"Intelligent design" in our classrooms?

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/

19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html)

[a.k.a.]

Poor kids.
The irony is that

this gesture won’t even begin to appease the Religious Right. They won’t rest until Darwin is anathema and Genesis

becomes part of the curriculum.
Abstinence has already become the centerpiece of sex education. What’s next?

Manifest Destiny in history class? Divine Providence in current affairs?
Why do we even call it Public

“Education”. “Indoctrination” is more like it.

[DrSmellThis]

So what do you say to the

position that this is just giving an equal hearing to an alternative point of view?

[a.k.a.]

So what do you

say to the position that this is just giving an equal hearing to an alternative point of view?



Given the political context, I’d say that’s ingenuine.
Look at how long there’s been an effort to bring

Black Studies into the public school curriculum and all you see is token gestures (usually every February). George

Washington Carver, MLK a few Black Scholars and Celebrities on the bulletin boards... Kids don’t learn about slave

rebellions, Jim Crow, lynchings, SNNC, or COINTELPRO. And these are actual events that really happened. Not idle

speculations based on simplistic thinking.

If you’re going to talk about “intelligent design”, the

proper context would be a philosophy class. What does this sort of notion have to do with biology?
I’m not one

of those people that thinks science is the be all and end all of human knowledge. But you have to respect it’s

rigorous methods and open ended structure. Especially when you’re trying to advance the academic skills of

children.
Evolutionary theory rests on an extensive fossil record. What does the notion of “intelligent

design” rest on? How can facts and speculation be considered equal? (We might as well bring UFO's and ancient

astronauts into the curriculum.)

If you want to give kids alternative perspectives, teach them the

difference between Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibrium. Give them something substantial so that their young

minds can be challenged (instead of befuddled).

[DumLuc]

Another article on the same

subject had this to say:

The school district said in Wednesday's court filing that its "biology curriculum

policy does not advance religion."

Instead, it informs "students about the existing scientific controversy

surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

Christian conservatives, who played an important role in the

re-election of President Bush, have been pressing for decades for creationism to be taught in schools.

Lawyers

for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no

religious beliefs will be taught.

Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not

creationism, the school district said in its response, saying the school district will also continue to teach

evolution.

On January 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an

explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it,

they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.

Personally I'm

okay with this. Give those fertile young minds something else to think about when they're lying awake at night.

[a.k.a.]

Pandas seriously misrepresents the

nature of the fossil record. For example, on pages 99-100 the authors of Pandas have written:



"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their

distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some

scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive

features intact, rather than gradually developing. "

Actually, a close examination of the fossil record

supplies scores of examples that show the gradual appearance of a wide variety of physical adaptations, including,

for example, the vertebrate limb. Pandas wishes to claim that abrupt appearances of critical features (which might

be taken to support design) characterize the fossil record. Unfortunately, this contention does not square with the

facts. The earliest known fish, for example, were quite different from the fish we recognize today. The earliest

fossil forms lacked many of the characteristics possessed by fish today, including jaws, paired limbs and bony

internal skeletons, and yet Pandas wishes to tell students that fish (and all fossil forms) appear in the fossil

record "with their distinctive features intact."

...

Pandas' predictions about future discoveries of

fossils are wrong. To be sure, the text makes very few statements that could be subjected to scientific testing.

However, when it does make a prediction, it fails miserably. Consider this statement from Pages 101-102:





"The absence of unambiguous transitional fossils is illustrated by the fossil record of whales. The

earliest forms of whales occur in rocks of Eocine age, dated some 50 million years ago, but little is known of their

possible ancestors. By and large, Darwinists believe that whales evolved from a land mammal. The problems is that

there are no clear transitional fossils linking land mammals to whales. If whales did have land-dwelling ancestors,

it is reasonable to expect to find some transitional fossils. Why? Because the anatomical differences between the

two are so great that innumerable in-between stages must have paddled and swam the ancient seas."





