Specialty Chemistry Forums > Chemical Education and Careers

New evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

(1/4) > >>

Donaldson Tan:
 By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

They also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.

Intelligent design holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of an God-like creator rather than the result of natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Theory of Evolution.

The school board says there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. In their camp is President George W. Bush, who has said schools should teach evolution and intelligent design.

The Dover schools board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise" and says it is a scientific theory.

The board is being represented by The Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based nonprofit which says it uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values."

The center did not return phone calls seeking comment.

The trial begins on Monday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and is expected to last about five weeks.

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."

Opponents including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers say intelligent design is an attempt by the Christian right to teach creationism -- the belief that God created the world -- into public schools under the guise of a theory that does not explicitly mention God. The Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in a 1987 ruling.

"Intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper," said Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Council for Science Education, a pro-evolution group backing the Dover parents.

"It's a political and religious movement that's trying to insinuate itself into the public schools," she said.

But the American public appears to back the school district.

At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution. A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict, said Darwin's theory did not clash with a belief in God so long as scientists did not assert that pure chance accounted for everything from "the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

Donaldson Tan:

--- Quote from: geodome on September 23, 2005, 07:26:01 PM ---Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.
--- End quote ---

This is the fundemental difference between Science & Religion. Religion requires its followers to believe in it. Science seeks evidence to convince its followers.


--- Quote from: geodome on September 23, 2005, 07:26:01 PM ---The Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in a 1987 ruling.
--- End quote ---

Yes. There must be a seperation between Religon & State. Should there be a seperation between Science & State? Science builds on evidence, just as our justice system. Religion works if you believe in it. Science works by giving its followers the choice to believe in the evidence found, based on observations and hypothesis. Whether its followers believe in the evidence, science still works.


--- Quote from: geodome on September 23, 2005, 07:26:01 PM ---"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."

--- End quote ---

legitimate inquiry? yes. scientific? as long the methods used in measuring the validity of intelligent design is scientific.. this, however, is controversial, because the most frequent methods use in evaulating intelligent design is mathematically flawed.


--- Quote from: geodome on September 23, 2005, 07:26:01 PM ---The Dover schools board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise" and says it is a scientific theory.

--- End quote ---

scientific theory? hypothesis would be a better term to describe it.

Karakth:
You know, I used to laugh at this sort of thing, but then I read the chapter on Evolution in our biology book (Biological Sciences 1 & 2). It lists many theories, such as spontaneous generation and intelligent design, as well as natural selection. It then goes on to say that the current evidence points towards natural selection as the most plausible theory.

I think that is the right approach. Acknowledge that there are other hypothesis other than natural selection, but keep it just that: hypothesis. If someone were to come along and scientifically prove that Intelligent Design (or indeed spontaneous generation) is the case then the scientific community should accept it.

As long as the theories are treated as just that; theories, then there are no problems. You then go into the full details of natural selection.

P.S. Intelligent Design does not refer specifically to Christian creationalism. Just to the possibility that a supreme being designed nature.

Edit: Added the name of the book.

Borek:

--- Quote from: Karakth on September 25, 2005, 02:38:33 PM ---I think that is the right approach. Acknowledge that there are other hypothesis other than natural selection, but keep it just that: hypothesis.
--- End quote ---

The problem is, in every other science theory with such amount of evidence as Darwins theory have will be the established theory. In this case it is not, and it is not only for ideological reasons.

Other hypothesis are just a trials to prove God created everything. There are two things that always makes me wonder about the inteligence of people thinking this way.

First, church and its supporters have a history of claims that have to be removed once the scientific research proved they were wrong. It doesn't help followers - they are making exactly the same mistake of holding their positions at every price, only to be later forced to retreat once evidence mounts. 2000 years of history didn't teach them anything.

Second, the main question is not the partial question about the evolution, but the question about origin of everything. If we assume that the life and the man were created by God, it doesn't answer that question - it only pushes the answer way back, to the origin of God - who or what created him? That leads either to the series of gods creating gods, or to the conclusion that we are not allowed to ask that question. Both are unacceptable.

I did some evolution simulations (see bitozoa and bitozoa 2) years ago. I have a friend (with PhD in computer science), who believes very strong in God. We were discussing my simulations, and he said something like "creationism is a way of lazy ones" - if we don't understand how something happened, we have to research it untill we will understand.

Mitch:

--- Quote ---I think that is the right approach. Acknowledge that there are other hypothesis other than natural selection, but keep it just that: hypothesis.
--- End quote ---

A hypothesis needs to be tested. By even acknowledging intelligent design it raises the bar of the theory to that of Darwins. In fact it did such a good job, that you even think it is a seperate almost equal hypothesis which is in itself problematic.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page