The Teaching Of Creationism

[feen5]

Might I nominate you for the US Congress?

Only if i may nominate you for our Parliment (The Dail) but are you sure you can be crooked, corrupt and be willing to accept brown envelopes full of money while spending 6 months of the year on holiday?.

 

[ramonmercado]

Lawyers fire opening shots in Intelligent Design case

Lawyers fire opening shots in Intelligent Design case
14:12 27 September 2005
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8058
NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever, Dover, Pennsylvania
The opening shots were fired on Monday in the first court trial to scrutinise the Intelligent Design movement. ID proposes that life is so complex it cannot have emerged without the guidance of an intelligent designer - it is seen as a religion-friendly alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

“It is going to be the role of the plaintiffs to argue that ID is a form of religious advocacy,” says Eugenie Scott of the US National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising the plaintiffs. “The defence will argue that ID is actually science and is valid. We will argue the opposite.”

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs in the civil case are 11 parents who believe their high school’s board is encouraging children to consider ID as an alternative to evolution because of their evangelical Christian motivations. It is unconstitutional to teach anything in US schools that does not primarily have a secular motive and effect on pupils.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys are deploying a double-barrelled strategy, aiming to show that ID is not science and highlighting its similarities to creationism. Following a Supreme Court ruling in 1987, it is now illegal to teach creationism in schools.

In his opening statement, Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiff, said: “ID is not new science, it’s old theology. There is no controversy in the scientific community.”

Book review
The plaintiffs then called their first expert witness to the stand, biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Rhode Island. He criticised the content of a book Of Pandas and People, which promotes ID and was recommended by the Dover School Board for students.

Miller used several examples to argue that it inaccurately interprets Darwin’s theories, e.g. that apes and humans share a common ancestry, and omits scientific research in order to denigrate the theory of evolution. He also said that ID could not be considered as science because it is incapable of providing testable hypotheses.

He explained the process of peer review - through which scientists critique each other’s work - and the process by which hypotheses are generated and then tested by experiment. These approaches have been employed for evolution, elevating it from hypothesis to theory, but not for ID, he said.

A defence attorney cross-examined Miller, asking him to admit that evolution is “just a theory” and that there are “gaps” in Darwin’s theory. Miller only partially agreed to modified versions of these statements, but defence lawyer Richard Thompsonclaimed at the end of the day that Miller had agreed to these statements. The case continues.

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

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report.

Related Articles
Court case may determine how evolution is taught in US
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
23 September 2005
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
Weblinks
US Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/
ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/
Dover Area School District
http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/site/default.asp
American Academy for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0922call.shtml
Evolution special report, New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution
Michael Behe, LeHigh University
http://www.lehigh.edu/~mjb1/mjb1.html

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

Parents challenge US 'intelligent design' teaching

· Theory is repackaging of creation dogma, court told
· Test case could decide how evolution is taught

Julian Borger in Harrisburg
Tuesday September 27, 2005
The Guardian

Religion and science clashed in a drab Pennsylvania courtroom yesterday over a test case that could decide how evolution is taught in America's state schools.

The civil trial, triggered last year by a classroom battle, marks the beginning of the first major legal assault on evolution science in 18 years. The case also represents the first legal test of "intelligent design", the belief that life on earth is too complex to be explained by random genetic mutation and therefore a guiding force must be involved.

In yesterday's court hearings, supporters argued "intelligent design" does not stipulate what that guiding force might be, and is therefore not a religion.

Its opponents derided it as a mere repackaging of creationism, the religious dogma that God brought life into being in its present form a few thousand years ago.

It is a test of strength which secularist organisations hope will prove decisive in destroying the scientific credibility of intelligent design once and for all. They are therefore determined to pursue it as far as the supreme court if necessary.

Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arguing the case yesterday, told the Guardian before the trial: "It's the first vigorous review of intelligent design. They have so far refused to enter the forum where scientists publish their theories."

The contest was joined yesterday under the weak light bulbs of a federal district court in the Pennsylvania state capital of Harrisburg. In a chamber more accustomed to hearing arguments over taxes and copyright, lawyers debated the meaning of science and the origins of life.

The defendants were the school board from the school of Dover, Pennsylvania, which last year became the first district in the country to require its teachers to question the scientific underpinning of evolution.