Yes, evolution predicts that there should have been transitional forms linking swimming mammals with land

mammals. And their absence, Pandas argues, is good evidence that evolution is wrong. Well, guess what? In the past

10 years not one, not two, but three true intermediate forms have been discovered. Up until 1986, the oldest known

fossil whale had been Basilosaurus, dating to about 40 million years before present (a sketch of Basilosaurus is

shown in Pandas). However, fossil-hunters have now found 3 intermediates that link Basilosaurus to land-dwelling

ancestors. They are:

Pakicetus inachus - 52 myr.

Ambulocetus natans 50 myr.

Rodhocetus kasrani

46 myr.

The actual fossil forms were described in a 1994 article in the journal Science (JGM Thewissen, ST

Hussain, M Arif (1994) "Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales." Science 263:

210-212.). A less technical account of these intermediate forms and their importance for understanding cetacean

evolution was written by Stephen Jay Gould in Natural History magazine ("Hooking Leviathan By Its Past," Natural

History (April 1994), p. 12).

Pandas, in teaching students that such intermediate forms would, indeed, could

never be found, compounds its earlier misrepresentations of fossil history with an outright falsehood, a

misperception of reality which has no place in authentic scientific education.

...

Science is an open

enterprise, and scientific inquiry thrives precisely because no scientific theory or idea is ever immune from

criticism, examination, or testing in the crucibles of experiment and observation. When I first opened the pages of

Pandas and read the fine words presented by its authors in the name of free and open inquiry, I expected a text that

might genuinely challenge students to examine the assumptions of what they had learned and evaluate scientific

theory in an objective manner. To say that I was disappointed is to put it mildly. What I found instead was a

document that contrived not to teach, but to mislead.

Pandas mis-states evolutionary theory, skims over the

enormous wealth of the fossil record, and ignores the sophistication of radiometric dating, How sad it would be,

given the need to improve the content and rigor of science instruction in this country, for this book to be offered

as part of the educational solution. There is a great deal that we do not know about the origin of life on this

planet, but that does not mean that science is obliged to pretend that it knows nothing, or to engage in a kind of

scientific relativism, pretending that all speculations about the origin of our species are equally correct. The

most compelling reason to keep this book out of the biology classroom is that it is bad science, pure and

simple.

http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html

[DrSmellThis]

Nice posting, AKA.

The

term "intelligent design" obviously contains theological assumptions. So it is plainly false to say it's not

teaching religion in science class.

My biggest pet peeve about this is the "evolution is just a theory"

thing. There is no excuse for educators to mislead students about the meaning of the term, "theory" in science.



If they really want to show that strict Darwinian evolution is not the last word, there are far better candidates

for plausible alternatives besides this thinly veiled creationism, as you say.

The whole argument is absolutely

silly; and turns entirely on a mindless "literal" interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis combined with

reading a lot of dogma from between the lines. Unless you hold to the silliest, most extremist interpretation of

Genesis, there is absolutely no reason to see any conflict whatsoever between evolution and theism. It's not only

bad science, it's bad philosophy; and indeed, bad theology.

This is about a struggle for power by the

religious right, a bid to rule our minds and our public policy -- the same thing that killed off Plato, Aristotle,

and the entire field of philosophy in the Middle Ages. The Church has always found it necessary to attack

non-religious knowledge, always to the detriment of humankind. Without a doubt, religious fundamentalism, in all

its guises, is one of the few most destructive forces on Earth. To wit:



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/23/ir

aq.main/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.main/index.html)

[DumLuc]

On January 13, teachers will be

required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs

from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and

People" which they can find in the school library.

So if the Pandas are full of carp, let the student find out

for themself. Keeping them in the dark as to the world of idiots out there isn't going to do them any good.

They're not being force fed, they are just being told that there are fast foods AVAILABLE IN THE LIBRARY if they

want to ruin their intellectual health. Is that so awful?

[DrSmellThis]

It would not be awful if they

were fairly representing the debate in biology and science in general. They are falsely presenting intelligent

design as an equal alternative, when it is a fringe, extreme view with little scientific or rational basis. They are

indeed force feeding this distorted picture of human knowledge to them, even if a kid misses that class and finds

out about it indirectly.

The damage is already done by the time they refer kids to the library. It's a bad

academic reference, when presented in isolation as representing the field, in an introduction to that field. It's

presenting idealogical, religious indoctrination under the guise of education. It is a violation of trust, and a

form of mind rape. It is a lie. It is a power play by religious fundamentalists to control kids' minds with

taxpayer money, despite their choice to attend a public, secular school.

Given all this, it is teaching that

religion is a fair alternative to reason, and fertilizing tender minds for the ubiquitous and annihilatory idea that

religion should usurp reason.

If that idea is correct, then Zarqawi cannot be logically refuted. (See

link just above.) Moreover, even if religion is merely an equal alternative to reason, as in the current teaching,

Zarqawi still cannot be refuted. Even under this scenario the world cannot but be a war of idealogies, with no

hope of rational mediation. This is cementing and exacerbating the one most threatening disease of current life

on Earth.

Other than that it's OK. :)

[DumLuc]

I remember when I was in high

school. I can just see me now, sitting there, staring at the blackboard, wishing the class was over already. And

then an administrator walks in and tells me that I can head out to the library after class and do some extra

curicular no credit reading, oh yeah like that's gonna happen.

It is a power play by religious fundamentalists

to control kids' minds with taxpayer money, despite their choice to attend a public, secular school.

That may

be true, but my feeling is that it is doomed to failure. Kids ain't dumb!

[DrSmellThis]

I was a very dumb kid

though, and will probably always be recovering from decades of religious brainwashing, and its concomitant emotional

abuse, despite much personal work on the issue. They succeeded with me.

The smart kids who aren't in the

least influenced or fooled by fallacious things caretakers, role-models, teachers, and other trusted grownups

say will merely learn to mistrust everything taught to them in school. I'm not one of those who believe kids

benefit from that mindset toward the significant adults in their lives. Kids need to trust like they need food and

water.

[DumLuc]

Ouch! That hurts;but I'm not so

sure the problem began with a book in a high school library. It is sad and dangerous when "belief" becomes

"thought" control;however you seem to be doing a good job of recovering and I'm sure you didn't do it by dodging

issues. Let's give these kids their chance to overcome ignorance. They are going to come up against a bunch of it

as they grow older and maybe this will innoculate a few of them to a form of diatribe. At least we can hope.

[DrSmellThis]

My grandpa abruptly slapped my

dad in the face one morning at the breakfast table, and explained, "There, that'll get you ready for what the

(Catholic) brothers will do to you at school if you don't behave!"

Does mentally abusing kids just a

little "inoculate" them from the unmmitigated mental abuse they'll get from the real world?! Shouldn't their

home and classrooms be oases from that, where they grow strong to face the world? Can't kids have any safe places

any more?

The psychological fact is that kids tend to believe grownups; and therefore lying to them about the

world is damaging.

Can't deception by trusted mentors, teachers and role-models leave kids more vulnerable to

futher deception?

Is teaching with integrity making kids "dodge issues"? Is lying to kids helping them "face

issues"?

In other words, wouldn't it be different if science teachers informed kids about the

religion-based socio-political controversy regarding evolution; separate from scientific debates about

natural selection, wherein no such controversy exists? Would that not be a more honest presentation of the real

world issues?

[DumLuc]

These are high school kids were

talking about. Do you think they believe grownups?

Wouldn't it be more deceptive to censore the fact that there

is such a book as Panda?

I don't see the mental abuse, lying or lack of integrity that you do, but then I

don't have your background.

And finally: In other words, wouldn't it be different if science teachers

informed kids about the religion-based socio-political controversy regarding evolution; separate from

scientific debates about natural selection, wherein no such controversy exists? Would that not be a more honest

presentation of the real world issues?

