|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A chance to be a pro-science activist! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I just got this in my e-mail.
I think it should go into the Science and Education forum. I know it is long, but wow, I think all the info is important. As those of you following the Dover ID fight may already know, theDebunkCreation email list at Yahoogroups.com recently donated 23 science books to the Dover High School Library to counter the school board's decision to teach ID in its school. Press reports on the donation are here: http://www.yorkdispatch.com/...413,138~10021~2751044,00.html and here: York Daily Record I'm writing to let you know that the donation is now under "review" bythe school board, that this "review" seems to be nothing but a kangaroo court, and that we need help from all anti-ID activists in focusing public attention and criticism on the board's actions concerning this donation. Here is the list of books we donated: -----------------------Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan Pale Blue Dot, by Carl Sagan Flim-Flam!, by James Randi The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins Thread of Life; The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution, by Roger Lewin What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr This is Biology; The Science of the Living World, by Ernst Mayr The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins Climbing Mt Improbable, by Richard Dawkins The Panda's Thumb, by Stephen Jay Gould The Pattern of Evolution, by Niles Eldredge Black Holes and Time Warps; Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, by Kip Thorne Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, by Robert Pennock Tower of Babel; The Evidence Against the New Creationism, by Robert Pennock Evolution; The Triumph of an Idea, by Carl Zimmer Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth R Miller Galileo's Finger, by Peter Atkins Genome, by Matt Ridley Evolution, by Mark Ridley Wandering Lands and Animals; The Story of Continental Drift and Animal Populations, by Edwin H Colbert The Antiquity of Man; by Michael Brass ------------------------- And here are letters I recently sent to the Superintendant, RichardNilsen, and Board President, Sheila Harkins, about the "review process" for the donation: --------------------- Dear Mr Nilsen: Our UPS records indicate that our recent donationof 23 science books for the High School Library was recieved and signed for by a member of the staff at 10:26 am on Monday, March 7. We are happy that our donation has arrived safe and sound. Recent press information suggests that the decisionas to accepting the donation will be made by either the School Board or by the School Superintendant. We would like to inquire as to the time frame within which we can expect this decision to be made, and also what opportunity will be presented for any public input from the community about this decision. Since the school district has made clear that its soleinterest is in teaching ALL sides of the controversy, and not in advancing or favoring any particular viewpoint, I am quite sure that you will agree with us that students should be given access to information on the ENTIRE controversy, including information conerning not only evolutionary biology and other areas of science, but information on the large number of scientific, legal, political, and other criticisms of intelligent design theory and its aims and motives. We are therefore very happy to have the opportunity to help you provide this sort of information to your students, and, in light of recent financial difficulties faced by the library, we are especially glad that we are able to do this without incurring any cost whatsoever to the district. The books we have donated were written by some ofthe best scientists and science writers of modern times, and many of these books have spent time on the best-seller lists. All have been the subject of praise and recommendation from literary reviewers as well as scientists and educators. We hope your students will find them useful andinformative. Lenny Flank, List OwnerDebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com ----------------------- Dear Ms Harkins: Hello. I am the founder of the DebunkCreation email list at yahoogroupswhich recently donated 23 science books to the Dover Senior High School Library. In a recent York Dispatch article about the donation, I found thisstatement: "Board president Sheila Harkins said the board's curriculumcommittee will review this donation the same as it did the "Pandas" donation." This doesn't sound quite right to me . . . . "Pandas" was donatedspecifically to be used as a "supplemental text" in the CLASSROOM, and they specifically did not WANT it to be in the library. Our books, by contrast, were donated to the LIBRARY, and are NOT intended for classroom use or as any sort of "supplemental text" for the curriculum. My understanding is that the school board does not have to approve materials donated to the LIBRARY, particularly if they do not involve any district funds, and former board members have confirmed to me that they cannot find any board policies or procedures that would require approval from the board or the curriculum committee for a donation made to the school library. Can you please point out which specific board policy is beingfollowed by the board, in referring our donation to the curriculum committee? I am also a little bit mystified by a statement attributed to you inthe Dispatch article, to the effect that the books we donated may be "too academically advanced" for students. I would like to point out that these are not textbooks; they are popular works written specifically for a general public audience of non-scientists, and most of these books spent several months on the NY Times best-seller list. I am of course quite sure that you are NOT suggesting that students at Dover Senior High School do not have the education level or reading skills necessary to read and understand some of the best- selling books written in the past ten years, by some of the best science writers in the world, including Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould. I look forward to clarification from you regarding these questions. Thanks. :> Lenny Flank, List OwnerDebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com -------------------- And here is the letter I just sent today, in response to statements inthe latest news article: ------------------ Dear Ms Harkins: I am the founder of the DebunkCreation email list which recentlydonated 23 science books to the Dover Senior High Library. Statements attributed to you in a recent York Daily Record articlehave not answered any of the questions I have asked you previously regarding our donation, and have indeed raised some new questions I would like to ask. In the Daily Record article, you are quoted as saying: "But Harkins said Friday she would never challenge adonated book based on whether she thought it was too difficult for students. "What I