The Truth behind ID curriculum

[Arondale]

I just thought it might be useful for Dover area school district's curriculum to be examined, to see what is actually happening.

 

http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=261852

 

This is a statement made by the Dover area school district, in regards to their Biology curriculum. In case you don't want to read the whole link, here is the main point:

 

The Biology curriculum also was updated to include the following preliminary statement:

 

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught.

 

In coordination with the science department teachers, the District solicitor, and the School Board, Mr. Michael Baksa, the Assistant Superintendent in charge of curriculum, developed the following procedural statement that will be read to all students as the new Biology curriculum is implemented beginning in January 2005:

 

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 foregoing statements were developed to provide a balanced view, and not to teach or present religious beliefs. The Superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, has directed that no teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs. The Dover Area School District supports, and does not discriminate against, students and parents who have competing beliefs, especially in the area of the Origin of Life debate. The School Board has noted that there are opinions other than Darwin’s on the Origin of Life. School districts are forums for inquiry and critical discussions. The above statement and the District’s revised Biology curriculum together provide an opportunity for open critical discussion--the real heart of scientific practice.

 

So we are getting all worked up because evolution is being presented as theory and an optional reference book is being offered? The school district continues to prepare students for Standards-based assessments.

 

It seems like both sides are blowing this thing way out of proportion. Creationists saying it is a huge victory and evolutionists saying it is teaching religion.

 

From the looks of this statement, about all that is happening is that evolution is no longer being treated as the one and only answer. The science community has been openly discussing the issues of evolution, but for some reason high school kids only learn that evoluion is fact.

 

Investigate these few names: Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski. They have articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications discussing ID and arguments against evolution. If the scientific community is allowing discussion of ID and arguments against evolution, why are those very arguments not allowed in the public school system?

 

I don't care if you attack these men or think they are wackos (many have already done so). Their viewpoints and others like them are being published in national scientific publications. There are numerous other respected scientists that have problems with evolution and there are many evolutionist scientists that acknowledge there are questions that have not been answered.

 

Unless you enter into a scientific field and deal with the evolution/creation debate, your normal everyday student will never know the issues and questions surrounding evolution. Why is it wrong for students to be shown the holes and the unknowns and then be told that there is another viewpoint out there?

 

We have found no forces that produce complex organization, we have not been able to reproduce the origin of life and there are many serious questions behind evolution, yet it is taught as the only valid theory and taken as fact. It looks like this school district is merely following the scientific community's lead.

[John Adams]

I don't care about kids discussing ID. Or even discussing it in schools. But it IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!

 

It's not a competing scientific theory to evolution. It's a religious/philosophical one.

[Mickey]

I just thought it might be useful for Dover area school district's curriculum to be examined, to see what is actually happening. 

 

http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=261852

 

This is a statement made by the Dover area school district, in regards to their Biology curriculum.  In case you don't want to read the whole link, here is the main point:

 

The Biology curriculum also was updated to include the following preliminary statement:

 

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught.

 

In coordination with the science department teachers, the District solicitor, and the School Board, Mr. Michael Baksa, the Assistant Superintendent in charge of curriculum, developed the following procedural statement that will be read to all students as the new Biology curriculum is implemented beginning in January 2005: 

 

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 foregoing statements were developed to provide a balanced view, and not to teach or present religious beliefs. The Superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, has directed that no teacher will teach Intelligent Design, Creationism, or present his or her, or the Board’s, religious beliefs. The Dover Area School District supports, and does not discriminate against, students and parents who have competing beliefs, especially in the area of the Origin of Life debate. The School Board has noted that there are opinions other than Darwin’s on the Origin of Life.  School districts are forums for inquiry and critical discussions. The above statement and the District’s revised Biology curriculum together provide an opportunity for open critical discussion--the real heart of scientific practice.

 

So we are getting all worked up because evolution is being presented as theory and an optional reference book is being offered?  The school district continues to prepare students for Standards-based assessments. 

 

It seems like both sides are blowing this thing way out of proportion.  Creationists saying it is a huge victory and evolutionists saying it is teaching religion. 

 

From the looks of this statement, about all that is happening is that evolution is no longer being treated as the one and only answer.  The science community has been openly discussing the issues of evolution, but for some reason high school kids only learn that evoluion is fact. 

 

Investigate these few names:  Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski.  They have articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications discussing ID and arguments against evolution.  If the scientific community is allowing discussion of ID and arguments against evolution, why are those very arguments not allowed in the public school system?

 

I don't care if you attack these men or think they are wackos (many have already done so).  Their viewpoints and others like them are being published in national scientific publications.  There are numerous other respected scientists that have problems with evolution and there are many evolutionist scientists that acknowledge there are questions that have not been answered. 

 

Unless you enter into a scientific field and deal with the evolution/creation debate, your normal everyday student will never know the issues and questions surrounding evolution.  Why is it wrong for students to be shown the holes and the unknowns and then be told that there is another viewpoint out there?     

 

We have found no forces that produce complex organization, we have not been able to reproduce the origin of life and there are many serious questions behind evolution, yet it is taught as the only valid theory and taken as fact.  It looks like this school district is merely following the scientific community's lead.

161396[/snapback]

ID isn't a theory, it is religious belief, its own proponents define it as such (Intelligent Design is religion, so say its own proponents.) In fact, they designate a belief in the credibility of evolution as atheism. If they have an alternative scientific theory with some credibility, ie has reached broad acceptance by the scientific community, to present along with evolution, fine. Dressing up religious faith as a "theory" doesn't make it so.

 

By the way, what do you expect them to say? "We are implementing this program to force feed religion to your children"???