Of course it would, but I'm not so sure that that isn't what they are

in some way attempting to do.

Well, you asked what we thought, I've given you my opinion. This may turn out to

be the cancer spot that spreads through our entire school system, but I think it's being watched to closely for

that to happen.
I think there are worse things are going on with the mental formation of our youth;one of which

puts me in mind another subject which would make an interesting thread. Anyway its been an interesting discussion.

Thank-you for the debate, the floor is yours.

[DrSmellThis]

No one has ever talked about

"censoring" the Panda book. Not teaching something as representing the best of human knowledge on a subject

is not the same as censoring.

Despite the mass obliteration, hate and ignorance being caused by the parent

problem of religious fundamentalism, I agree that there are more pressing concrete problems facing kids than lies

about evolution; and encourage you to start that thread.

Thanks for representing your viewpoint. I'm sure a

lot of others would say similar things. It is valuable to hear. You have done the topic a service by raising the

issues you raised. Thanks for making me think about them.

Thanks also to AKA for taking the time and effort to

review the Panda book.

[a.k.a.]

Thanks also

to AKA for taking the time and effort to review the Panda book.

Oops. I should have put the whole

post in quotation marks. That was Kenneth R. Miller's review. The link is at the bottom of the post. I've never

read "Of Pandas and People".

But I have read "The Book of Life", in which leading scientists give a colorful

and jargon free summation of current trends in evolutionary theory. It's edited (with a preface) by the late great

Stephen J. Gould, whose theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is probably the most serious challenge to Darwin's theory

of Natural Selection.

[tim929]

I for one have had quite enough

of both sides in this creationism Vs. evolution argument in our public schools.There realy isnt much point in

teaching either system in public k-12 education,since many students cant even find Iraq on a map and couldnt begin

to tell you the first letter in the name of the capitol of the state they live in.And these are the graduating

seniors.I have the dubious privilage of working closely with a number of resonably inteligent seniors and recent

high school graduates.Our local schools are considered some of the best in the state of washington.And they are

TOTALY CLUELESS regarding just about everything that matters.Social issues=clueless.Political

issues=clueless.Math=clueless.English language=clueless....and the list goes on and on...Many have been firmly

indoctrinated in the socialist/communist agenda that many teachers in our public schools support.The same doctrines

that I was forced to swallow...the same doctrines that got people locked up in the 1950's for sedition.I realy dont

think helping our public school students to understand "inteligent design" Vs. evolution is all that terribly

important since most couldnt even recite the preamble of the constitution...a document that means more than all the

other books put together.And a document that NONE of them are expected to know by heart.

Sorry...one of the

several voices in my head goes by the name Rush Limbagh...:frustrate I will hop down off my soap box now...even tho

I like feeling taller.

[belgareth]

Really? A conservative in

Washington? Have they tried to deport you yet?:POKE:

Welcome to the forum. We'll probably disagree about a

large number of things but I'll be looking forward to seeing your point of view.

[tim929]

Howdy...conservative is a ways

off what I qualify as.I am more of a radical left wing conservative moderate libertarian.Okay...moderate might be

giving myself too much credit.But yes,there are conservatives in Washington state and no,We are not ususaly alowed

to speak.You might find...that even though I am a republican,we probably don't disagree as much as you might

think.

[belgareth]

Sorry Tim, I was joking. Please

excuse my sense of humor. It's a little hard for me to take politicians, political dogma and political parties

seriously. That's ok though, they take themselves seriously enough to compensate for my irreverence. :)

If you

have read much of what I have written here about politics you'll know that I think the whole system is screwed up

too badly to simply fix it.(do you know the term FUBAR?) Bandaids have been ineffectual in the past and will

continue to be in the future. Instead, it needs a major overhaul which includes completely discarding current

political beliefs and methods of doing business. IMO, nothing short of that is going to fix all the things wrong

with what we call a system.