"The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," Dover teachers had to tell their students. "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

The plaintiffs were 11 parents who claimed the statement was religious and therefore a violation of the constitutional separation between church and state.

Their legal team, backed by ACLU, launched an assault on intelligent design, describing it as a "clever, tactical repacking of creationism", which the supreme court ruled in 1987 could not be taught alongside evolution.

"It is a wedge strategy to overturn the rules of science," argued Eric Rothschild, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It's creationism with the words God and Bible left out. Intelligent design is not science in its infancy. It's not science at all."

The intelligent design case was argued by three lawyers from the Thomas More Legal Centre, a Christian foundation founded by Thomas Monaghan, a Roman Catholic multimillionaire and founder of the Domino's Pizza chain.

In his opening statement yesterday, Pat Gillan, the lead attorney for the defence, argued the case was "about freedom in education, not about a religious agenda".

Pointing out that the Dover statement asked school children to keep "an open mind", Mr Gillan said: "The primary effect of the policy would be to advance science education.

"It is not religion. Intelligent design is really science in its purest form - a refusal to close avenues of exploration in favour of a dominant theory."

In the US, the case is being portrayed as a replay of the Scopes trial of 1925, in which a Tennessee biology teacher was fined for breaking a state law banning the teaching of evolution. It was known as the "monkey trial" because the teacher, John Scopes, was derided for believing humans were descended from apes.

Secular science has won all the big legal battles since then, but not the struggle for American minds. In an echo of the Scopes trial, some of the Dover parents involved in the case were recently mocked at a local fair by opponents performing a monkey dance around them.

Opposing theories

Creationism
Literal interpretation of biblical Genesis. The earth was created about 6,000 years ago, with all forms of life in their current form

Intelligent design
Accepts the earth is millions of years old and that species can change. But living things show such complexity, a guiding hand must be at work

Evolution
Darwin's theory that modern species evolved from basic forms of life as a result of natural selection: random genetic mutation leading to species variation, with only variants adapted to the environment able to survive

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/ ... 29,00.html

 

[krobone]

Only if i may nominate you for our Parliment (The Dail) but are you sure you can be crooked, corrupt and be willing to accept brown envelopes full of money while spending 6 months of the year on holiday?.

You know, I think I could.

Well, sounds like you've got as bad across the pond as we do. Sigh...

 

[rynner2]

Now here's another thread that I have been 'unsubscribed' to!


Anyhow...

The theory of evolution may have gaps, but ID is all gap, no theory.

I agree with Feen5 - let them 'teach' it (what's to teach?)

 

[Jerry_B]

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.

Well, that depends on whether ID is taught as part of science classes - or is kept in religious education classes. The push by the ID lobby at the moment seems to be angling to get ID taught alongside sciences (i.e. biology). One assumes that some Darwinian theory can be demonstrated in a biology class - I doubt that the same could be said for the ID theory.

AFAIK the US Constitution aims to keep Church and State seperate - the ID lobby seem to be trying to blur the divide (if not supplant it). And even then, it's just pushing the views of one particular religion onto the school population - which AFAIK is a contravention of a US citizen's Constitutional rights...

 

[ramonmercado]

God versus science debate continues in court

God versus science debate continues in court
Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:11 AM ET

By Jon Hurdle

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Members of a Pennsylvania school board were motivated by their religious beliefs when they decided "intelligent design" should be taught to biology students along with Darwin's theory of evolution, witnesses testified in federal court on Tuesday.

Eleven parents are suing the Dover Area School District to stop the teaching of intelligent design, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Proponents of the intelligent design theory say life is so complex it could only have been designed by a higher, intelligent being and not via the Darwinian natural selection theory widely accepted by scientists. Critics argue it is a thinly veiled version of creationism.

Bryan Rehm, a Dover physics teacher until June 2004, told the court about a meeting where former school board member Bill Buckingham championed the introduction of the alternative to evolution.

Buckingham complained the ninth-grade biology textbook being used was "laced with Darwinism," Rehm testified in U.S. District Court.

Rehm recalled Buckingham making a reference to Jesus' crucifixion: "Two thousand years ago, somebody died on a cross. Can't somebody stand up and do something for him?"

Aralene Callahan, a former school board member and one of the plaintiffs, said Buckingham told a board meeting, "You can't expect me to believe that I was ever descended from apes and monkeys."

The trial over teaching man's origins in U.S. schools pits Christian conservatives against teachers and scientists in what is seen as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s. It also echoes the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925, when lawyers squared off in a Tennessee courthouse over the teaching of Darwin's work.

Callahan also said another board member, Alan Bonsell, had argued the biology curriculum should contain equal measures of evolution and creationism.

CREATIONISM RULING

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism -- the belief that Earth and its beings were created by God and not by natural selection -- could not be taught in public schools since it violated the separation of church and state.

More than 30 U.S. states are considering measures to teach alternatives to evolution. The Harrisburg case is the first to challenge such initiatives in court and is widely expected to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome.

President George W. Bush has said schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design.

The Dover school board's policy, implemented in January, requires that students are read a four-paragraph statement saying there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution and that students should consider alternative explanations of the origins of life, including intelligent design. The statement advises them of a textbook available in the school library that delves into intelligent design.

The board argues its policy does not amount to teaching intelligent design, but merely makes students aware of an alternative to evolution.

"This had absolutely nothing to do with balance or fairness," Callahan said during the second day of the trial. "It was merely intended to introduce religion into the biology curriculum and to pretend otherwise is preposterous."

Another of the Dover parents, Tammy Kitzmiller, told the court that she allowed her 14-year-old daughter to drop the biology class because she was concerned over the policy.

The trial is expected to last five weeks.
Court

 

[ramonmercado]

Most doctors favor evolution theory

Poll: Most doctors favor evolution theory

A national survey of 1,472 physicians indicates more than half -- 63 percent -- believe the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design.

The responses were analyzed according to religious affiliation.

When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, 88 percent of Jewish doctors and 60 percent of Roman Catholic physicians said they agree more with evolution, while 54 percent of Protestant doctors agreed more with intelligent design.

When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, 83 percent of Jewish doctors and 51 percent of Catholic doctors said they believe intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation." But 63 percent of Protestant doctors said intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and HCD Research in Flemington, N.J.

The May 13-15 poll had a margin of error plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.physorg.com/news6847.html

 

[ramonmercado]

Professor Testifies in Evolution Debate

Professor Testifies in Evolution Debate
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 28, 8:36 PM ET

The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be taught in public schools.

Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea.

"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for two newspaper reporters said Wednesday the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case.

Both reporters wrote stories that said board members mentioned creationism as they discussed the intelligent design issue. Board members have denied that.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories — and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.

"They're testifying only as to what they wrote," said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record/Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers.

The reporters were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions Tuesday, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two.

The judge's order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify Oct. 6.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050929/ap_ ... RzDY8PLBIF

 

[hokum6]

I've got no problem if parents want to give their kids a religious upbringing but the only place for it in schools is in RE classes, where it should be a fair examination of all the religions, not just Christianity. I fail to see why something with absolutely no facts to back it up should be taught to kids in science classes. You might as well start having UFO classes where they learn about greys and alien abduction.

 

[ramonmercado]

Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design

Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design
13:01 06 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever
"Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading at a US high school reveal how the word “creationism” had been later swapped for “intelligent design”, a landmark US trial scrutinising the teaching of ID heard on Wednesday.

The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, was used as evidence to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in US schools.

“ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists,” says Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising 11 parents who are suing the school board of Dover High School in Pennsylvania for incorporating ID into the science curriculum. “This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for creationism.”

ID proposes that life is so complex that it cannot have emerged without the guidance of an intelligent designer. The school’s board voted in November 2004 to encourage students to consider ID as an alternative to evolution and recommended Of Pandas and People.

The parents claim this is a veiled attempt to bring creationism into the school. They are suing on the grounds that it has been ruled unconstitutional to teach anything in US schools that does not have a primarily secular motive and effect on pupils.

Trojan horse
The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.

“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Evolving drafts
Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.

His comments infuriated John West, of the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that supports ID, but which has declined to testify on behalf of the defence in the trial.

West says that Forrest, author of a book called Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design has used the drafts selectively and “cherry picked” the pages shown.

Attempts to discredit Forrest as a witness, by the defence lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center, in Ann Arbor, Michigan were not upheld by the judge.

