AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

AAAS ^ | November 6, 2002 | Ginger Pinholster

[Nebullis]

The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.

"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."

American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.

Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:

"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."

In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."

The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.

In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.

A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."

The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.

While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.

[Nebullis]

Text of AAAS Resolution

[Nebullis]

Bump.

(Ginger Pinholster... what a name!)

[VadeRetro]

... [S]cience-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.

Nice way of putting it!

[CalConservative]

I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents and their scientific credentials are impeccable, as is their work. This complete resistance to ID by the Darwinists stifles, rather than promotes, scientific inquiry.

The design paradigm is both powerful and compelling to the point that leading evolutionists have felt it necessary to assert that the "appearance" of design does not necessarily imply design. Yet it is hard to ignore the incredible design element of many living organisms, even down to the gene level.

I think it is important to note that scientists who are in the ID camp are not the fringe element or religious crackpots that Darwinists make them out to be. As a matter of fact, many of the attacks I have seen on ID I have seen by Darwinists tend to be personal attacks that attempt to disparage the person's credibility rather than their position, in an attempt to marginalize the person and thus their work. Some of these attacks tend to be quite vicious at times to the point where being an ID proponent can be a career limiting move. Just ask William Dembski or Stephen Meyer.

[f.Christian]

Trying to orbit science around darwin...

is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon/sand---DUST

HACK/whack-WARDS!

Darwin isn't relevant to anything in the universe---reality!

[Physicist]

I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents

And I know a number of scientists who are Christians, but that doesn't make Christianity a science, either.

All I've seen from ID'ers is the broad claim that "designyness" can be quantified. I've never seen them quantify it or test it.

[Cicero]

For those freepers who don't want to bother visiting the link, AAAS stands for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio

As I see it, evolution is an ideological(RELIGION)* doctrine(DOGMA)*.

If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Great quote. Thanks for posting it.


294 posted on 10/18/02 11:59 AM Pacific by AnnaZ


*...my additions!

[Cicero]

Evolution really can't be "quantified" either. It's basically a circular argument. "Survival of the fittest" is simply a tautology, which defines "fittest" as that which survives. Nor, after a century of trying, has anyone ever demonstrated that evolution ever occurs, other than intraspecies evolution, which no one questions.

ID and general evolution are both hypotheses, but if you actually look at the literature, the former is much likelier than the latter.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age

[f.Christian]

the "dictatorship of the proletariat"

[RaceBannon]

We cant have any children thinking for themselves!!

[f.Christian]

Running joke is 'evo-science'...
biggest cult of oxy-moonie-morons---art bells!

Latest evo gem---ARTISTRY!


Like FR 'patrickhenry'...

"search for the creator via evolution"---

"total--only evolution" too---"No Competition"!


The papal encyclical rightwingprofessor-whack thinks/interprets---"professes evolution"...

could abortion be next???


Nebullis..."preschool evolution---INTENSIVELY"---


donh...

"if the sun can create crystals-snowflakes...human life "could have---most likely"(not certainly) follow"---

(Why, if the sun can create crystals and snowflakes, can't it create life?)

(How much different is my paraphase of your rhetorical question---statement!)


also by donh...

"Nor have I even suggested that 'most' nazi germans were christians, though I think it's likely so."

"christian values and sentiments were the majority religeous view in Germany between 1938 and 1946"

BIG WHOPPER!

Hitler and nazi germany were mostly Judeo-Christians---creationists!

(With this statement we can safely say bankrobbers/murderers are auditors/morticians!)


dominick harr..."just like a ball bouncing down the stairs----evolution created everything"---

jennyp..."anarchist evolutionary(natural) capitalism---Christianity(manmade) is communism"---

and patrickhenry doesn't know..."if prior to darwin---if science existed"...

SkyRat...Divine hammer-retribution from above via evolution!

exdemmom...evolution is the "lug wrench" that fixes science--biology/life!

Running sores of evo schlock!

Evolution is Truth/science/history ABORTION--freaks!

[f.Christian]

To: Marathon

Missionaries have said for years that American educational/media institutions are far more closed than in places like Russia. This underscores their point. What was it someone said, to find real communists these days you have to visit an American university?

2 Posted on 03/27/2000 10:56:24 PST by Marathon

[Physicist]

Evolution really can't be "quantified" either.

Evolution is defined as change in allele frequency over time. That's quantified and measurable.

ID and general evolution are both hypotheses, but if you actually look at the literature, the former is much likelier than the latter.

LOL, I'd love to see how you quantify that likelihood.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

and...

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[Physicist]

Please add this to your list:

Physicist..."I still don't rate a pull-quote!"

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

The fact that the nomenclature of the political spectrum is
is reversed in the USA indicates the radical nature of our republic. The radical idea of the 18th century was reducing the power of central authority in favor of individual liberties. American liberals of today seem more interested
in returning those hard won individual freedoms to the central government. (I deliberatly use the term central rather than federal because I am a Southerner who recoqnizes the difference.)

American conservatives today are Classical Liberals.


7 posted on 10/25/2002 9:34 PM PDT by limitedgov

[CalConservative]

All I've seen from ID'ers is the broad claim that "designyness" can be quantified. I've never seen them quantify it or test it.

Maybe you aren't talking to the right people. I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria. Now I'm a geologist, not a biologist, so some of the in-depth discussion was hard for me to follow, but the gist of it was that he is able to use reverse engineering as you would with any machine that is designed or like software for that matter, and making discoveries that he is able to publish on. Furthermore, he also discussed the design parameters of various bacteria functions and why many of these functions cannot operate without the presence of many (and in the case of some components, up to 50) specialized genes. If any of these genes are missing, that component cannot exist or function. His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function. What is left? Weak arguments for "puncuated equilibrium?"

There is more fascinating stuff (it was a long evening), but I have to admit that I was certainly swayed by the evidence. I would stress that this is not just making claims about design, but actually using an ID approach to making research discoveries.

[Physicist]

I agree. In fact, I most commonly describe myself as a "classical liberal" when people ask my political orientation.

[Physicist]

I would stress that this is not just making claims about design, but actually using an ID approach to making research discoveries.

Another broad claim, but all I have is your assertion that it's so. Where's the beef? Where's an algorithm I can apply to a sequence of numbers, say, and determine whether it was designed or not?

[Nebullis]

We cant have any children thinking for themselves!!

First, children must learn their ABCs. Then they can think for themselves.

[arielb]

hey Atheists Anonymous for the Advancement of Stupidity: Republicans won bigtime Nov 5, 2002. Get over it.

[Nebullis]

For those freepers who don't want to bother visiting the link, AAAS stands for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Thanks. Also, AAAS is the publisher of Science.

[Nebullis]

His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function.

This is not what we would call a research discovery.

[f.Christian]

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---REDACTED and made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/FREEDOM/LIBERTY/SCIENCE!!

[Nebullis]

Republicans won bigtime Nov 5, 2002.

I know it. I helped vote them in.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria.

Perhaps you could point us to some peer-reviewed papers published by your anonymous contact. In that way, we can judge in what way he or she (as the case may be) actually uses design concepts.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Hey!! Our new HIV test hit PMSNBC news!

[Fester Chugabrew]

AAAS . . .

You sure that isn't ASSS? e.g. American Society for Socialist Shenanigans or some such.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And what is the point? Are scientific theories to be subject to vote?

[RonF]

Scientifically:

Intelligent Design is an interesting guess, but unless a hypothesis can be developed from it that can be then tested, it doesn't qualify as a theory.

Theologically:

I personally don't think God would/will allow "proof" of his existence. It seems to me that the whole concept behind faith is that you accept it in the absence of proof. If the existence of God was provable, then God would be part of man's body of knowledge, and I think one of the points of faith is that God's plan cannot be encompassed by man's reason.

[Nebullis]

Is this the p24 antigen test? Johns Hopkins?

[CalConservative]

This is not what we would call a research discovery

That was basically part of the background conversation I was describing. Like I said, I'm a geologist, so I'm hardly the right one to describe research microbiology or genetics, but his research basically had to do with temperature regulation of bacteria. I guess what I was mainly interested in was the process and how ID was used in his research.

[Nebullis]

I guess what I was mainly interested in was the process and how ID was used in his research.

It seems you didn't get much of an idea of that process. A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that. It has little to do with Intelligent Design theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hi, Nebullis! The following statement left me scratching my head. Could you elaborate please?

A claim of design use in research is too broad to be useful. In some sense we all do that. It has little to do with Intelligent Design theory.

[aruanan]

AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes

These are the descendents of those who tried to protect the phlogiston theory of combustion.

[MHGinTN]

I have a wierd request: at 10:57 est I was on my porch (in East Tennessee) and saw a strange series of meteor-like displays in the East-Northeast. The first object streaked across and went 'poofed'; less than a minute later a second object streaked across the night sky, then appeared to be 'hit' by something and explode(?), then a little more light streak downward from that burst; approximately one minute later a third meteor-like object streaked across the sky and went 'poof'. Does anyone know if the military was taking satellite target practice tonight or was a satellite scheduled to 'fall' out of orbit? The pattern appeared to be roughly in a 'string of streaks' from overhead to East-northeast with the pattern running east-northeast to the north. Any thoughts, Anyone?

[Heartlander]

I you have time I would appreciate your opinion:
The CTMU and Intelligent Design

[f.Christian]

luddites!

[Heartlander]

I = If (long night and knee-jerk response)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - U.S. officials have approved OraSure Technologies' (OSUR) OraQuick HIV test, a blood test that delivers results in as little as 20 minutes, Health and Human Service Secretary Tommy Thompson said on Thursday.

We're supposed to keep the actual viral coat peptides confidential, but I suppose if someone were familiar enough with the literature and had a little background knowledge, they could figure it out pretty quickly.

[AFPhys]

Scientifically: ..... Theologically:...

BINGO! We have a Bingo! This is almost exactly my approach when I'm discussing this.

That being said, I believe ID is far more viable as a theory than many of the Theoretical Physics and Cosmology hypotheses I've listened to the past 20 years which attempt to "wrap up the loose ends". It seems a nod must be given in the classroom to the failure of the Darwinians to wrap up many loose ends despite many attempts to do so, and that some good scientists believe ID is a possible way out.

This type of teaser: telling future scientists that there is more yet to be discovered, is all to the good, not a death knell for science.

[Bonaparte]

Excellent post, CC. The smell of fear is all over the AAAS. ID is rigorously scientific and they know it. In fact, it's far more scientific than neo-Darwinism in any of its many incarnations.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Maybe you aren't talking to the right people. I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria.

You're lucky to find a biologist who will even discuss the concept. It's rare to find anyone who does work in biology who's even curious about design. It doesn't bring anything to the table.

Divine intervention is another discussion entirely, though. ;)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The smell of fear is all over the AAAS.

That's because the anti-science crowd could destroy our civilization in 2 generations if science has to bow before theology on every issue. You'll notice its not working well in Islamic countries and not much better anywhere else.

[LiteKeeper]

Young Earth Creationist bump for reading in the morning

[Nebullis]

...OraQuick HIV test...

Ok. Yours is an immunoassay. p24 is something different.