Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design

[Joe Sick]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061

Book thrown at proponents of Intelligent Design

* 13:01 06 October 2005

* NewScientist.com news service

* Celeste Biever

"Devastating" early drafts of a controversial book recommended as reading at a US high school reveal how the word “creationism” had been later swapped for “intelligent design”, a landmark US trial scrutinising the teaching of ID heard on Wednesday.

The early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, was used as evidence to link the book to creationism, which it is illegal to teach in US schools.

“ID proponents have said for years that they are not creationists,” says Nick Matzke of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising 11 parents who are suing the school board of Dover High School in Pennsylvania for incorporating ID into the science curriculum. “This proves beyond a doubt that this is simply a new name for creationism.”

ID proposes that life is so complex that it cannot have emerged without the guidance of an intelligent designer. The school’s board voted in November 2004 to encourage students to consider ID as an alternative to evolution and recommended Of Pandas and People.

The parents claim this is a veiled attempt to bring creationism into the school. They are suing on the grounds that it has been ruled unconstitutional to teach anything in US schools that does not have a primarily secular motive and effect on pupils.

Trojan horse

The early versions of the book were displayed to the court by expert witness for the plaintiffs and creationist historian Barbara Forrest of the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. She suggested that they were strong proof that ID is indeed creationism by another name.

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.

“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Evolving drafts

Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.

His comments infuriated John West, of the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that supports ID, but which has declined to testify on behalf of the defence in the trial.

West says that Forrest, author of a book called Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design has used the drafts selectively and “cherry picked” the pages shown.

Attempts to discredit Forrest as a witness, by the defence lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center, in Ann Arbor, Michigan were not upheld by the judge.

Misconstrued creationism

West says that Of Pandas and People, while supporting ID, does not promote religion but rather leaves open the question of whether an intelligent designer lies within nature, or outside it. But he admits that the book states: "This is not a question that science can answer."

He says that while the timing of the changes in the drafts may not be a coincidence, this does not mean Of Pandas and People is a religious book. “If they did drop out the term creationism, [it is] because people may have misconstrued it,” he says.

Forrest will continue to be cross-examined by the defence's attorneys on Thursday. A full report on the trial at its completion will appear in New Scientist print edition.

[chomerics]

Gotta love the pun in the title

[dreamingwolf]

vouchers solve it all

[jrockster21]

****ing Christ....these people need to just give it up and send their kid to Catholic school if they want them to learn that crap. Keep that **** out of my public schools!

[dreamingwolf]

****ing Christ....these people need to just give it up and send their kid to Catholic school if they want them to learn that crap. Keep that **** out of my public schools!

the rub is there are other people who say the same thing about public schools. I say scrap it all. Focus on teaching them how to count correctly, how to read, geography, and how to speak english. Beyond that make it elective. History, science, and all the other crap should be elective.

[chomerics]

the rub is there are other people who say the same thing about public schools. I say scrap it all. Focus on teaching them how to count correctly, how to read, geography, and how to speak english. Beyond that make it elective. History, science, and all the other crap should be elective.

No, History, science and everything else should NOT be an elective. I guess you would want it that way though. You see, if a population has no idea on how the real world works, believing in a faith is that much easier. Education is VITAL to our growth and leadership in the free world. Just because you don't believe in people having an education, or should I say an education which describes the laws of nature, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I have a feeling if the Cristian Right gets their way, school would be replaced with Bible study, Phys. Ed. would consist of dressing up as an alter boy and trying to aviod getting groped by the teacher/priest, and lunch would consist of community wafers. . . Not what I want my public education to become.

The solution is easy, if you want to teach creationism/intellegent design etc. then go to private schools. . . but then again, that's what the vouchers are all about as well. Giving the ultra wealthy federal money so they can send their kids to private schools :doh:

[codeorama]

the rub is there are other people who say the same thing about public schools. I say scrap it all. Focus on teaching them how to count correctly, how to read, geography, and how to speak english. Beyond that make it elective. History, science, and all the other crap should be elective.

Exactly, that makes sense...

I do think that basic science and history should be included, but allow students to choose what they want to focus on via electives.

[Underwater Ally]

I say scrap it all. Focus on teaching them how to count correctly, how to read, geography, and how to speak english.

Thats cultural imperialism.

:laugh:

[chomerics]

Exactly, that makes sense...

I do think that basic science and history should be included, but allow students to choose what they want to focus on via electives.

Code, high schools do that now. I don't know what the laws are in other states, but in Mass, you have the oppertunity to chose electives outside of normal class schedules, English, Mathematics, History and Science. There are 7 periods and you have 2 electives per semester ie. Shop & Phys ed.

[Destino]

I think less electives are needed and more economics and personal finance. I think a religious history course is also extremely relevent to understanding current and learning history without discussing religion is like learning to drive in a car without wheels.

[codeorama]

Code, high schools do that now. I don't know what the laws are in other states, but in Mass, you have the oppertunity to chose electives outside of normal class schedules, English, Mathematics, History and Science. There are 7 periods and you have 2 electives per semester ie. Shop & Phys ed.

That's how it is in my district as well, I'm just reinforcing that IMO, that's the way it should be.

You have to take the first level of biology or chemistry, and an entry level history, but beyond that, it's your choice.

[Underwater Ally]

No, History, science and everything else should NOT be an elective.

I definitely agree with you on this point. The problem is the complex nature of both of these subjects, which is only complicated by the fact that younger generations are increasingly illiterate in these areas, particularly history. With science, there are the basics which nearly everyone can agree on - chemistry, biology, physics - but when it comes to applying those things, like with the origins of life, or theories about the universe, thats where things get murkey and there is a lot of debate between scientists over theories on how things came to be, and where they are going. History is a bit different in the sense that there is just so much, even on a simple factual level, that the only way to teach it on a middleschool and highschool level is to exclude a great deal of information. The debate then becomes, what should be excluded and what should be emphasised. Who's history will we teach, and who's history will we choose to overlook? Because of the nature of these subjects, there will probably never be a difficulty free way to teach them, and in fact, it is certainly easier to teach history, and perhaps even more advanced science if you are teaching it from a particular bias, because that automatically provides guidence to what should be emphasised and what should be excluded.

That said, my economic history professor made an interesting statement the other day that applies. He said that the American University system is the best in the world because the professors that are teaching are themselves researchers. They aren't just teaching facts from a book, but they are discussing current research and the latest theories and debates that they themselves are involved in. So because of that, I really see no problems with intelligent design being presented in classrooms. Does that mean they need to spend a great deal of time trying to prove the theory true? No, that would be far too complex, just as the genetic processes of evolutionary theory are far too complex for even a high school level. Are many proponents of ID creationists? Sure. But so what? What does that have to do with the idea itself? I fail to see how the discussion of various theories in the classroom is detrimental to education.