fool

The sentiments are not very different from the hot July 80 years ago when there was a classic collision between science and religion in the small mountain settlement of Dayton, Tennessee.

Farmers and their families, in overalls and gingham, flocked in from miles around agog to hear the brilliant orator William Jennings Bryan. The three times Democratic presidential candidate defended their bible against the new fangled notion that everyone's great-grandpappy was a monkey.

This was the famous trial which is often regarded as a defeat for Darwin when it was nothing of the kind. John Thomas Scopes - the schoolteacher who had given lessons in evolution - had clearly broken the new law of the state, but the real issue was how Bryan would fare under cross-examination by the great criminal lawyer, Clarence Darrow. Darrow, as we know, succeeded in making a fool of Bryan - and Creationism.

One exchange gives you the tenor of the disaster for the fundamentalists: Did Bryan really believe that the serpent is compelled to crawl on its belly because the Lord punished it for tempting Eden in the Garden of Eden? "I believe that," said Bryan. Had he any idea, mocked Darrow, how the snake got around before it was cursed. Did it perhaps walk on its tail? The huge crowd laughed at Bryan and, in a way, their own credulity.

Darrow won public opinion. The bigotry and ignorance associated with the cause rallied liberal Christians, who believed that there was no necessary conflict between the teachings of Christianity and the findings of science.

But biblical fundamentalism has itself been evolving. By the 60s it had mutated into "scientific creationism". The movement's leader, a civil engineer and writer by name of Henry Morris, declared: "Evolution has served effectively as the pseudo-scientific basis of atheism, agnosticism, socialism, fascism, and numerous other false and dangerous philosophies over the past century."

Sophisticates

Now "scientific creation" comes to us in a subtler guise. The well-funded leading propagators of ID have learned from the monkey trial, from the rhetoric of scientific creationism and the subsequent defeats right up to the last Supreme Court hearing in 1987. They say they don't want to outlaw Darwin, just have a discussion of unanswered questions.

The leaders are sophisticates - a biochemist, a mathematician and an emeritus professor of law. They are determined not to invite ridicule by arguing about Adam and Eve and the serpent. They don't even invoke the Almighty, but an anonymous designer whom they forbear to name.

They do accept some evidence of evolution, but challenge evolutionists to explain how the cell, now recognized as astonishingly complex, could ever possibly have emerged from random mutation. Lark Myers, the shopkeeper in Dover, has picked up the theme: "What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution."

Once this argument is really joined - by the scientific, education and legal establishments in America - I'm sure Darwin will continue to prevail in court and classroom. But science altogether is in trouble with the Bush administration. Indeed, of rather more concern to thinking Americans than where we came from is where we're going to. I'll report on this next week.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4152374.stm

Interesting stuff, there. I hadn't heard the one about the snake before - must remember that for next time a fundie accosts me (and they do, they do... )

 

[techybloke666]

here let me get my head around this

they are saying evolution is wrong ?

and there is an inteligent designer somewhere tidying the lose ends.

apart from knocking evolution and darwin are they offering any new fundamental idea's of their own ?

I had read this was happening in the great US of A but here too ? :shock:

please someone wake me up

 

[rynner2]

apart from knocking evolution and darwin are they offering any new fundamental idea's of their own ?

Short answer, no.

Slightly longer answer, "I don't understand how evolution could have produced the world we see, so I prefer to believe that an 'intelligent designer' created it instead."

And although it is mainly an American thing, there are one or two centres of this kind of thinking in UK too. (See earlier in the thread.)

 

[Pete Younger]

And the man with the long beard said "make it so"

 

[Anonymous]

I thought that was some bald english actor portraying a french space ship captain in an american TV programme.

Well Star trek is about as realistic and logical as creationism I suppose. Especially the bit where they change the basic rules of physics over and over again in order to keep the plot flowing.

I am willing to believe that evolution and other forces of nature has some kind of 'natural intelligence' however the thought that this intelligence may have created everything is somewhat laughable.

