Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Teach No Controversy” (the alternative to “Teach The Controversy”)

Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[This just in from a colleague in Kansas:] We are distributing the multicolored brochure titled “Frequently Asked Questions About the New Kansas Science Standards” and explaining the message in more detail: A genuine scientific controversy over evolution clearly exists — its historical character alone guarantees that evolution contains subjective and controversial “narratives” about what happened. However, institutions in positions of authority are denying it. “There is no controversy over evolution! — anyone who would deny it is a religious fool.” They are in a bind, because any substantive discussion of the core issues shows on its face the existence of controversies over what evolution means and how random mutation and natural selection can explain the history of life and macroevolution. Hence, if they engage in the debate over these issues, then their rejoinder in the controversy will belie their denial of its existence. Hence, they are promoting the claim of “NO CONTROVERSY” via systematic misinformation and character assassination of anyone who would challenge the denial. We are distributing the memos that acknowledge the existence and implementation of that very strategy.

Its great fun to see eyes being opened. When I came home I found the following voice mail. “Hi. I Think you guys are really dumb. Ha. Ha. You are ruining America, right now, as we speak. Its that you are setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically — and pretty much every thing I can think of you are ruining. Please stop!” We get these occasionally. What interests me is that this one was delivered with genuine sincerity. The guy really believes the lie. It’s scary. I would guess this fellow is the product of brain washing — the incredible false propaganda that is being systematically issued by those in authority. We really have a big job to correct all that misinformation.

Comments
( Just a note: regarding Pasteur, his work was devastining to Darwin and Haeckel. But technically he was not a creationist, but neither was he a materialist or advocate of natural selection. It appears he was sympathetic to some form of evolution. The perception he was a creationist in the traditional sense was a piece of mis-scholarship by the (gasp) Institute of Creation Research (ICR). I only point that out so our critics don't get on our case for improperly referencing Pasteur. )scordova
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
"The questions I would like to ask anti-IDists and anti-Creationists:" 1) Yes, in the 18th century. 2) To quote Pasteur himself: "Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely. " 3-4) There's no reason why creationists can't do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions. "It seems to me that the “controversy” is all about what is and isn’t science and who has the right to decide." Science is what it is because it works, most scientists accept that ID could one day be a science but you have to prove that it is more useful than other theories for making predicitons. "It should also be stressed that even the anti-ID side requires something outside of nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot be used to account for nature’s origins." My view about the origin of nature is similar to my view on the origin of life which is that we don't have enough information to reach an informed conclusion.Chris Hyland
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
For the record, Kansas Citizens for Science has a brochure entitled Some Facts about the Standards that explains things from a different viewpoint that the IDnet's brochure. See http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?p=120Jack Krebs
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Off topic, but an interesting read - Darwinian Art: http://www.theage.com.au/news/arts/peacocks-tail-fans-our-flames/2006/06/21/1150845231655.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1antg
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
The questions I would like to ask anti-IDists and anti-Creationists: 1) When Karl von Linne gave us binomial nomenclature when he was trying to figure out what were the originally Created Kinds. Was he conducting science? 2) Pasteur was a Creationist and anti-Darwinist. Was he conducting science when he developed the germ theory of disease? 3) Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist to grace this planet, was also a Creationist. Did he help us to better understand what we observed? 4) Copernicus & Galileo- two more Creationists- perhaps the Sun isn't the center of our solar system. 5) Then we have Max Planck. He gave us the following, based on years of scientific research, during his Nobel acceptance speech:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
It seems to me that the "controversy" is all about what is and isn't science and who has the right to decide. The other "controversy" is if the US Courts can decide what is and isn't science based on the interpretation of the US Constitution. If that isn't the stupidest thing I have heard of it surely ranks right up there. On another note: Perhaps IDists should make it clear that ID extends beyond biology (ie "evolutionism") as evidenced by "The Privileged Planet". That does seem to be an anti-ID sticking point- "Why does ID only pick on evolution(ism)?" I say it doesn't but that we had to start somewhere and life seems like as good of a starting point as any. We should also make it clearer that the debate has nothing to do with "supernatural" vs "natural" as both intelligence and design are natural processes. It should also be stressed that even the anti-ID side requires something outside of nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefore cannot be used to account for nature's origins. And THAT is why the debate is about unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non=goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, guided (goal oriented) processes. And if the establishment clause is brought upjust tell them as Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard, “(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’.” As for science and religion, perhaps our Courts should heed Albert Einstein:"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." I should also note that the anti-IDists could shut us down just by substantiating their claims. The fact that they shy away from the proposed bacterial flagellum experiment just further exposes their intellectual cowardice. That Judge Jones tried to tell IDists that it is their experiment to do just further exposes the sheer stupidity of those condemning ID.Joseph
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT
The below line is perfect proof of the brain washing... " Its that you are setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically" So they have now added "philosophically, morally, and ethically" to the mix of fields that Neo-darwinism had/has elevated to dizzy heights.. & seems like they truly wish to be given the chance to exceed the Fuhrer's saintly role in the world with the efforts of Prof.Pianka's Ebola virus...SatyaMevaJayate
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
I've blogged about this brochure before. It looks really good and seems very reasonable to me. All this "there is no controversy" nonsense is just a facade to cover up a religious ideology--one that is trivially easy to demolish with just a few well-placed questions. I think that's why they're so defensive.crandaddy
June 25, 2006
June
06
Jun
25
25
2006
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Here's the illustrated version: http://www.kansasscience2005.com/FAQ_Kansas_Science_Standards.pdfruss
June 25, 2006
June
06
Jun
25
25
2006
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
I assume this is the FAQ sheet in question? http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Kansas_Science_Standards%20FAQ.pdfruss
June 25, 2006
June
06
Jun
25
25
2006
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
For something that doesn't exist, they sure have a lot to say about it.Gods iPod
June 25, 2006
June
06
Jun
25
25
2006
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply