" The school board in Dover, Pa., south of Harrisburg, had an administrator read a one-minute statement to ninth graders in biology class yesterday saying evolution is not fact and offering a different approach called “intelligent design.”
Though other school districts had issued disclaimers to students about the reliability of evolutionary theory, Dover last fall became the first in the nation to identify an alternative. Believers in intelligent design hold that life is so complex, a creator had to be behind it, a position that critics say has no basis in science.
Ninth-grade science teachers at Dover Area High School, who are critical of the statement, have refused to read it to their students. It was read instead, to six classes, by the district’s assistant superintendent yesterday and is to be read to three more classes today."
Sheesh. I wonder if the teachers were allowed to then address the statement after the administrator left.
Typical NY Times reporting. They report on a one minute statement, but can’t even be bothered to print the statement so that the reader can form an intelligent opinion.
I remember when the Times used to be a real paper. Now it is plenty of ink for the controversy, none for the actual facts.
I do have to admit klehner, that this one minute statement which apparently floats an “Intelligent Design” alternative is even funnier than those stupid GA stickers.
I can just imagine the ninth graders sitting there for the one minute and concluding on the basis of the statement “Oh, so it is Intelligent Design that explains life as we know it. Glad we cleared that one up today.”
This stuff is just too funny. What is even funnier though is all the people getting their panties in a bunch and feeling threatened by this farce.
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."
The sentence “Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence” makes no sense. No evidence for a gap? What the heck does that mean?
Nobody has seen evidence of gravity waves, have they? Big gap in the Theory of Gravity. Is anyone saying that the Theory of Gravity is not a fact?
Why bring up Origin of Life, when that has nothing to do with evolution? Dollars to doughnuts that the PAS doesn’t address the Origin of Life.
I am guessing this is the actual one minute presentation. I agree that that one sentence is mangled, but it is pretty obvious what the writer means. A period after the word exists would fix the problem.
I have been chastised for this, but the reality is most people associate Evolution with the origin of life.
I have to agree I don’t see the need in bringing up Intelligent Design, but I don’t see a problem with it. Frankly, I find the whole essay to be completely innocuous. It is hard to see why a teacher would object to this as part of the curriculum.
Thanks for filling in the missing substance. Maybe you need to work for the Times. You might be able to help them out.
I think they would stay out of trouble if they just explained evolution, and defined it as what it actually is. Just tell kids that evolution is a scientific theory that is generally accepted to explain the development of life over the millenia, but that it doesn’t necessarily explain how life originated on the planet. Tell them we don’t know for sure how that happened yet. I don’t think there is a theory that explains how life first started that is as generally accpeted as evolution is with regard to how it devloped after that. Where’s the problem with that?
I think they would stay out of trouble if they just explained evolution, and defined it as what it actually is. Just tell kids that evolution is a scientific theory that is generally accepted to explain the development of life over the millenia, but that it doesn’t necessarily explain how life originated on the planet. Tell them we don’t know for sure how that happened yet. I don’t think there is a theory that explains how life first started that is as generally accpeted as evolution is with regard to how it devloped after that. Where’s the problem with that?
From my reading of Miller’s website (he’s got table of contents for his various textbooks) those textbooks say exactly that.
So what is the problem? Is the Cobb County School Board comprised of really stupid people, or is the simple word “evolution” such a boogeyman that fundamentalist Christians are immediately hostile to it?
Art … I have been chastised for this, but the reality is most people associate Evolution with the origin of life.
Most people do. Even the major pro-evolution websites have articles in support or defense of abiogenesis.
The terms are not completely seperable in common use (but not dependent on one another). The just naturally get grouped together because they are natural processes, and one leads to the other.
IMO, evolutionists don’t like the combo (yet) because there is not as much evidence for abio as there is for evo. So, abio makes evo an easier target, even though disproving an abio theory would have no effect on disproving evo (except in the court of public opinion).
What I can tell from reading higher books, textbooks, and websites on the subject is that abio is just the natural progression backwards from common descent … unless a scientists wants to propose that the origin of life has non-natural provider (which, obviously, they do not).
Most of the volution books/textbooks and websites I have read ALL have articles/sections that explain/defend abiogenesis. So, even in those circles/mediums … both ideas are addressed, even though they are completely seperate ideas/theories.
I would have no problem with that presentation. I admit I find these bandaids very funny. I am guessing they are compensating for the fact that the curriculum is not evenly balanced as you present, but the reporting is so bad I don’t know that for sure.
I would be a lot happier in both cases if they would just fix the books and the curriculum.
It could easily be that Miller’s website doesn’t completely reflect the contents of the book or the curriculum surrounding it. I would actually expect that to be the case.