I think of it as more of a yes/no tick sheet than a deliberate act of any deities that stand accused of creationism.

 

[rynner2]

On another thread today I wrote

Technology may change fast, but human nature changes much more slowly. So the new technologies will still be used for gossip, politics, news and sex (not necessarily in that order!)

Then it occurred to me why fundies have so much difficulty understanding evolution (or at least the Natural Selection part of it) - it's all because it's associated with SEX, and fundamental religions regard control of sexual activity as one of their cornerstones of belief.

In some corner of their minds they realise sex is necessary for the continuation of the human race (just think of all that 'begetting' in the Old Testament!), but this has been overlaid with beliefs that sex is sinful and must be restricted by religious law, and generally swept under the carpet and not talked about.

But thinking about evolution by natural selection forces you to realise that successful procreation is everything (otherwise species die out), and the mechanism of procreation is SEX! (There, I've said it again!)

So fundies don't understand evolution because they feel that thinking about sex (let alone doing it!) is sinful.

Am I right, or am I right?

 

[Pete Younger]

So fundies don't understand evolution because they feel that thinking about sex (let alone doing it!) is sinful.

And off they go to have a J Arthur.

 

[Cult_of_Mana]

But thinking about evolution by natural selection forces you to realise that successful procreation is everything (otherwise species die out), and the mechanism of procreation is SEX! (There, I've said it again!)

So fundies don't understand evolution because they feel that thinking about sex (let alone doing it!) is sinful.

Am I right, or am I right?

I believe that Richard Dawkins has already said much the same thing. Evolution is driven by a species ability to reproduce.

 

[rynner2]

I believe that Richard Dawkins has already said much the same thing. Evolution is driven by a species ability to reproduce.

Dawkins was just echoing Darwin, who originated the theory of evolution by natural selection.

On The Origin of Species is still a very good read.

Darwin was a very good naturalist and geologist, and he was also the father of several children (so he knew all about 'begetting', in both the human and animal world).

One of his daughters died in childhood, which caused him tremendous grief, and it was this that finally killed any religious beliefs he still harboured. (As a young man, he studied divinity, intending to go into the Church.)

 

[krobone]

So fundies don't understand evolution because they feel that thinking about sex (let alone doing it!) is sinful.

Am I right, or am I right?

You are right, sirrah. Fundies (and religion in general) have managed to turn the continuation of the species into a taboo.

But I think going even deeper (no pun intended), it's ultimately a control issue. By keeping sex a forbidden thing except under the auspices of the church, they've taken the second-most intense human desire and made it a useful tool to keep the masses in line.

 

[bazizmaduno]

If it's 'Intelligent Design', what the f*ck is my appendix for?

And me coccyx - though I wouldn't mind a prehensile tail - could come in useful carrying beer from the bar.... :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

If it's 'Intelligent Design', what the f*ck is my appendix for?

And me coccyx - though I wouldn't mind a prehensile tail - could come in useful carrying beer from the bar.... :lol:

I have always wanted a prehensile tail.

One day they will be able to do transplants and I am saving up for mine already.

 

[Yithian]

If it's 'Intelligent Design', what the f*ck is my appendix for?

And me coccyx - though I wouldn't mind a prehensile tail - could come in useful carrying beer from the bar.... :lol:

I have always wanted a prehensile tail.

One day they will be able to do transplants...

...and human sex lives will change overnight and a whole new lexis will develop to discuss new techniques.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I'm probably being a tad pedantic, un-necessarily so, but the fact that we have apendixes doesn't disprove Intelligent Design completely.

There is nothing to stop a creature, once 'designed', from evolving and changing. A creature 'designed' for Habitat A could easily change into a creature suited for Habitat B if there was some sort of ability designed into that creature that allows such a change - mutation.

Most of the times a cell mutates the resulting phenotype is either neutral (i.e. no change) or detrimental to the organism (extra limbs etc...) Occassionally the mutation is beneficial and gives the organism an edge over competitors. The organism with the edge will be more successful and so produce more offpring, each with the beneficial mutation.

