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."

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.

Nice to see that no matter how long this story lingers, reporters never tire of treating arguments as equivalent when they do not have equivalent weight.

There is no need for "an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be." Evolution does not purport to explain how the universe came to be. It's like looking for an alternative to chemistry to explain the Pythagorean theorem.

He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

For the record, I would also oppose the Declaration of Independence, the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades being used as an authority in science classes.

==========

This will be based on arguments FOR and AGAINST Darwinism.

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence.

The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?

To make a long story short --- The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is 1 in 10^10123.

Those are his calculated odds for life as we know it existing. Those are not the odds of some life existing. If I roll a theoretical die with 10⁹⁹⁹⁹⁹ sides, the odds are 100% that it will land on one of the sides. Any one possible outcome is equally as likely as any other.

To put it another way, if I shuffle a deck of cards and look at the result, the probability is 1 that they are in that order (after all, they are). The odds go way down to one in 52! only when I bet a priori on that particular sequence of cards occurring after a shuffle (actually, 7 shuffles to get sufficient randomness). But if I bet on any sequence occurring? Probability is 1.

Those are his calculated odds for life as we know it existing. Those are not the odds of some life existing. If I roll a theoretical die with 1099999 sides, the odds are 100% that it will land on one of the sides. Any one possible outcome is equally as likely as any other.

Uh huh, and what are the odds that the die comes out sentient with the ability to reason and argue and to distinguish between right and wrong in 3.5 Million years ?

Sounds like a statement of faith to me.

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton's and Copernicus' evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable. And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.

The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?

This is also a dead giveaway. You are equating belief in INTELLIGENT DESIGN with Holocaust Denial. Two absolutely different things. The former has good basis for belief, the other does not. This sounds very much like Dawkins calling people who teach their children that God made the universe "CHILD ABUSERS".

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton's and Copernicus' evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable.

Neither are tectonic shifts or many other phenomena that take longer than the span of human experience. They are inferable. And they are subject to a better, more grounded, better-backed explanation being presented.

If ID has a better case and a better body of evidence, it's being awfully coy about it.

And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.

Okay. And?

I have never made and will never make the case that science is incompatible with Christianity, or with any religion. Faith and science are two areas of life that compliment each other, but neither should supplant the other.

For every evolutionary biologist -- Richard Dawkins is pretty lonely out on that limb -- who attack religion, there are at least a hundred wannabe theologians attacking science. I won't belabor it.

This is also a dead giveaway. You are equating belief in INTELLIGENT DESIGN with Holocaust Denial.

No. I am making the point that just because two theories exist, it does not make the two theories equivalent in weight and value. Holocaust denial is not equivalent to established, documented history, because it is wrong. Because the facts speak otherwise. There is no obligation to "teach the controversy" just because some fringe group has an alternate theory.

I apologize for pushing an emotional button. The Holocaust exists in living memory; I have met survivors. I have seen the tattoos. None of us have such an intimate connection with a T. Rex. But to teach as if it were science that his razor-sharp incisors and vestigial forearms were designed to crack coconuts -- are you kidding me?

>> Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word “Darwinism” is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

No because Newton’s and Copernicus’ evidence are OBSERVABLE. RM+NS producing life as we know it ARE *NOT* observable. And oh BTW, Newton and Copernicus were Christians.<<

FYI, if you hear a scientist use the term Darwinism he is almost certainly using the term to mean Darwin’s philosophy in the 1800’s to avoid confusing that philosophy with modern evolutionary theory which is not considered to have begun for at least 70 years after Origin of the Species.

Even “survival of the fittest” is more Lamarckian than Darwinian and Lamarck fell out of favor in the West while in the Soviet Union if became Lysenkoism and almost destroyed Soviet agriculture.

That’s a long winded way of say Darwin was a brilliant scientist (and recognized in his time) but didn’t begin, much less complete modern evolutionary theory.

Darwinism is not evolutionary theory.

The problem here would be the number of base pairs that are required to code for even a small protein. Even simple proteins are made up of many Amino Acids placed in the correct order by the DNA. I am actually alreadying breaking down the DNA into small subroutines - the codings for individual proteins. However, even these smaller chunks are incredibly complex and to code for them requires many base pairs to be in the correct order.

Read The Privileged Planet then see if you can repeat that.

I've read the "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution" Wedge Document, which years ago confirmed DI's strategy when it was leaked. The main author of the book mentioned by SirLinksalot confirmed its authenticity.

