Dover, PA - Science and Intelligent Design.

[MissCatholic]

Dover teachers are required to read the following statement to students in ninth-grade biology classes

'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.'

[J. J.]

Rewrite the second and third paragraphs and I would agree.  He is an example:


The theory of evolution, like any theory, is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.  This theory does not necessary explain entirely how life in general, and more advanced life in particular, developed.  The may have been other factors involved and you are invited to explore those on your own.

Many people look at factors effecting evolution that involve some outside intelligence influencing the process of evolution.  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.  You are free to explore this issue and draw your own conclusions.


I think that this might actually encourage people to think, a rarity in public education.

[MODU]

In either version, there is nothing wrong with that.  It meets the requirement that Macro-evolution is not "fact," while at the same time respecting people's belief that something greater than them might be at work.

[John Dibble]

No. I'd rather they explain the difference between scientific hypothesis, scientific theory, and scientific law and have students be able to apply this knowledge to ALL scientific hypothesis/theories/laws.

[Jake]

I really don't see how evolution has to be brought up in science classes anyway. We may have touched on it in passing last year, but I really don't think the question of whether humans were put here, evolved on our own, or evolved with the help of an intelligent designer is necessary to teach high school or younger kids. The answer is, like most learning, better delved into on your own where you can draw your own opinions and deductions, rather than the opinion of pro-evolution or pro-intelligent design school board members.

[Citizen James]

The problem is that "intellegent design" isn't even a valid hypothisis, much less a valid theory.  It is neither testable nor verifiable.   It is a form of religious/spiritual belief, pure and simple.

Evolution has already been observed, tested, and retested on a microscopic scale.

Strictly speaking, even scientific 'laws' are subject to revision in light of new evidence.  Newtons laws of motion had to be revised in light of Einstienian relativity.  They're still trying to reconsile it with quantum mechanics.   Anyone who wishes to is free to point out that gravity is 'just a theory', and one in which there remains a fair amount of controversy and discussion when you get down to the nitty gritty.   However, any attempt to ignore the law of gravity does so solely at their own peril.

If they force this sort of junk in, what's to keep some $cientoligist from insisting that they mention the idea that life arived in spacecraft that look like DC-10's and insist that copies of dianetics be available to the students.   Or try and sneak through with the seeding 'theory' that life was planted here by extra-terestrials.   That has far more in common with ID than either one has with evolution and the scientific method.

[MODU]

The problem is that "intellegent design" isn't even a valid hypothisis, much less a valid theory.  It is neither testable nor verifiable.   It is a form of religious/spiritual belief, pure and simple.

The question comes to this:  "How can you test something that can only be performed by a higher power?"  This is the breakdown between science and faith.  We as people do not know how to create a planet, yet planets exist.  The best theory we have is that matter existed in orbit around a star, and after millions and billions of years, this matter gradually collected together into a mass, creating a hot core and gravity, etc ..... How can we test that?  We can't, however, it is accepted as the main theory of how the world was created.  We've never observed this process in our lifetimes.  We don't find traces of raw material in our own orbit which would be tied directly into the creation of our planet.  Yet we are to accept this over another untested "theory" that a higher power made the planet in addition to the rest of the universe?  Why?  What gives macro-evolution more weight over intelligent design?  Neither can be tested or observed, and therefore neither can be disqualified.

[Smash255]

The problem is that "intellegent design" isn't even a valid hypothisis, much less a valid theory.  It is neither testable nor verifiable.   It is a form of religious/spiritual belief, pure and simple.

The question comes to this:  "How can you test something that can only be performed by a higher power?"  This is the breakdown between science and faith.  We as people do not know how to create a planet, yet planets exist.  The best theory we have is that matter existed in orbit around a star, and after millions and billions of years, this matter gradually collected together into a mass, creating a hot core and gravity, etc ..... How can we test that?  We can't, however, it is accepted as the main theory of how the world was created.  We've never observed this process in our lifetimes.  We don't find traces of raw material in our own orbit which would be tied directly into the creation of our planet.  Yet we are to accept this over another untested "theory" that a higher power made the planet in addition to the rest of the universe?  Why?  What gives macro-evolution more weight over intelligent design?  Neither can be tested or observed, and therefore neither can be disqualified.