The randomness of the mutation will help to keep population levels low, so to avoid overpopulation and the degeneration of the food web and the 'circle of life' - which could come under threat from one 'super animal' with only beneficial mutations.

This sort of thinking would fit in well with the arguments about 'free will' as it offers the opportunity of a creator who creates then leaves its creation with the ability and requirements for automonous action.

Admittedly this would not be the traditional christian God but it allows other people with deist beliefs to ally evolution with creation.

 

[krobone]

I'm probably being a tad pedantic, un-necessarily so, but the fact that we have apendixes doesn't disprove Intelligent Design completely.

There is nothing to stop a creature, once 'designed', from evolving and changing. A creature 'designed' for Habitat A could easily change into a creature suited for Habitat B if there was some sort of ability designed into that creature that allows such a change - mutation.

But that pretty much agrees with evolution - if these creatures could evolve after they were 'designed', why not before? Why did they need to be designed by anything other than natural selection? :?

 

[OneWingedBird]

I think the IDers are trying to say that the original designs were too complex to have arisen without a creator, even though they can then go on to evolve through natural selection.

 

[rynner2]

I think the IDers are trying to say that the original designs were too complex to have arisen without a creator, even though they can then go on to evolve through natural selection.

Which 'original' designs?

Single celled amoeba type creatures? They are not very complex, and there is already much understanding of how these could have arisen from natural chemical processes.

Given single-celled creatures, the progress to multicelled creatures of ever-increasing complexity is just the usual thing of evolution - slow, small changes being selected over millenia for their usefulness to reproductive success.

IDers tend to start too far along the evolutionary track (ignoring all that went before) and then say "Oh Wow! That's far too complex not to have been designed!"

 

[rynner2]

This is probably relevent here:

...
[Vinton Cerf]'s the mathematician who is often referred to as the "father of the internet". From 1972 to 1986, he was one of the key people in the US Defense Department who made it possible for distant and different computers to exchange packets of information - and that's the foundation of the internet on top of which rides the world wide web today.

Nothing daunted, he is now working on the protocols for planet to planet communication. In short, he knows whereof he speaks. And Cerf has just emitted a cry of pain.


The Bush administration does not take kindly to anyone who has drawn a federal dollar being critical - and being critical moreover in the businessman's' bible, the Wall street Journal.

Talent pool

So it is brave of Cerf to risk future disfavour and inveigh against "the stewards of our national destiny" for cutting money from key areas of research in its 2006 budget. That's a recipe, says Cerf, for "irrelevance and decline."

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, concedes that the budget is "pretty close to flat" but stoutly maintains "we are not going backwards", pointing to an extra $733 million for research and development (R&D) funding.

In fact, this is the first time in a decade that federal funding has failed to keep pace with inflation. And in the entrails of the complex budget - no one should go there alone - you find there is indeed less money in real terms for what's called basic research and less for Cerf's area of particular concern, computer science.

All told, anyway, America now ranks sixth in the world in the percentage of its wealth it spends on R&D. Yet the downward trend isn't solely the result of the parsimony of "the hick in the White House", as one motor mouth put it.

It is largely a reflection of rising educational standards around the world, so it's a comparative decline. In real terms, no single country can even come close to matching the US in the total scientific investment by government, corporations and foundations.

So what is there to worry about? Well, there are some facts Americans find hard to swallow after decades of striding the frontiers of science. Fewer of the Nobel prizes go to American scientists, down to about half from a peak in the 90s. Papers from Americans occupied 61% of published research in 1983, now the total is just under 29%.

'Freedom of inquiry'

It may not get better soon since a higher proportion of young Americans are opting for better paid law and medicine over science and engineering and visa restrictions on bright foreign students further dilute the talent pool. "The rest of the world is catching up," says John E. Jankowski, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation.

Since some of these trends have been developing on the watch of presidents from Reagan onwards, I sought a science policy health check from luminaries in the field.