Misconstrued creationism
West says that Of Pandas and People, while supporting ID, does not promote religion but rather leaves open the question of whether an intelligent designer lies within nature, or outside it. But he admits that the book states: "This is not a question that science can answer."

He says that while the timing of the changes in the drafts may not be a coincidence, this does not mean Of Pandas and People is a religious book. “If they did drop out the term creationism, [it is] because people may have misconstrued it,” he says.

Forrest will continue to be cross-examined by the defence's attorneys on Thursday. A full report on the trial at its completion will appear on NewScientist.com and New Scientist print edition.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061

Related Articles
Enemy at the gates
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 825201.300
08 October 2005
Editorial: Where holy writ must hold no sway
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 825202.700
08 October 2005
Editorial: Fighting for the right to teach evolution
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 825193.200
01 October 2005
Weblinks
NCSE trial information
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
Trial schedule
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller.htm
Barbara Forrest, Southeastern Louisiana University
http://www.selu.edu/Academics/ArtsScien ... rrest.html
John West, Discovery Institute
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ellow=true
Pepper Hamilton
http://www.pepperlaw.com/default.cfm
Evolution, New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution

 

[ramonmercado]

Educators Eye 'Intelligent Design' Trial

Educators Eye 'Intelligent Design' Trial
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP Education Writer
Sun Oct 9, 4:06 AM ET



As a federal judge hears arguments over whether a Pennsylvania school district can include "intelligent design" in its biology curriculum, Dan Barbour fears the New Mexico high school where he works could face a similar showdown.

The school board in Rio Rancho, N.M., voted in August to allow the discussion of alternative theories to evolution in high school science class. Critics say that could mean intelligent design, and some faculty are averse to teaching a concept whose scientific validity has been questioned, said Barbour, the school's science and math director.

"The thing that makes me nervous is that in the classroom a teacher is to be unbiased, but students are allowed to express their opinions. Can a teacher remain unbiased? Can we keep it from becoming a preaching session?" he said.

Science educators around the nation are closely monitoring the trial, which involves eight Pennsylvania families who have sued to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. They allege that it is essentially a religious concept akin to creationism, and teaching it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

"If the door is open for non-scientific viewpoints to be addressed ... I would imagine it would make some (teachers) rethink their profession," said Cindy Workoski, spokeswoman for the National Science Teachers Association in Arlington, Va.

Intelligent design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

The school board policy in Dover requires students to hear a statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." The board's lawyers contend that the reading of the statement does not constitute teaching.

"Everything I do in my classroom is teaching," Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller said when she recently testified in the ongoing federal lawsuit. She has refused to read it.

Rick Cole, a science teacher at Los Lunas High School in Los Lunas, N.M., taught the concept alongside evolution in biology class for 11 years, but was ordered last year to stop after a parent complained to the principal.

The teachings avoided religious discussions, Cole said. According to student surveys he collected throughout the time he taught intelligent design, 98 percent of the nearly 1,000 students he taught preferred a side-by-side presentation, he said.

"When it comes to the origin of life, it's been very much a closed market, and no opportunity to consider alternative explanations," said Cole, who hopes to add intelligent design back this year. "The majority of science teachers choose to avoid the subject because of the controversy; they would just rather not even teach it."

Intelligent design and other alternative theories became part of a high school social studies class in Columbus, Ind., after 1,300 residents petitioned the school board in 2002 to give creationism equal time with evolution.

Greg Lewis, social studies department chairman at Columbus East High School, developed a Human Origins class as an elective. Aside from a few media calls, he hasn't received inquires, he said.

The class isn't being offered this year due to low enrollment, but it will always remain a part of the curriculum, he said.

"We're still fairly as committed to the course as I can be. As a social studies teacher, I'm very aware of the First Amendment," Lewis said.

'Intelligent Design'

 

[ramonmercado]

Professor to Testify Against Evolution

Professor to Testify Against Evolution
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press Writer
Sun Oct 16, 6:59 PM ET

Marginalized by his university colleagues, ridiculed as a quack by the scientific establishment, Michael Behe continues to challenge the traditional theory of how the world came to be.

For more than a decade, the tenured Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author has been one of the nation's leading proponents of intelligent design, a movement trying to alter how Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school.

This week, Behe will testify in a federal courtroom in Harrisburg in a landmark case about whether students in a Pennsylvania classroom should be required to hear a statement before their evolution classes that says Darwin's theory is not a fact.