The fact it can't be tested is why it has no place in Science class.

[danwxman]

I really don't see how evolution has to be brought up in science classes anyway. We may have touched on it in passing last year, but I really don't think the question of whether humans were put here, evolved on our own, or evolved with the help of an intelligent designer is necessary to teach high school or younger kids. The answer is, like most learning, better delved into on your own where you can draw your own opinions and deductions, rather than the opinion of pro-evolution or pro-intelligent design school board members.

Yea, scientific theory shouldn't be discussed in science class, how silly!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hell, no. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and so has no place in a science class. Gaps in the fossil record don't disprove evolution. Many claims of evolution are easily tested by comparing DNA. Evolution has passed all of these tests.

[MODU]

The fact it can't be tested is why it has no place in Science class.

I hope you are referring to both Macro-evolution and Intelligent Design.    Personally, like I have said so many times in the past, Creationism/Intelligent Design do not belong in a Science course.  They belong in History or English courses.

[MissCatholic]

The fact it can't be tested is why it has no place in Science class.

I hope you are referring to both Macro-evolution and Intelligent Design.    Personally, like I have said so many times in the past, Creationism/Intelligent Design do not belong in a Science course.  They belong in History or English courses.

History

No no no no. Intelligent design belongs in one place and thats theology.

[MODU]

History

No no no no. Intelligent design belongs in one place and thats theology.

Sorry missy, but it belongs in history along with all the other religions covered.  I've been out of school a whole long longer than you, and even I remember reading about the various religions of the world in History, and the creation stories in English.  "Christianity creationism" or "Intelligent Design" is no different.

Johnny, tell us what our contestant could have won....

[nlm]

Unless I'm mistaken, Intelligent Design was introduced in its current form (i.e. the form in which the agent of creation is not named) around 1991with the publication of "Darwin on Trial". That would seem to make its introduction into history classes a very hard sell.

Last I checked history class was about the study of history. The actions of religious movements certainly play a part in forming the history of our world. And understanding why certain religious factions behave in the manner that they did often requires an understanding of their belief system. So, minor introductions can be made to religious beliefs without wasting a student’s valuable time in the study of history, but they certainly should never be a focus of a history class. That's what Theology classes are for.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Intelligent Design doesn't belong very many places. Even the last Pope said that evolution is a scientific fact.

[angus]

I voted yes*

*the asterisk indicates "yes with the following qualification":

I like the first, second, and fourth paragraphs.  (pretty much, though we could quibble about the details)  But the penultimate paragraph is inappropriate.  ID is not science, at least not in accord with modern scientific methods, since it doesn't lend itself to falsifiability.  Basically, I'd hope that any student in any science class is taught that the nature of modern science is tentative.  what I was taught in college in the late 80s for example was that all enzymes are proteins.  Of course, Thomas Czech's work, which ultimately won him a nobel prize, was on ribozymes.  An enzyme which was a nucleic acid.  of course, they had to change the biochemistry books.  Evolution via natural selection is the best hypothesis we have at the moment.  That may change.  And students should certainly learn what Darwin got right and what Darwin got wrong.  It helps develop their minds.  But they shouldn't be taught evolution as though it is a religion.  I have no doubt that we all evolved from single-celled organizisms that arose from the primordial soup some 3.5 billion years ago.  But if you have doubts, I think that's great.  Try to prove it's wrong.  That's what science is all about.  Science should never be in the business of teaching "truth"  That's a matter for philosophy courses.  So, basically I feel the statement is supercilious and therefore unnecessary.  Apparently the folks who want ID taught in school won't just go away.  Fine.  Let it be part of the curriculum in a debate, philosophy, or comparative religion class.  But it isn't science and shouldn't be paraded as such.  Anyway, with exception of the implication that ID is a "science" or reasonable facsimile thereof, I'd think it's a fine disclaimer to read, with some revision of course.

[J. J.]