Professor Neal Lane at Rice University was the science adviser reporting directly to President Clinton, but as a former director of the National Science Foundation he cannot be dismissed as partisan.

Like others I spoke with, he is less concerned with the international league tables and the familiar salami processes of the budget, than the well-documented readiness of the Bush administration to manipulate and suppress scientific findings - manifestly to appease industrial interests and religious constituencies.

This is not just on global warming and stem cells, currently in the news, but on a whole range of issues - lead and mercury poisoning in children, women's health, birth control, safety standards for drinking water, forest management, air pollution and on and on.

"It's disturbing," Professor Lane told me. "This is the first time to the best of my knowledge through successive Republican and Democratic administrations, that the issue of scientific integrity has reared its head."

Of similar mind is Russell Train, an administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford. He says: "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data ...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations."

The White House denies such accusations and says it makes decisions based on the best available science.

But these two speak for what is now a considerable body of alarmed and angry scientists. For more than a year, the nationally well-regarded Union of Concerned Scientists - a non-partisan body - has been receiving hundreds of signatures backing the Union's call for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to policy making. To date no fewer than 7,600 scientists have signed, including 49 Nobel Laureates.

Perhaps another voice should be added to the clamour. "Science relies on freedom of inquiry, and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity - government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance..." Those are the words of President Bush in 1990 - George Herbert Walker, the father - not the son.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4172504.stm

 

[Renigirl]

Ever so ridiculous...

Poll: Public divided on whether humans evolved or are unchanged since beginning of time

By Will Lester
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON – Americans are divided over whether humans and other living things evolved over time or have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, according to a new poll.

People on both sides of that argument think students should hear about various theories, however.

Nearly two-thirds of those in a Pew Research Center poll, 64 percent, say they believe "creationism" should be taught alongside "evolution" – a finding likely to spark more controversy about what is taught in the schools.

That controversy could be related to the difficulty of measuring public sentiment about teaching evolution, creationism or the more recent concept of "intelligent design," a Pew official said.

"We acknowledge there may be some confusion about the meaning of these terms," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. But Lugo said the findings suggest widespread support for teaching students different ideas about how life began.

"What this basically tells us is that in contentious issues, many people take the default position – teach both sides and let people make up their own minds," Lugo said.

"Intelligent design" is a movement among some scholars over the past 15 years that says Charles Darwin's theory of evolution – that natural selection caused gradual biological changes over time – cannot fully explain either how life originated or how extremely complex life forms emerged. An undefined "intelligence" must therefore have been involved, they contend.

In the poll by the Pew Research Center, 42 percent of those surveyed held strict "creationist" views that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." Creationism generally refers to a literal reading of the Bible's story of the creation of man.

Almost half, 48 percent, said they believed humans have evolved over time. Some of those people, 26 percent of all those polled, said they believe evolution occurred through natural selection, and another 18 percent of all those polled, said evolution was guided by a supreme being.

Eugenie Scott, executive director for the National Center of Science Education, questioned whether the poll was a reflection of support for teaching "creationism" in school. The center supports the teaching of evolution in schools.

"What the poll reflects is the power of the idea of fairness in American culture," she said. "We feel strongly we should always hear both sides."

Some want to see evolution taught in a broader context. Warren Nord, a professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina, said it's important for students to learn about evolution in context with culture generally. "Students should understand the controversy," Nord said. The different theories "should be addressed in science classes. All science textbooks and courses should locate them in a larger cultural conversation about how to make sense of nature."

The poll of 2,000 adults was conducted July 7-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050831-1357-teachingevolution.html

Now I can understand debate about how humanity began -- whether as apes or as humans or as fish or as whatever. But to believe that we haven't changed one iota in the time we've been on Earth is so blantantly ridiculous it's making my brain hurt. Of course we have; we've gotten bigger, our body shapes have changed, etc. etc. One has only to look at the sizes of some not-so-old antiques to realize that -- at least in the Western world -- we've gotten taller quite rapidly. I wouldn't fit comfortably in Thomas Jefferson's bed (from what I remember from Monticello), for example, and I'm average-short.