Of course the reporting is awful with not a single quote from the book, so we just don’t know. The only report I saw was that the book presents evolution as the explanation for life on Earth. Of course that report was from CNN, so I would be inclined to guess it was wrong absent confirmation.
You might try be more reluctant to assume others are stupid or haunted by boogeymen.
This is terrific. Please keep insulting and condescending to everyone who disagrees with you. Keep calling them stupid. That way you can be certain you will persuade no one, and you will drive away anyone who might be sympathetic to your philosophy if it were intelligently expressed.
You have learned your lessons well. Never bother with an articulate argument when a personal insult will do.
I doubt he does. I don’t listen to Hannity much, but I listen to Limbaugh when I can. I don’t think I have ever heard either of them talk about evolution. They have probably mentioned it somewhere along the line, but it is not much of a subject for ratings. The discussion gets too boring too quickly, and is not very entertaining.
This discussion is an exception since it is so funny to see people put out stickers and one minute annoucements. It is hard not to smile.
If they haven’t mentioned evolution, it’s because they know its a sure loser argument.
You can’t have it both ways - you can’t be happy to use science when it benefits you, then decide it’s invalid when it conflicts with your religious ideals. More specifically, it’s clear that the whole “Intelligent Design” notion is a crock designed to sell Creationism without using the word, because of the Supreme Court decision outlawing it on a First Amendment basis.
If you actually examine the argument, its kind of a joke - it attempts to discredit evolution, which in no real way forwards Creationism or any of its cousins, by trying to make a loose epistemological argument about the nature of theories. Despite the fact that evolution has the massive consensus of scientists behind it, that it fits all observed information we have about the world, not to mention it intuitively makes common sense, they have attempted to discredit it by saying it is merely an unproven “theory”. On that basis, one can’t prove that the Earth orbits the sun, or for that matter that the Earth isn’t flat.
Slowguy - the issue as I understand it is not merely the origins of life, but more specifically the origins of man - the notion that we are descended from common lineage as apes and other primates is anathema and offensive, regardless of whether it is true or not. Apparently the notion of natural selection and Darwinism is not offensive, despite the logical inconsistency of suggesting that Darwinism is only a recent occurrence.
I think the larger issue here is this basic current of anti-intellectualism in this country. While I generally don’t consider it a Liberal/Conservative issue, it does seem to center itself around political/religious divisions, which is unfortunate. I don’t think we advanced this far as a society without rigorous self-examination and intellectual inquiry, as opposed to dogmatic certainty without evidence or investigation. But apparently that’s where we’re headed, in a number of different arenas.
I guess I don’t understand your comment. I am not trying to have anything both ways, or even any way. I don’t advocate Creation or Creation Science, whatever that means, or Intelligent Design or Evolution. I simply advocate the obvious fact that none of these ideas are established fact, or even qualify as a theory. The process over previous eons can not be observed, it can not be tested and the “theories” can not be used to make predictions. They can never be proven and they can never be disproven. They are not even theories, must less established fact.
Your comment about the validity of the Earth orbiting the sun or the Earth being round is simply not true. Those facts can be tested, predictions can be made which can be proven accurate by later measurements. This is clearly a valid theory which has been repeatedly proven so as to be accepted as a law.
I do get a kick out of so many intelligent people being so certain of things that we barely have a clue about. Why are we so arrogant that we can not admit we just don’t know, and we are not likely to know anytime soon or maybe ever?
Throughout these threads I have referred to many things our scientists accepted by “overwhelming consensus” which proved to be completely wrong. No one who is so certain about evolution or any other theory will address those analogies since it would prove obvious that the analogy could easily prove applicable.
From Kenneth Miller’s review of Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”:
“Is there something special about biochemistry that prevents evolution from doing exactly the same thing to a microscopic system composed of proteins? Absolutely not. But evolution does make a testable prediction with respect to such systems. That prediction is that the degree of similarity in DNA sequences of organisms should correspond to their evolutionary histories. And, as the author is all too well aware, that prediction has been borne out a thousand times over.”
This is a testable prediction of the Theory of Evolution that has been demonstrated.
The problem is that was probably not a prediction. Even so, it is not much of a prediction. That prediction could be made in the context of any theory. Gee, similar life forms are a lot alike in many respects. Not very persuasive.
Einstein’s relativity predictions are an obvious example. More on target to this thread, the predictions about background radiation patterns that were made based on the big bang model and later verified by the COBE satellite are incredibly impressive. I used to think the big bang theory was mostly BS too, but it is hard to ignore that prediction and its subsequent confirmation.
Evolution, or any other “theory” for that matter, doesn’t have any prospect for this sort of validation.