I've been a firm believer that man evolved since childhood.  That said, I'm looking at the possibility of some things that cannot readily be explained by genetics or by natural selection.

I think its okay to say, this doesn't explain everything and if you want to explore further about some other factors, here is a reading list.

One thing that troubles me is, why did the eye develope in the way it did?  Why do most eyes see only light in a specific spectrum (and I'll include infrared in that).  Why not ultraviolet, for example?

[angus]

I've been a firm believer that man evolved since childhood.  That said, I'm looking at the possibility of some things that cannot readily be explained by genetics or by natural selection.

I think its okay to say, this doesn't explain everything and if you want to explore further about some other factors, here is a reading list.

One thing that troubles me is, why did the eye develope in the way it did?  Why do most eyes see only light in a specific spectrum (and I'll include infrared in that).  Why not ultraviolet, for example?

I'm a "firm believer" too.  But we should be careful not to let darwinism become a religion, and I think it has for a number of red avatar types.  actually, I know I don't have to say that to you.  And I think the underlying question here has less to do with "where did the world come from" than "what is science"  And it's important to remember that science is, above all else, tentative.  it's conjecture and then devising ways to test that conjecture.  we believe what we believe due to the overwhelming body of evidence that supports it.  Scientists use the word "proof" like lawyers do, not the way mathematicians and philosophers do.  In math and syllogistics, a "proof" just means that if you make an assumption, and follow all the rules, then you can reach a conclusion.  foolproof.  it's the same way in logic and philosophy.  I think we need to remind ourselves ocassionally that in science, it's not unlike the courtroom.  When a prosecuting attorney "proves" someone is guilty, it just means that he has presented enough evidence to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone commited the crime of which he's been accused.  Scientists have this idea of showing the world beyond reasonable doubt, that things are as we think they are.  The cosmic dust, for example, suggests that the universe is about 15 billion years old (at least in its current expansions).  I know just enough math and am just interested enough to almost understand the calculations and assumptions that go into that.  So I believe it.  But I also know that somebody with a better idea can come along at any minute.  But ID is radically different.  It's not science.  It requires, by definition, the hand that writes and moves away.  It's like Adam Smith explaining economics, as it were.  Sure, it provides a convenient explanation, but it does so in much the same way the Romans provided an explanation for the Scylla and Charibdes in the straits of Messina.  One side has a whirlpool monster.  The other has a cliff monster.  Fine if you have no meteorological, atmospheric, techtonic, and oceanic science.  but wouldn't you rather have a physical explanation for why you should avoid the straits of Messina?

anyway, these things trouble me as well.  The UV, the IR.  Actually, insects can see into the UV and IR range.  And these phenomena aren't limited to electromag waves.  You can look at compression waves, sound, the same way.  Most humans can hear from 40 Hz to about 40 kHz.  I listened to too much loud mullet-rock in my youth, of course, and can't even muster that range, but dogs can hear outside that range on both sides.  Both lower-frequency sounds and higher-frequency ones.  Well, maybe because dogs hunt animals that make sounds in those frequencies, but humans don't.  Maybe bees can see UV because the ability to distinguish between the parts of the flower they need to consume and parts they can't is important, whereas for you and me, being able to tell which flowers appear pretty to chicks is more important for getting laid and therefore improving our chances of darwinistic "success"   I don't know, just speculating.  But I do think you can think in evolutionary terms (i.e., always looking for food and sex, the only two things that jokers always say males are interested in, but in fact, these are the two things that are really most important because without these two, you cannot hope to pass on your genes.)  But wouldn't it be cool to see UV radiation.  And IR.  Does the guy that can see the infrared remote sensors in a museum have better luck stealing priceless art?  and if so, does he insure his fortunes, and thereby the chicks?  And if a mutation causes such a deformity, would this likely be passed on to his children?  Possibly, hang around several hundred thousand years and see...   That's the problem with evolution via natural selection.  It's painfully glacially galactically slow.  So we won't know in a real scientific sense how valid it is untill we're all dust in the wind.

[J. J.]

What I'm looking at is, when life was developing, it might have made sense to have a sensory apparatus to detect heat and UL, but why the "visual" range?

