In Kitzmiller et al vs Dover, the issue over whether or not Darwinian Evolution could be allowed critical evaluation by students, rather than be presented as established fact, was settled once and for all. Furthermore, any consideration of an alternate theory was off the table. All across the land, scientists cheered, since at least for now, science had been saved from an ‘assault by religion’.
Just after the decision was handed down, Ohio’s State Board of Education in a 9 to 8 vote kept with their lesson plan, saying in effect, “go ahead and sue us” [Toledo Blade Op Ed 1/14/06]. Although many school districts had been considering broadening their standards to allow a more open discourse, many shelved their plans out of a fear of legal action. But molecular biologist and student book publisher Rebecca Keller was not deterred, appearing weeks later before the South Carolina State Board of Education [2/2006] proposing a change in the standards that would present evolution more critically than it had been previously. That standard was subsequently adopted by the board.
In a recent podcast on ‘Intelligent Design The Future’, Casey Luskin interviews Keller. At one time, as an undergrad student, she accepted evolutionary theory as presented. In the interview, she relates how in her work with neuroscience and cell biology, and doing mRNA transcription research with RNA polymerases utilizing electron microscopy, she began to have doubts about evolution. Given the complexity of these molecular machines, it was at that point she began to question natural selection of random mutations as the sole source of that complexity.
Her agenda today is open inquiry, not just regarding origins, but in all areas of scientific inquiry, a movement that is gathering steam. As is often the case, she was recently misquoted in the press, but allowed a correction. [see Science Classes Should Educate, Not Indoctrinate]
Does she postulate a transcendent being as the cause of our existence? Not from within science, only that science needs to continue to critically assess naturalistic evolution, and to remain open to alternate theories of molecular and phylogenetic progressions, if and where the evidence points in that direction. To do otherwise is what truly harms science. [podcast]
In another arena, a ‘Florida Citizens for Science’ blog reports progress in revising the teaching standards, although opposition is expected. Their standards site is actually soliciting input from any who would like to comment on the proposed standards [go here]