"The fact that most biology texts act more as cheerleaders for Darwin's theory rather than trying to develop the critical faculties of their students shows the need, I think, for such statements," Behe said.

In papers, speeches and a 1996 best-selling book called "Darwin's Black Box," Behe argues that Darwinian evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.

His life on the academic fringes can be lonely. Critics say the concept is nothing more than biblical creationism in disguise. He long ago stopped applying for grants and trying to get his work published in mainstream scientific journals. In August, his department posted a Web statement saying the concept is not scientific.

"For us, Dr. Behe's position is simply not science. It is not grounded in science and should not be treated as science," said Neal Simon, the biology department chairman.

Behe said he was a believer in Darwin when he joined Lehigh in 1985, but became a skeptic after reading Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."

Behe's big idea, published in "Darwin's Black Box" and the one that catapulted him to academic fame, is irreducible complexity. It is the notion that certain biochemical systems are incapable of having evolved in Darwinian fashion because they require all of their parts working simultaneously.

Behe uses a mousetrap to illustrate the concept. Take away any of its parts — platform, spring, hammer, catch — and the mousetrap can't catch mice.

"Intelligent design becomes apparent when you see a system that has a number of parts and you see the parts are interacting to perform a function," he said.

The book "put the positive case for design on the map in a way that some of the (previous intelligent design) work had not done," said Steven Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Most of academia panned it.

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, said that he believes Behe thought he discovered something astonishing. "But no one is using irreducible complexity as a research strategy, and with very good reason ... because it's completely fruitless," he said.

Behe finds community in a Web group that he says includes like-minded faculty from other universities. Most keep their views to themselves, Behe said, because "it's dangerous to your career to be identified as an ID proponent."

He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which lets him express his views without the threat of losing his job.

"Because of the immense publicity that's mushroomed around this issue in the past six months, more people are getting emotional about the topic," Behe said. "And it's generally not on my side."

Evolution
___

Lehigh University: http://www.lehigh.edu

Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org

National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org

 

[ramonmercado]

'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies

'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 21 minutes ago



HARRISBURG, Pa. - A biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.

The intelligent design concept does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God.

"I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.

The school board is defending its decision a year ago to require students to hear a statement on intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Behe contributed to "Of Pandas and People," writing a section about blood-clotting. He told a federal judge Monday that in the book, he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting "is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design."

Eight families sued to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum, contending the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation and therefore violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent design as scientifically untested and contend that its supporters focus on attacking evolutionary theory rather than providing evidence for design.

Behe testified that intelligent design specifically questions whether life at the molecular level evolved through natural selection.

"That's the most poorly supported aspect of Darwin's theory," he said.

Behe, who was expected to resume testifying Tuesday, compared the outcry over intelligent design to the early criticism of the big-bang theory some 70 years ago. "Many people thought it had philosophical and even theological implications that they did not like," he said.

Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which means he can express his views without the threat of losing his job.

In a related development Monday, the Discovery Institute — a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars — filed a brief urging U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to rule in favor of the school board.

The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last up to five weeks.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

ID
___

On the Net:

Dover Area School District: http://www.dover.k12.pa.us

National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org

Thomas More Law Center: http://www.thomasmore.org

 

[ramonmercado]

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told

Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told
13:30 19 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.

The parents claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the curriculum and that the school board members were motivated by their evangelical Christian beliefs. It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US schools.

Supporters of ID believe that some things in nature are simply too complex to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must be the work of an intelligent designer.

Peer review
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

Hypothesis or theory?
Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected to finish on 4 November.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Related Articles
Intelligent Design proponents call their first witness
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8172
18 October 2005
Editorial: Where holy writ must hold no sway
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 825202.700
08 October 2005
Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061
06 October 2005
Weblinks
Michael Behe
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html
Pepper Hamilton
http://www.pepperlaw.com/default.cfm
National Academes of Science
http://www.nas.edu/

 

[ramonmercado]

Antievolutionism Addressed by Top Geoscientists and Educator

14 October 2005
GSA Release No. 05-41

Contact: Ann Cairns, [email protected]
Director–Communications and Marketing
(303) 357-1056, fax 303-357-1074 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Antievolutionism Addressed by Top Geoscientists and Educators
Two sessions, encompassing 24 separate presentations, and a panel discussion on the topic of antievolutionism are part of the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Salt Lake City next week. The session titles, times, and locations are listed below. They are followed by a tip sheet in which selected presentations are grouped into areas of potential special interest to journalists.

Speaking Out for Evolution: Rationale and Resources for Supporting the Teaching of Evolution
Sunday, 16 October, 8 a.m.-12:00 p.m. MDT, Salt Palace Convention Center, Ballroom A/C
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _16049.htm
Is It Science? Strategies for Addressing Creationism in the Classroom and the Community
Monday, 17 October, 8 a.m.-12:00 p.m. MDT, Salt Palace Convention Center, Ballroom J
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _16171.htm
Hot Topics Panel: Kansas, Intelligent Design, and the National Attack on Science
Wednesday, 19 October, 12:15 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. MDT, Salt Palace Convention Center, Room 250 A/B
ANTIEVOLUTIONISM: POLITICS AND HISTORY
Evolution in Kansas: It’s the Politics, Stupid!
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _93894.htm
Scopes I, II, and III: Creationism Continues
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _95735.htm
Multiple Levels of Antievolutionism
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _96289.htm
ANTIEVOLUTIONISM: CLASSROOMS AND LIVING ROOMS
The Density of God
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _90513.htm
Teaching about Evolution and its Applications: Antibiotic Resistance
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _90534.htm
Intelligent (Incompetent ?) Design Versus Evolution: New Tactics for Science (?)
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _92960.htm
Promoting Good Science
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _92112.htm
Opening Minds: The Keys are Respect, and Understanding the Scientific Method
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _94577.htm
ANTIEVOLUTION: THEORY BEHIND THE THEORIES
Modern Biblical Scholarship as a Resource for Teachers of Evolution
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _91437.htm
Was it Science? The Genesis of Genesis and the Demarcation of Dichotomy
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _97207.htm
Understanding the Nature of Science: A Critical Part of the Public Acceptance of Evolution
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _89792.htm
Not Just for Biologists Anymore: The Evolution Controversy Impacts Geoscience and Space Science Education
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalp ... _97555.htm

Additional resource:
GSA Release 05-40,
Geoscientists and Educators Take on Antievolutionists, dated 14 October 2005
CONTACT INFORMATION
During the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, 16-19 October, contact Ann Cairns at the onsite Newsroom, Salt Palace Convention Center, for assistance and to arrange for interviews: +1-801-534-4770.

Contact information for individual speakers can be found on their abstracts online.

 

[Anonymous]

Dover Panda Trial

I actually live near Dover, Pennsylvania, and I've been reading about it a lot in my local newspaper. So far as I can make out the main arguement for ID seems to be that life is too complex to have evolved naturally, so it must have been created.

Unless my logic is faulty, anything that is capable of creating life must also be extraordinarily complex. So any supposed creator must also be too complex to have appeared naturally and must have had a creator of its own. Therefore, for ID to work, there must be an infinate series of incresingly complex creators creating eacother. Or am I missing something?

Also, I thought people might be interested in the coverage provided by one of our local columnists, Mike Argento.He's pretty funny sometimes, and a lot of his recent articles have been covering the Dover Panda Trial (or whatever it's being called now). http://www.ydr.com/news/mike/

 

[rjmrjmrjm]

Re: Dover Panda Trial

Therefore, for ID to work, there must be an infinate series of incresingly complex creators creating eacother. Or am I missing something?

That would be the problem that a non-religious IDist would have to reconcile. A Christian IDist would say that God is infinite - he has always existed he is Aristotlian uncaused causer, unmoved mover or - in your terms the uncreated creator.

 

[Anonymous]

I must say that i find the ideas of the ID movement very attractive and some of the arguments about being open minded about evolution very compeling but, and im sure this has been said many times, the ideas of these groups has a very specific agenda. The argument on there behalf wont end with 'what created the universe' but will eventualy be focused on there relgious teachings, like railing against homosexuals, contraception or various meat products like pork or seafood. I feel that it may be possible to look at the universe as being intelligently created but proving that a human like ego created it will prove to be way beyond science.

 

[rynner2]

I must say that i find the ideas of the ID movement very attractive and some of the arguments about being open minded about evolution very compeling...