Frankly, I've been avoiding political discussion lately. There are a number of

reasons for that, most of which I'm not going to get into for fear of starting a battle. I really don't like to

upset people so just won't talk about it until things have calmed down a bit.

In any case, glad to have another

thoughtful person contributing here, regardless of whether we agree or not.

[tim929]

Sorry? Don't be sorry...I am

almost impossible to offend...and you are right...the system is very,very broken.An overhaul has been over due for

quite some time...As for political discussions...I try to avoid them when I can unless its with my brother.getting

him spun up and bent out of shape is alot of fun.It's realy fun when he walks away muttering to himself.But on a

forum like this its sort of hard not to occasionaly pipe up and say something:lol:

[belgareth]

Going back tio the topic,

neither side of the debate is being very reasonable but the fundamentalists are way off base on this one. As

somebody else mentioned, creationism would be a great subject for a philosophy class but it in no way can be called

science so shouldn't be brought into a scientific discusion. I'm all for the freedom to discuss your point of view

endlessly if you want but giving kids BS about the realities of science or any other position is wrong and should

never be permitted. If they want to present their side of it, fine! Do it honestly and in the appropriate forum.

[tim929]

Your absolutly right bel....there

are appropriate forums for debating creationism vs. evolution.Schools need to stick to whats important in regards to

teaching children what the need to know to be productive adults and quit wasting time with philosophy and

religion.Having once been a fundamentalist christian(my choice as a young adult,not indoctrination) I have seen both

sides of this rather insidious battle and I can tell you...it's not good for our kids.It's realy about adults

battling over control of other peoples decisions.Evolution and creationism arent mutualy exclusive.

Another

example is the public library...the place escapes me now...that refused to display a Christmas tree for fear of

offending someone.But in the same library you can surf the internet for porn all you want.The argument realy boils

down to over sensetive people arguing over "My beliefs are better than your beliefs!"When it realy doesnt matter in

a public school...what matters is weather or not a student can read and write and not fall down while trying to chew

gum and walk at the same time.Each side is making a very concerted effort to control what our children believe in

regard to moral and or religious tennents.Those are the sorts of things that should be left to the parents to teach

at home.

[belgareth]

I agreee with you...if only the

parents would teach it! And if only the parents would express outrage and indignation over the waste of our

education money and our children's time already allocated for education.

If only the people who it really

affects would get up and let these jackasses know that this is not acceptable.

[DrSmellThis]

Yep. The debate isn't

typically about a concern for science and teaching kids. It's like those sports dads who brawl at the little league

games over a questionable call. They tell themselves they're beating the crap out of each other for the kids.



An accurate view of cutting edge science leaves an unbelieveable, infinite amount of room for spirituality. I

don't know why parents have to get bent out of shape about teaching science. Do their ministers put them up to

it?

[tim929]

An accurate view of cutting edge

science leaves an unbelieveable, infinite amount of room for spirituality. I don't know why parents have to get

bent out of shape about teaching science. Do their ministers put them up to it?[/QUOTE]
Interestingly,what usualy

motivates the religious zelots is insecurity in thier own faith.That insecurity tells them that any difering

oppinion is a threat to them.God on the other hand states in his criticly acclaimed,best selling book,"The Bible,"

that he needs no man to defend him and that he is no respector of men.He also questions the intentions of those who

"strain to see the speck in thier brothers eye,while ignoring the plank in thier own eye."Something that christians

regularly forget.I know...I was there and did it my self.Faith the feels threatend by the techings of another

doctrine isnt faith.And it's that sense of threat that leaves so many of them so rabbid regarding things like

abortion,sex education,evolution and so forth.On the flip side of the coin,there are those groups who out of

resentment and bitternes aginst the church use these very things as a tool to assalut the church and the faith of

the people there in.Its sad that our children have to suffer for the stupidity of thier parents.

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01

evo.html?oref=login (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html?oref=login)