Oh well. I already thought half the nation was off their rocker; now I know.

 

[rynner2]

:headbutt:

 

[krobone]

Oy vey...why is my country so stupid? :blush:

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I was going to say I find that article suprising... but I really don't. You just have to look at America to see how its core values are still very much based on biblical literalism.

Just look a Mr Bush, he thinks he is the mouthpiece of God. If thats true then God must be more stupid than I thought.

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

I was going to say I find that article suprising... but I really don't. You just have to look at America to see how its core values are still very much based on biblical literalism.

Just look a Mr Bush, he thinks he is the mouthpiece of God. If thats true then God must be more stupid than I thought, picking a mouthpiece with the vocabulary of an eight year old.

 

[rynner2]

From the TIMES (no URL, you need to search for 'gravity' on the main site
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ )

Hallelujah! See how the theory of gravity tumbles to the ground
Science notebook by Anjana Ahuja

EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN scientists have come up with an alternative theory of gravity: intelligent falling.

The Rev Gabriel Burdett explains: “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down . . . Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

Proponents of intelligent falling (IF) have alighted on the fact that gravity eludes reconciliation with other forces, such as the nuclear forces and electromagnetism. Physicists have tried in vain for decades to knit together all the known forces in one overarching theory of everything. Gravity simply does not slot in. This must mean, IF supporters crow, that gravity is a theory in crisis.

They are now calling for IF to be taught alongside Newton’s theory in Kansas schools, so that children can “make an informed decision”.

This is, of course, an entertaining spoof of the dispute between evolution and intelligent design (ID). The latter is a theory based on the assumption that the Universe is too complex and beautiful to have developed without divine influence. ID’s supporters regard gaps in the fossil record as the Achilles’ heel of evolution and, by taking their theory straight to outraged Darwinists and rousing them to respond, have fooled the public into viewing ID as a scientific alternative worth debating. In truth, the vast majority of scientists regard ID as biblical creationism-lite.

Although the online humorous news website, the Onion, has ridiculed ID by inventing IF, the dispute is no smirking matter. Last September, the “neo-creos” scored a notable victory: a paper discussing ID was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. At last ID’s proponents could hold up a paper that had passed peer review, the hallmark of scientific approval — a single flag of defiance to wave at the thousands of papers supporting evolution published over many decades.

Scientists were horrified, mostly at Richard Sternberg, then the journal’s editor and a research associate at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington. In the past year there has been a whispering campaign against him, during which he was accused of being a “closet Bible thumper” and a “crypto-priest”, and of taking money to publish the ID paper. The US Office of Special Counsel, a federal agency set up to protect whistle-blowers, was called in to investigate. Last month it ruled that Sternberg, who declares himself agnostic on ID, had been victimised by an e-mail misinformation campaign.

Conspiracy theorists note that the federal investigators are Bush appointees, and that embarrassing the evolution-friendly Smithsonian may be politically convenient. After all, the born-again Dubya recently revealed that he thought ID should be taught alongside evolution in schools. The Sternberg episode is in danger of giving ID a martyr, as well as conveniently shifting attention from the paucity of evidence for ID to the vindictiveness of the opposition.

 

[ramonmercado]

Court case may determine how evolution is taught in US

Court case may determine how evolution is taught in US
13:44 23 September 2005

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042

NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever

A landmark legal trial begins on Monday that could determine how the theory of evolution - one of the basic tenets of modern science - is taught in US schools.

In the town of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 11 parents of children who already attend the nearby Dover High school or who will in future, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the Dover Area School District for voting in new rules that will encourage children to consider alternatives to evolution such as “intelligent design” (ID).

The court’s verdict will only bind schools within the Dover district, but could influence how schools teach evolution across the country, says Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the ACLU of Pennsylvania based in Pittsburgh, who will represent the parents.

