Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.

How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?

It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.

In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."

(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)

Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.

But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.

"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.

On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.

"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.

Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."

Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.

Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.

"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."

"But, evolution is scientific. It conforms to the scientific method and has a large body of reproducible experiments and peer-reviewed papers."

No, evolution is not scientific. It departs from the scientific method when it assumes that observations can be extrapolated into unobserved events. Evolution does the very same thing that ID does, it just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design. No difference.

"I direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:

"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."

Yeah, and OJ didn't do it because the jury said he didn't.

"Unless the title is a misnomer, intelligent design in the context of biology indicates a belief that some aspects of life were created by an entity that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identity of this entity is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that an entity is responsible."

And evolution is a belief that some aspects of life were created by processes that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identify of the processes is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that these processes are responsible.

"Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

Sorry, that is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones.

"Also, if you were unable to google the textbook, please click here. Hopefully, you won’t wait a week to click the link."

Sorry that FR isn't the focal point of my life, as it apparently is with you. If you had a point, apparently it is that responses that are not within your self-proscribed timeframe are somehow less valuable. Interesting thought pattern. Irrational, but interesting.

"Evolutionary theory has been falsified. For example, see how gradualism’s supporters counter the arguments of punctuated equilibrium’s supporters and vice versa."

That's correct.

"Evolution as a fact has not been falsified."

All that is going on there is that 'evolution' has been defined to conform to the adaptation that is observed. No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes. I don't think you understand the problem.

"You'd think the science community would have heard about it if it had any validity."

You don't understand that the 'science community' is absolutely committed to the concept of naturalism and the impact of this commitment on the interpretation of observations.

The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes. They have no other choice.

"Or is it just your opinion, your awe at the complexity of things, minus any actual scientific falsification?"

I love it when the naturalists trot out the 'incredulity' argument. It makes such a nice backdrop for their own credulity in believing that the 'awesome complexity of things' just happened for no reason whatsoever.

You don't understand that the 'science community' is absolutely committed to the concept of naturalism

Maybe that's why they call them the natural sciences? Without this concept, we wouldn't have evolutionary theory, we'd have a hundred competing creation myths, each one with as much objective justification as the other, as they all rely on their god for the answer.

The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.

Science is a brutal dog-eat-dog world where new scientific ideas are normally viciously attacked. Don't be surprised when your non-scientific ideas receive at least the same treatment.

The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes.

Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification.

'awesome complexity of things'

"Awesome complexity" is a personal point of view, and therefore has no place in science.

"Maybe that's why they call them the natural sciences? Without this concept, we wouldn't have evolutionary theory, we'd have a hundred competing creation myths, each one with as much objective justification as the other, as they all rely on their god for the answer."

The point is that there is no difference between a creation myth with a god as the active agent and a creation myth with natural processes as the active agent. They are both 'a priori' metaphysical decisions. You already have competing creation myths for naturalism, why do you think that's a problem?

"Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification."

Again, an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism is indistinguishable from personal theological speculation. Both sides are beyond falsification, not just the one you happen to oppose.

I see you have a problem understanding the concept. Would that be your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism getting in the way?

So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."

Was Dr. Richard Sander guilty not of not being scientific when he argued in a paper that without affirmative action, the number of black lawyers would rise? Granted, he is a social scientist. Nevertheless, he "extrapolated observations into unobserved events." So, was he not being scientific?

You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?

Also, Judge Jones wrote "defense experts concede...

No mention of a jury.

No, evolution is change in allele frequencies of a population over time. The mechanism behind the origin of life is not relevant to evolution. That is, whatever the cause, it does not affect the changing of populations’ allele frequencies .

Perhaps you’d be better served redirecting your dislike of evolution as both fact and theory to origin of life theories.

Sorry, that [Professor Minnich's testimony that for intelligent design to be considered science, supernatural forces must be considered in science] is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones.

Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me. Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

There’s no need to apologize to me. I’m probably younger than you as it is. I do indeed have a point, though – there's a search engine called Google, and a few keywords can direct you to an introductory biology textbook of your choosing. Do not rely on me to do all the hard work for you.

Thanks!

"So, is theoretical physics nothing but a sham? It can also involve "extrapol[ating] observations into unobserved events."

It's really very simple. If it's not observable, it's not science.

"You're admitting that intelligent design is not natural. Therefore, it has no role in science. Agreed?"

Not at all. It is just as natural as is evolution and therefore has just as much role in science. Agreed?

I disagree. Is there a problem with defining evolution to fit natural phenomena? That is how definitions typically come about. Something happens, and then a name is assigned to this “something happens.” In the case of evolution, the allele frequencies of populations change. Evolution is the word used to describe this phenomena. There’s no problem here, GourmetDan.

Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening.

"No, evolution is change in allele frequencies of a population over time. The mechanism behind the origin of life is not relevant to evolution. That is, whatever the cause, it does not affect the changing of populations’ allele frequencies."

Exactly the point. A 'change of allele frequencies of a population over time' is equally consistent with a created biology that is in decline and is no unique evidence supporting evolution. It is merely a definition-game where you define a word one way and then use it another.

"Perhaps you’d be better served redirecting your dislike of evolution as both fact and theory to origin of life theories."

Ah, the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Good one. You must be about out of arguments.

"Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me."

And you think that would accomplish what? Are you really this juvenile?

"Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

Isn't mankind on the verge of designing completely new living beings? Are you saying that men are supernatural?

"There’s no need to apologize to me. I’m probably younger than you as it is."

That much is rather obvious from the juvenile 'argument' posted above. Glad you finally caught up.

"I do indeed have a point, though – there's a search engine called Google, and a few keywords can direct you to an introductory biology textbook of your choosing. Do not rely on me to do all the hard work for you."

Already done it. Already know that there is no evidence that uniquely supports evolution over creation. You would do well to take your own advice instead of using the typical naturalist hand-waving generalizations.

Go ahead, find me a piece of evidence (not an interpretation of evidence) that uniquely supports evolution over creation.

We'll see if you have the critical-thinking skills to be able to tell the difference. My bet is that it's teaching-time for you.

If it's not observable, it's not science.

I wouldn't call theoretical physics unscientific, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Not at all. It is just as natural as is evolution and therefore has just as much role in science. Agreed?

Not at all. Kindly remember that you wrote "...it [evolution] just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design." Based on your categorization, you admitted that intelligent design is not natural.

Thanks.

"I disagree. Is there a problem with defining evolution to fit natural phenomena? That is how definitions typically come about. Something happens, and then a name is assigned to this “something happens.” In the case of evolution, the allele frequencies of populations change. Evolution is the word used to describe this phenomena. There’s no problem here, GourmetDan."

It's a problem because the term is defined to match observations which do not uniquely support evolution and is then used as though it is unique support for evolution. It's a circular thought-pattern and most naturalists don't have the critical-thinking skills to understand that.

Changing allele frequencies over time does not uniquely support evolution. It could equally apply to a created genetic code that is in reproductive error-catastrophe and would never produce men from hominids. You would never know that because you take the definition and apply it to a concept that the observations cannot support. The problem is that you are being misled by the old bait-and-switch and you don't have the critical-thinking skills to recognize that.

"Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening."

No, you are projecting ignorance onto me because your credulity is so complete that you cannot begin to understand what I am actually saying.

Antibiotic resistance was already present before antibiotics existed and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. Darwin's finches have been shown to fluctuate back and forth between beak sizes and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. It is only in your imagination that such variation could produce the observed variety of life from some proto-life form.

You apparently have believed the naturalist misrepresentation that life cannot have been created with an ability to adapt and that therefore any adaptation is unique support for evolution. That, however, is a metaphysical belief along with the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.

Your level of understanding on this subject is woefully inadequate, almost child-like. You have a nice evening.

GourmetDan,

It's obvious neither of us can convince the other.

You're a creationist (..."evolution over creation", your words), and I'm not.

Biology has rebuked creationism as a junk science. The Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be taught in the public science classroom (Edwards).

But, this is America, and you're free to believe whatever you want. In closing, please know that I support your right to believe in creationism. Also know that I will not support any attempt on your part to play word games and attempt to get creationism into the public science classroom.

PS:

I'm surprised that you chose to respond to my request with a rhetorical question.

I quote your original post and my response, as follows:

You: Sorry, that [Professor Minnich's testimony that for intelligent design to be considered science, supernatural forces must be considered in science] is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones. Me: Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me. Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

Based on what you wrote, you seem to think that both Judge Jones and Professor Minnich are mistaken. Don't tell me, tell the professor. If your anger made you unable to see that, my apologies.

"I wouldn't call theoretical physics unscientific, but hey, whatever floats your boat."

Well of course you wouldn't. You think that evolution is scientific and that is unobservable too. The fact that you are unable to recognize that theories must be observable, repeatable and falsifiable to be scientific doesn't mean that everyone must be so.

"Not at all. Kindly remember that you wrote "...it [evolution] just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design." Based on your categorization, you admitted that intelligent design is not natural."

As you know, I said that man is coming close to designing new life forms himself. Now how could intelligent design not be natural if intelligent mankind is about to intelligently-design new life forms? Based on your categorization, you just admitted that mankind is supernatural.

That you are young and think that cutsie word games count as rational debate is becoming more evident.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.