I don't, because this open-minded argument seems to be about all ID has going for it. They claim to have evidence and scientific proofs, but these are never clearly presented.

On the radio today I heard an ID claim that some creatures are 'impossible' to explain in terms of evolution, but they didn't actually say which creatures, or which features are 'impossible to explain'.

Does anyone have some specific claims from the ID side that we can analyse?

 

[Stormkhan]

What I don't understand is why educational establishments can't present creationism, evolution and ID ... then say that these are theories and are valid concepts.
Why stand on futile and expensive soapboxes and say "This theory is right, any other is wrong!"

Academics - huh! Like a bunch of kids, really.

 

[Mister_Awesome]

Someday they're going to have to share this 'evidence' that they're always talking about with the rest of us.

 

[Anonymous]

I probably didn’t get to the point quickly enough, I think the problem with ID and creationism isn’t that they ask for open mindedness it is that there ultimate agenda is to spread ideas of intolerance like homophobia and various other ideas like attacking single mothers for not entering one of there religious pacts.

 

[ramonmercado]

Australian scientists condemn "intelligent design"

Australian scientists condemn "intelligent design"
Fri Oct 21, 1:13 PM ET



Australia's scientific community called for an alternative evolutionary theory known as "intelligent design" to be barred from classrooms, comparing it to spoon-bending and alien abductions.

More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers signed an open letter urging Australia's conservative government not to allow intelligent design onto school curricula.

The theory, advocated by right-wing Christian groups in the United States, says that complex biological organisms cannot be explained by evolutionary chance alone and must be the work of an intelligent designer.

It is not currently taught to Australian school students but federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson, a Christian, revealed in August he had met a group called Campus Crusade for Christ and would support it being taught alongside Darwin's theory of evolution.

The scientific community's open letter said it would be gravely concerned if intelligent design was taught in schools.

"To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views -- be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions -- and crowd out the teaching of real science," said the letter to national newspapers.

The letter said intelligent design ignored the basic scientific principle that a theory should be testable through observation or experimentation.

"Not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science -- that is a theological or philosophical notion."

ID

 

[ramonmercado]

New Book Explains How Evolution Really Works, Rebuts ID

FLORA AND FAUNA

New Book Explains How Evolution Really Works, Rebuts Intelligent Design


San Francisco CA (SPX) Oct 28, 2005
California–Berkeley address a key problem in evolutionary theory that has puzzled scientists from Darwin on and which is now under intense scrutiny by proponents of intelligent design: where do the big jumps come from in evolution?
Kirschner, HMS professor and chair of the Dept. of Systems Biology, and Gerhart show that newly discovered molecular properties of organisms facilitate evolution.

The origin of novelty, the development of new arrangements of interlocking parts that some call "irreducibly complex," can only be understood in the light of the last 20 years of research in cell biology and development.

We now know that the 'parts' that make up a living organism are very unlike the rigid parts designed for machines. Instead, they can flexibly connect and re-connect, using the same pieces over and over to make new functions.

For example, one might think that a mutation that makes the neck of a giraffe longer would have to be accompanied by several other mutations, one that expands the length of the muscles of the neck, another that makes the blood vessels longer, and so on. But instead, the muscles grow to fit the length of the bone and the blood vessels grow until all the muscles have a sufficient supply of oxygen. Apparently very complex adaptations can therefore be achieved with few, simple mutations.

Today, it is understood for the first time that all animals use the same set of core processes to develop into adult forms. Applying this knowledge to evolution, the authors show that novel traits emerge from the ways the organism is constructed: its complex mechanisms for adapting to the environment, its modular construction, and its internal circuitry that can be re-specified and reconnected.


http://www.terradaily.com/news/life-05zzzzzzzf.html

 

[ramonmercado]

Creationism flip-flop comes up in trial

Creationism flip-flop comes up in trial
After seeing TV news clip, former school board member says he misspoke

Updated: 4:10 p.m. ET Oct. 27, 2005
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former school board member who denied advocating that creationism be taught alongside evolution in high-school biology classes changed his story Thursday, after lawyers in a federal courtroom played a TV news clip that recorded him making such a comment.

William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he "misspoke."