Any of the books they publish afterwards are towards this end. If they appear scientific-sounding, that means their strategy is working. The Privileged Planet was written by two people from the very same Discovery Institute.

quote:

The burden of proof is on you to show that intelligent design was required for the ear to develop. Your refusal to do so is irresponsible and childish - “I believe it, now you prove it.” Does that make sense? No. If it’s your belief, then don’t ask others to do the hard work for you. Do it yourself.

my reply:

No, if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened. You are the one who claims to have a “theory,” genius.

And “explaining” it doesn’t mean just waving your hands and saying that natural selection can do amazing things. That’s called “begging the question,” a classic logical fallacy. Nor does it mean pointing out simpler ears in other animals, unless you can demonstrate in detail how one evolved into the other, with all the intermediate steps (which must also be functional lest the animal die off due to deafness).

Here’s what real scientists have said about ID:

This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia

Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)

Any idea who those guys were, genius? Do you suppose they had some inkling of the “scientific method”?

Oh, I’m sure you are much wiser than they were.

I realize that I shouldn’t be so sarcastic and hostile, but I am just sick and tired of the crap that passes for scientific wisdom these days.

The theory isn't mine. It would be dishonest in so many different ways to claim centuries worth of work as my property.

...if you are claiming that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution can explain the evolution of the ear by purely natural mechanisms, then the burden of proof is on *you* to explain how it happened

That's worded with much more clarity and far less hostility than the last one. Thanks. I am not smart enough to develop a way to explain it without resorting to "God did it." I admit this.

Your ending statements show the difference between a creationist and a scientist.

The creationist uses ~~old~~ ancient words of wisdom from "real scientists" to show that modern developments are false. By doing so, he reflects his religious background. "The Bible intones, therefore it is. Do not think, just accept."

Science, on the other hand, is different. If words of wisdom from "real scientists" are shown to be false, then they are no longer held as dogma. They are discarded. Newton was indeed a genius, but the motion of our planets around the sun puzzled him and he never reconciled his explanation with the problems. In the end, he said, as you quoted, This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. It took another genius, Johannes Kepler, to show that our orbits are elliptical.

Were Newton and Kelvin luminaries in science? Oh, absolutely. I do not compare whatsoever to them. Does that mean that what they said disproves modern science? Uh, no.

This is where your religious background hurts you.

"God did it" has no place in science. It's not my business if you think he did it, but it is my business if you try to pass that off as science. If you want to teach it in history and literature classes, I'm with you. Just avoid the labs.

Okay for you, all knowing.

For one, I'm not going to put any money in the DI's coffers by buying the book. Secondly, whatever the book states on the motives of the DI doesn't matter since DI has already stated its motives. The book will, at most, be another whitewash attempt. Their stated intent is to have ID as the accepted "theory" not by competing in science, but by redefining science, political pressure and taking over school boards to have the change forced.

IOW, I don't have to be all knowing, I just have to have read the DI's own document that they did not want the public to see. This was supposed to be a stealth campaign (read: deception and lies), but the cover was blown.

Uh huh, and what are the odds that the die comes out sentient with the ability to reason and argue and to distinguish between right and wrong in 3.5 Million years ?

Reason as we see reasoning? Right and wrong? We can't even nail down the definition of that within our species. And you're off by several orders of magnitude on the timeline.

Sounds like a statement of faith to me.

It's a statement of probabilities. A priori probabilities of a specific outcome often look improbably large. Yet, somehow, some outcome always occurs. Shuffle a deck of cards, chances of your specific card order is 1 in 8x10⁶⁷, but guess what, a valid card order happens every time you shuffle -- just not the one you were looking for.

Okay. And?

And it means that Copernicus AND Newton BELIEVED that the world was intelligently designed. I don't think you can profess to be a Christian and NOT believe this.

The next implication is this --- YOU CAN BE A BELIEVER IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN *AND* STILL BE A GOOD SCIENTIST ( unlike some stereotypers out there ).

I have never made and will never make the case that science is incompatible with Christianity, or with any religion. Faith and science are two areas of life that compliment each other, but neither should supplant the other.

GOOD. We are in agreement then.

For every evolutionary biologist -- Richard Dawkins is pretty lonely out on that limb -- who attack religion, there are at least a hundred wannabe theologians attacking science. I won't belabor it.

I have only one point to make then -- PLEASE DO NOT EQUATE SKEPTICISM ABOUT DARWINIAN MECHANISMS (especially Random Mutation plus Natural Selection ) with Holocaust Denial. The strength of evidence are different for those two cases. That is why the vast majority of Americans, after close to 150 years of exposure, still are skeptical of Darwinism.

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.