 

By the way, Dembski is, in the opinion of some, a joke: Dr. Dembski's Compass or "How to lose one's way while looking for misdirection", Not a free lunch but a box of choclates As for Behe, please see: Irreducible Complexity

 

As for peer review, please see: Peer Review and Creationists (much "peer review" of creationist work is done by philosophers, not scientists). The only real peer reviewed paper is the one by Meyers which was published in a minor journal and has been fairly well debunked to the extent it supported intelligent design (not its focus, it was on the subject of taxonomy). Here is just one article: Response to Meyer

 

If every "theory" supported by a handful of scientists were worthy of teaching to kids, science classes would be endless. Funny, you don't see all this jumping about when it comes to so many other theories with far more scientific support than creationism but then, they don't have anything to do with God so nobody cares. We only seem to need this imagined "balance" when it comes to evolution.

 

In reveiwing the entire statement by the district, it is clear that the science teachers themselves did not recommend this but instead approved the purchase of textbooks that covered evolution and not creationism. The board however received a donation of 60 copies of "Of Pandas and People", they don't say from whom though I suspect it was from the Discovery Institute, a creationist group dedicated to replacing evolution with creationismin public schools. Here is one of their policy goals which they refer to as Phase III of their Wedge Strategy:

 

"Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences."

 

Does that sound like a bunch of scientists genuinely concerned about curriculum or a bunch of politcal-religious fringies looking for a fight?

[Arondale]

ID isn't a theory, it is religious belief, its own proponents define it as such (Intelligent Design is religion, so say its own proponents.)  In fact, they designate a belief in the credibility of evolution as atheism.  If they have an alternative scientific theory with some credibility, ie has reached broad acceptance by the scientific community, to present along with evolution, fine.  Dressing up religious faith as a "theory" doesn't make it so.

 

By the way, what do you expect them to say?  "We are implementing this program to force feed religion to your children"???

 

By the way, Dembski is, in the opinion of some, a joke: Dr. Dembski's Compass or "How to lose one's way while looking for misdirection", Not a free lunch but a box of choclates As for Behe, please see: Irreducible Complexity

 

As for peer review, please see: Peer Review and Creationists (much "peer review" of creationist work is done by philosophers, not scientists).  The only real peer reviewed paper is the one by Meyers which was published in a minor journal and has been fairly well debunked to the extent it supported intelligent design (not its focus, it was on the subject of taxonomy).  Here is just one article: Response to Meyer

 

If every "theory" supported by a handful of scientists were worthy of teaching to kids, science classes would be endless.  Funny, you don't see all this jumping about when it comes to so many other theories with far more scientific support than creationism but then, they don't have anything to do with God so nobody cares.  We only seem to need this imagined "balance" when it comes to evolution.

 

In reveiwing the entire statement by the district, it is clear that the science teachers themselves did not recommend this but instead approved the purchase of textbooks that covered evolution and not creationism.  The board however received a donation of 60 copies of "Of Pandas and People", they don't say from whom though I suspect it was from the Discovery Institute, a creationist group dedicated to replacing evolution with creationismin public schools.  Here is one of their policy goals which they refer to as Phase III of their Wedge Strategy:

 

"Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences."

 

Does that sound like a bunch of scientists genuinely concerned about curriculum or a bunch of politcal-religious fringies looking for a fight?

161613[/snapback]

 

Mickey, I could go to a website supporting creationism and find all the evidence I want to support my arguments. Every single link you have is to the same pro-evolution website. I could also find where each of those men have been reviewed by their peers. You can say that Meyers' paper has been debunked and quote your good old website, but it was also reviewed by three of his peers, approved and published in the journal. I'm sure if I did some research I could find several scientists that support Meyers' paper.

 

To be honest, I could care less what they do in public schools, I'm not sending my kids to public school. I could care less if they choose to teach about ID or not. What I do care about is the fact that school kids are being taught evolution as 100% fact, without any reference to the many questions and unknowns that exist within that theory. Unless kids pursue a scientific field or choose to do more research on their own, it is very likely that they will never doubt or question evolution simply because most school districts teach it as fact and leave it at that. I would be happy if school districts followed Dover's lead and simply began pointing out the many questions and issues with evolution. Leave it at that and encourage kids to look into it.

[Mickey]

Everything you ever wanted to know about Dembski, including links to his own web site: William Dembski

 

Where should I go for information about evolution, scientists who have spent their lives studying these things or someplace else?

 

Critique the substance of their work, that I can respond to. Discounting them simply because they are scientists contributing to a web site and ignoring their extensive citiation to sources is unfair. If you are not going to listen to scientists on an issue of science then who are you going to listen to? School boards?

[Arondale]

Everything you ever wanted to know about Dembski, including links to his own web site: William Dembski

 

Where should I go for information about evolution, scientists who have spent their lives studying these things or someplace else?

 

Critique the substance of their work, that I can respond to.  Discounting them simply because they are scientists contributing to a web site and ignoring their extensive citiation to sources is unfair.  If you are not going to listen to scientists on an issue of science then who are you going to listen to?  School boards?

161666[/snapback]

 

Find for me where I "discount" what your links are saying. I never said I discounted anything, I merely made the point that every single one of your "references" were from an extremely one-sided, pro-evolution website. If you read only that site, then you come out with only one side of the argument. It would help your arguments some if you at least tried to represent both sides. For instance, in reference to Meyers article, it didn't take me long to find this:

 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04

 

It is a good discussion of the article that quotes people from both sides and has several good references at the bottom linking to scientists on both sides of the issue.

 

If you simply use the strategy of quoting that website all the time, then I'll simply use the same strategy and quote one-sided websites that support my view. What is the point of that?