Buckingham's testimony came in the fifth week of testimony in a lawsuit filed by eight families who are challenging the Dover Area School District's policy that students hear a statement about intelligent design in biology classes. Critics say intelligent design is a repackaging of the biblical view of creation and thus violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Buckingham, who led the board's curriculum committee when it approved the policy a year ago, confirmed Thursday that he said during a June 2004 board meeting that the biology textbook is "laced with Darwinism." The clip that was shown later in the day came from an interview that he gave to a news crew from WPMT-TV in York later in the month.

"It's OK to teach Darwin," he said in the interview, "but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism."

‘Deer in the headlights’
Asked to explain by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Buckingham said he felt "ambushed" by the camera crew as he walked across a parking lot to his car and that he had been consciously trying to avoid mentioning creationism.

"I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. I had it on my mind. I was like a deer in the headlights. I misspoke," he told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, who is presiding over the non-jury trial.

Earlier in Thursday's court session, Buckingham claimed that he had been misquoted in stories from two newspapers that reported his advocating the teaching of creationism to counterbalance the material on evolution.

"It's just another instance when we would say intelligent design and they would print creationism," he said.

When Stephen Harvey, the plaintiffs' lawyer, noted the similarity of the newspaper reports to what he told the TV crew, Buckingham replied, "That doesn't mean it's accurate."

Buckingham moved to North Carolina in July and resigned from the board, citing health problems.

Statement at issue
The statement that the Dover teachers are required to read before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution says Darwin's theory is not a fact and has inexplicable gaps. It refers students to a textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Intelligent design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

The trial began Sept. 26 and could last through early November.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9841876/

 

[Anonymous]

ramonmercado, i honestly respect the way that you have presented information in supprort of ID. I believe you have done this in a logical way and approached the subject in a straight forward and logical manor that any self respecting, scientificaly minded person would be proud of. However i would be grateful if you could address the issue of the agenda of religion, refering to the ideas of certain foods that cannot be eaten like pork and seafood, or other contreversial topics like un-married births. I am open to the idea that there may well be an inlelligent mind behind the creation of the universe but i would appriciate an honest reply to my concern that ID isnt part of religious indoctination

 

[ramonmercado]

GHANDI
i'm certainly not a supporter of ID. Most of the info i've posted has been in support of evolution. Any pro ID stuff is merely reportage of took place at the court.

I think religions in general have responsible for the spread of racism, misogyny and homophobia. the dietary laws might have made sense to the existence of desert tribes but are laughable in todays terms.

ramon

 

[ramonmercado]

Groups Balk at Teaching Intelligent Design By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 29, 2:06 AM ET



Two national groups say the state can't use their copyrighted material in proposed science standards that critics contend promote creationism.

The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association called the proposed standards misleading and objected to language — sought by intelligent-design advocates — suggesting some evolutionary theory isn't solid.

"To say that evolution is sort of on the ropes is unfair to the students of Kansas," said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the teachers' association.

The State Board of Education is set to vote Nov. 8 on whether to adopt the new standards, which must be updated periodically under Kansas law. Current standards treat evolution as a well-established theory that is crucial to understanding science.

Six of the board's 10 members have shown support for the proposed standards, saying they want to give students a more balanced view of evolution.

The standards are used to develop student achievement tests but don't mandate how science is taught.

It was not immediately clear whether the 107-page proposed standards use direct language from any of the groups' copyrighted material. If the revised standards are adopted, state officials would have to review them for copyright violations.

Phillip Johnson, a retired law professor who sometimes is called the father of the intelligent-design movement, called the groups' decision, announced Wednesday, "panicky and hysterical."

"We're not out to damage science," he told a student group at Washburn University on Thursday. "We're out to make science more interesting. We think we're friends of science — true science."

Intelligent design says some natural features are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they're well-ordered and complex. Its advocates also attack evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes could have created the building blocks of life, that all life has a common origin and that apes and man have a common ancestor.

Detractors contend intelligent design is repackaged creationism, which the Supreme Court has banned from classrooms as promoting a narrow religious view.

Creationism
___

On the Net:

National academy: http://www.nasonline.org

Teachers' group: http://www.nsta.org

Board of Education: http://www.ksde.org/commiss/board.html

 

[Anonymous]

ramonmercado, i sincerely apologise for missing the point of your postings. Youve added a great deal of valuable information to the debate and i think we are completly on the same page now. Keep it up.