Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I could believe Spengler, he was rather unimaginative, however, Bertie !! HMMM, can you provide a clip of in what circumstances he said that?

The dumbest thing we had happen was our local elementary school added a large organic, community garden for the kids to grow their own salad greens and veggies. When produce was ready the school cafeteria refused to use it because it was not inspected by the Health Dept.

Science in action from another thread--

Quote:
The dumbest thing we had happen was our local elementary school added a large organic, community garden for the kids to grow their own salad greens and veggies. When produce was ready the school cafeteria refused to use it because it was not inspected by the Health Dept

Iowa educators respond to evolution bill
(By Kathy Hanson, Ames Tribune, February 25, 2009)

Some representatives from Iowa’s regent universities are calling for the state Legislature to kill HF 183, “The Evolution Academic Freedom Act,” introduced Feb. 3 by Rep. Rod Roberts, R-Carroll.

A statement released Tuesday includes a petition with more than 200 signatures by faculty opposing HF 183 from Iowa State University, the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa, as well as from 17 other Iowa universities, colleges and community colleges, seven primary and secondary schools, and three research organizations.

The statement was written by Hector Avalos, ISU professor of religious studies; James W. Demastes, UI associate professor of biology; and Tara C. Smith, UI assistant professor of epidemiology.

According to the statement, HF 183 is one of many “academic freedom” bills that have been introduced in the last year that are sponsored and supported by the Discovery Institute, a “Seattle-based anti-evolution organization.” Similar bills have been introduced in several states, including Alabama, Florida and Oklahoma. One such bill passed and was signed into law in Louisiana.

Robert Crowther Jr., Discovery Institute’s communications director, said the Discovery Institute has not been directly involved in writing HF 183 but thinks it is likely Roberts crafted the bill’s language along the lines of the institute’s “model legislation.”

“That’s what we hoped would happen,” Crowther said. “We want anyone interested in furthering academic freedom to use our resources.”

Crowther said the Discovery Institute is often misrepresented as seeking to mandate teaching creationism or intelligent design.

“We simply want educators to be free to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific theories involved in evolution,” he said.

HF 183 states that college and high school teachers “often suffer discrimination or punishment for questioning evolution.”

But Demastes, Smith and Avalos say state education departments have not found any cases of such discrimination, nor have the sponsors of these bills provided examples. A 2005 survey conducted by the National Science Teachers Association found that many teachers reported “significant community pressure to downplay or attack evolution.”

Demastes, Smith and Avalos say support for HF 183 comes from “mostly conservative religious groups,” such as the Iowa Christian Alliance, and not from “legitimate scientific or educational organizations,” such as the Iowa State Education Association and the Iowa Department of Education, which oppose HF 183.

Norman Pawlewski, representing the Christian Alliance and one of two state lobbyists registered in favor of HF 183, said, “Why shouldn’t teachers and students be able to decide among all the science-related information? God created science, after all.”

Clark Wolf, ISU director of bioethics, said it’s important to note that people on both sides of the issue want academic freedom. The key is determining “what is legitimate science,” he said. Educators have a responsibility protect the rights of all students, Wolf said, and it’s nearly impossible to teach intelligent design creationism outside a religious framework.

The Pennsylvania courts set a precedent when they concluded that intelligent design creationism is not science in the 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Wolf said.

“The court said teachers who present intelligent design creationism as if it were science are not simply doing their students a disservice,” Wolf said. “They are violating their rights.”

Michael Clough, ISU associate professor of science education in the department of curriculum and instruction, said there are no “rival theories” that stand up to the evidence for evolution. He calls HF 183 “unfortunate and misguided,” especially at a time when science education is increasingly important for solving issues of energy, climate and participating in the global information-age economy.

Clough said he believes evolution theory does not promote atheism and that there is “no conflict between science and religion.”

“It’s science’s job to look for natural explanations,” Clough said, and that science can’t make claims about a supernatural being.

Right, it's science's job to look for natural explanations, not material explanations. End of case.

HF 183 states that college and high school teachers “often suffer discrimination or punishment for questioning evolution.”

But Demastes, Smith and Avalos say state education departments have not found any cases of such discrimination, nor have the sponsors of these bills provided examples. A 2005 survey conducted by the National Science Teachers Association found that many teachers reported “significant community pressure to downplay or attack evolution.”

Intelligent design speaker Behe draws packed house at UNCW
(By Amanda Greene, Wilmington Star-News, February 26, 2009)

“All of you attending this lecture tonight have just demonstrated the Darwinian principle of survival of the swiftest,” said Donald Furst, professor of art at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

He was speaking to a packed crowd of about 300 who attended the Thursday night lecture “Answering Objections to the Argument for Intelligent Design in Biology” at UNCW by Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe.

About 30 people who could not find seats in the hall were turned away.

Furst invited Behe to speak at the university as his guest and as a counter-voice to other evolution speakers at the university this year as part of the university’s celebration of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Behe, internationally recognized for his research about intelligent design or the belief that some parts of life are purposefully arranged by some intelligent source, is the author of “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.”

That book asserted his theory of irreducible complexity, where, “you’ve got some machine or system that is composed of different parts that work together to perform some function,” he said, “and if you’re missing some of the parts it doesn’t work anymore.”

An example?

Consider the mouse trap, he said. Without the spring, hammer, catch or holding bar, the mouse trap won’t work. The trap had to have an intelligent cause.

In the natural world, Behe gives the examples of bacterial flagellum and the cell. He says that because the flagellum and cell are complex minute biological machines, they couldn’t have evolved on their own through gradual change over millions of years with natural selection.

In short, Behe says much of life is too complex to be explained by random mutations.

Though Behe believes in evolution, he doesn’t believe natural selection is a satisfactory explanation of how species change. But the process of how intelligent design happens is also still unknown, he said.

Furst invited Behe as a guest speaker because he believed Behe would bring diversity of thought to evolution discussions on campus.

“I can see no better way to foster critical thinking than to examine a controversial topic, than to bring in major advocates of opposing views,” he said.

Behe has many objectors in the scientific community to his opinions including Kenneth Miller and Eugenie Scott, two previous UNCW speakers.

After the lecture, an audience member asked, “Where are the testable predictions in intelligent design that we would expect in science?”

“I don’t have a mechanism to substitute for the Darwinian mechanism, that’s true. But the same was true for Newton or the Big Bang Theory,” Behe answered. “I don’t think you need a mechanism all the time in science.”

Behe testified along with some of his detractors on their respective sides during the 2005 Dover, Pa., court decision that rejected teaching intelligent design in biology classes in the school system there. To illustrate the objections to his theories, Behe showed the judge’s written opinion from the trial and pointed out that the judge had used phrases from the lawyer for the plaintiff’s briefs in his ruling.

“It wasn’t the judge’s opinion. He showed no independent thought,” Behe added. “If you want to understand this (the debate about evolution), you can’t rely on somebody else, you’ve got to look at it yourself and come to your own conclusion.”

Behe, internationally recognized for his research about intelligent design or the belief that some parts of life are purposefully arranged by some intelligent source,