[angus]

What I'm looking at is, when life was developing, it might have made sense to have a sensory apparatus to detect heat and UL, but why the "visual" range?

hmmm.  so some individual mutates and acquires the ability to sense photons.  This may be useful to that organism in some way.  after all, photons are little packets of energy, and chloroplasts in green plants, which photosynthesize cellulose and other starches, are thought to be of endosymbiotic origin.  maybe that ability to detect the presence of photons, in a photochemical reaction, or a photoinitiated chain reaction sequence, gave that individual an advantage so great that it passed on its genes in such abundance that it became the dominant strain within the species, displacing other strains in time.  Or maybe its new ability allowed to evolve in a way that allowed it to fill a niche.  The sea surface may have been too harsh for most organisms, due to UV light and some unabsorbed IR light penetrating the upper reaches of the water, but this organism would be able to tell night from day, increasing its chances of survival.  or maybe it simply exploited this new ability to synthesize the chemicals it needed, allowing it to find alternative sources of food.  after all, you don't need to see UV light to know it's there, you just need to know that it's daytime.

Obviously, no one is around to have observed these changes.  And no one will be around if this new strain of IR-sensing humans are so successful that they eventually displace us "visual range" folks.  Once we've collected data for millions of years, we can put this to rest one way or another. 

[J. J.]

This may be useful to that organism in some way.  after all, photons are little packets of energy, and chloroplasts in green plants, which photosynthesize cellulose and other starches, are thought to be of endosymbiotic origin.  maybe that ability to detect the presence of photons, in a photochemical reaction, or a photoinitiated chain reaction sequence, gave that individual an advantage so great that it passed on its genes in such abundance that it became the dominant strain within the species, displacing other strains in time.  Or maybe its new ability allowed to evolve in a way that allowed it to fill a niche.  The sea surface may have been too harsh for most organisms, due to UV light and some unabsorbed IR light penetrating the upper reaches of the water, but this organism would be able to tell night from day, increasing its chances of survival.  or maybe it simply exploited this new ability to synthesize the chemicals it needed, allowing it to find alternative sources of food.  after all, you don't need to see UV light to know it's there, you just need to know that it's daytime.

My problem here is that the Sun produces heat.  I could understand something sensing heat, or even UVL.  Why that range?

Once developed, I can see why it stayed, but my question is, why did it develop?

Think about it.  A creature, Glub by name, is in the ocean.  Detecting heat makes sense.  Glub doesn't want to go to the harsh surface, where it's a lot warmer.  He wants to follow currents of different temperatures; Glub doesn't want to swim into waters superheated by volcanoes.  The ability to sense heat, I can understand, but why light?  Further, because vertebrates, and squids, et al., have eyes, the must have been developed at an early stage.  Why does Glub need to see in the visual light range?

I found an interesting quote on Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's from Charles Darwin.

[minionofmidas]

Science should never be in the business of teaching "truth"  That's a matter for philosophy courses.

That´s the worst thing that could ever happen to a philosophy class.

[J. J.]

Nice quote.  I'm a tad busy at the moment, and I'll have to think about what you're asking.  My short answer is that being able to visually detect food and partners for reproduction gives it an advantage.  Remember, the theory is that accidental mutation gives the individual a difference.  If it turns out to be an advantage, the individual passes it on to others of its species.  Eventually, the ones without the advantage die off.  Or remain behind as the newly-equipped becomes a different species with a different specialty. 

Well, if they are in a dark sea, why do they need to see visible light?  A prehistoric sea was not clear distilled water.

[Lephi]

Intelligent design and creationism deserves to be in our classrooms.  They are no less theories than evolution.  Why are athiest scientists so afraid of mentioning God?  You have to wonder...

[Emsworth]

Intelligent design and creationism deserves to be in our classrooms.  They are no less theories than evolution.

In science, the word "theory" implies that there is evidence to support it. Theories are not wild guesses. Creationism and intelligent design (scientifically speaking) are as much theories as the view that humans oozed out of the ground spontaneously, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster dropped them from the skies.