“If we lose this case, I suspect it will send a green light to many school districts across the country that it is okay to teach ID,” he says. “If we win, hopefully it will put a break on what we view as a religious concept.”

Intelligent agent
ID is the controversial assertion that an intelligent agent rather than an undirected process such as evolution is responsible for certain features of the universe and living things.

The parents claim the school board violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by creating new teaching requirements at the end of 2004 that cast doubt on evolution, introduce students to ID and encourage them to read anti-evolutionary, pro-ID literature. The First Amendment prohibits teaching that is religiously motivated, or has the effect of advancing religion.

The debate over ID, an idea that opponents call “camouflaged creationism”, has been raging since the publication in 1989 of a book called Of Pandas and People, which introduced the concept. The trial, known as “Kitzmiller-Dover” after one of the parents Tammy Kitzmiller, will be the first to expose ID to the scrutiny of a court.

It will hinge on whether ID is a respectable scientific theory, or a religious belief that masquerades as science to sidestep a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the teaching of creationism in schools.

Latest incarnation
The plaintiffs will argue that it is the latter. “There is so much evidence that this is just the latest incarnation of creationism,” says Walczak. He points to early drafts of Of Pandas and People, written before 1987. “It’s identical except for where it says creationism it now says intelligent design.”

This view is shared by the mainstream science community. Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science based in Washington DC and publisher of the journal Science, says: “ID was an effort to correct the legal problems of creation science.”

It will be up to the defence to prove that ID is in fact a scientific concept that has a primarily secular purpose and a secular effect on students.

One expert witness for the defence will be Michael Behe, a scientist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and an outspoken ID proponent. He declined to comment when contacted by New Scientist because of his involvement in the trial, but he promotes ID as a scientific theory.

Reasonable explanation
In July 2005, he told New Scientist that because some systems cannot function properly without all their components, they could not evolve by the accumulation of chance mutations. The only reasonable explanation is ID, he asserted.

The Dover High School board of directors would not comment and their legal defence team did not contact New Scientist in time for this story.

There will be no jury because the case is about interpreting the constitution, and although the judge’s decision will only be binding in Dover, either side could appeal. An appellate court decision would apply in four states - Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands.

If that decision was also appealed, the trial could move to a Supreme Court, whose verdict would apply to the whole nation, says Walczak.

Trial time line
• Monday 26th September 2005: opening statements

• First week: testimony from plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including scientists Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Robert Pennock of Michigan State University and Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, followed by John Haught a theologian at Georgetown University

• Next two to three weeks: continuation of plaintiffs’ case - more expert witnesses including Brian Alters at Harvard University and Kevin Padian at the University of California, Berkeley.

• Last two to three weeks: defence’s case, including expert witnesses such as scientists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and Warren Nord of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Also, Dick Carpenter of US Evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family and sociologist Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick, UK.

• Early November: closing arguments

• Early December: Judge’s verdict

Related Articles
Creationism rift opens within the Vatican
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7801
05 August 2005
Creationism special: A battle for science's soul
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7647
09 July 2005
US creationists stand up to be counted
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 624994.100
14 May 2005

 

[feen5]

I may be being a little nieve here but i have been wondering why they don't just let them teach it in the schools, i'm am no lover of the christian fundies, but how long would it take to teach ID. Its all based on faith so basically the teacher could spend 99.9% of the time teaching evolution which despite being a theory has plenty of evidence and could then spend the rest of the time 0.1% (about 10 seconds) teaching ID. I mean what more can you teach about ID other than some people believe God created the world, there is no facts or formulas or evidence to back it up so therefore no length of time to teach it. According to the fundies we cannot know the mind of God so therefore we can't know or guess how he created the world so what is there to teach??

 

[krobone]

I mean what more can you teach about ID other than some people believe God created the world, there is no facts or formulas or evidence to back it up so therefore no length of time to teach it. According to the fundies we cannot know the mind of God so therefore we can't know or guess how he created the world so what is there to teach??

Brilliant - my hat is off to you, sir!

Might I nominate you for the US Congress?