said was that I want to ensure that the books are academically appropriate," Harkins said." However, In an earlier York Dispatch article regarding the donation,you are quoted as saying, "She said the committee doesn't have set criteria that it looks for acceptable books, but it will make sure they are not "advanced academically beyond anyone's comprehension." It certainly sounds to ME as if "beyond anyone's comprehension"refers directly to "too difficult for students". The Daily Record article then goes on to quote Mr Nilsen as saying: "Nilsen and Harkins said Dover students are among the smartestanywhere and that "educational appropriateness" has nothing to do with student comprehension." I am a little confused; first you say you want to review the booksto make sure they are not "academically advanced beyond anyone's comprehension"; NOW you are saying that your review "has nothing to do with student comprehension". . . . . . You would seem to be directly contradicting yourself. Would you mindclarifying this for me, please? What exactly ARE the criteria under which the books will be "reviewed"? They seem to be changing from week to week. I also note with curiosity this statement: "Nilsen said Friday that the books had to be reviewed to determinetheir "educational appropriateness" and to make sure they're scientifically accurate." "Scientifically accurate"? These books were written by some of thebest scientists in the world. Is the board seriously suggesting that science works by such people as Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould are NOT "scientifically accurate? Who do you plan to ask to review the books for "scientific accuracy"? The Thomas More Law Center? I am also concerned because I have STILL not received any explanationfrom you about who exactly will be "reviewing" the donation. Despite requests, I have STILL not received any explanation from you as to why the curriculum committee needs to be involved in a library donation, and I STILL have not received any reference to which board policies or procedures you are following regarding this donation. Quite frankly, the impression I have gotten from you so far is thatyou simply don't like the books we have donated because they directly challenge your pet ID "theory", that you want your pet ID "theory" to be protected from criticism, that you are not at all interested in teaching ALL SIDES of the "controversy", and that you are simply fishing around for a half-convincing reason to reject the donated books. I hope that impression is wrong. I am cc'ing this letter to the press, and give them full permissionto quote any or all of it in any articles they do. Lenny Flank, List Owner,DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com ---------------------------- Everyone, please feel entirely free to post this anywhere you want----- talk.origins, blogs, email lists, anywhere and everywhere. We want the word to spread far and wide. It was, of course, our expectation (and intention) from the beginning that the Board would reject our donation --- which we are sure the judge in the case will find of interest as the lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center argue to him that they are only interested in "presenting all sides of the scientific controversy" . . . . . .Every time the Board Prez has opened her mouth in public, she has helped our side and hurt her side. So we want to put as much pressure on her as we can and provoke her into as many public statements as possible. I therefore encourage anyone and everyone to write to her (shark@dover.k12.pa.us) and ask her such things as (1) why the criteria for the donation keeps changing from week to week, (2) why she can't or won't cite any written board procedures for evaluating the donation, (3) why she would think that a bunch of science books would not be "academically appropriate", or (4) why she would think that books written by some of the best scientists and science writers in the world would be "scientifically inaccurate". We also want the press to cover more of this (it creates even morepublic pressure), so it would be helpful if people would also cc their emails to the reporters from the York Daily Record (joe.reporter@verizon.net and llebo@ydr.com) and the York Dispatch (ckauffmanc@aol.com). Some letters to the editor for both newspapers, raising thesequestions, would also be useful. Contact: York Daily Record:http://ydr.com/forms/letters.php?PHPSESSID=ab97e239104f45... York Dispatch:bparkinson@yorkdispatch.com And if anyone gets any responses (I don't think anyone will, though)I'd appreciate if they get forwarded to me at lflank@ij.net Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
"Debunk Creation", What Creation?
I don't know a kid in my school who has ever questioned Evolution, or even thought about it as more or less then truth. People protest ID in schools, that's funny. Why eliminate it because of disagreement? I don't see a reason why it would harm the student body. Rather open new ways of thinking. As long as it isn't one-sided. This message has been edited by prophex, 03-20-2005 08:00 PM Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: People protest the teaching that the holocaust never happened in schools, that's funny. Why eliminate it because of disagreement? Remember, there has never been anything wrong with teaching about the Holocaust revisionists. In fact, I think it would be crucial to understanding the aftermath of the event to include the phenomena. What the ID folks have done is the equivalent of the Dover school board requiring their history teachers to teach the notion that the Holocaust never happend as a valid alternate view of the historical evidence. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-20-2005 09:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Taking a step further from where schraf stated, we could also begin teaching the flat earth "theory" as an alternative to the somewhat spherical earth fact. We could also teach the fake moon landing conspiracy theory as an alternative historical explanation for the apollo program.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
That's a very loaded analogy you're running there. The existence of an intelligent being is much more debatable than whether or not the Holocaust happened. A much more appropiate analogy is whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. There are many theories as to what caused the Civil War. And there are many theories over the origins of life: evolution, intelligent design, and some others like the Gaian theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The existence of an intelligent being is much more debatable than whether or not the Holocaust happened. I don't see that put perhaps it is. What it is not like is your analogy. The civil war origin question may not have enough evidence to select very well between different ideas. That is, there may be no leading candidate based on the now available evidence. That would suggest presenting the whole package for review. In the case of the debate between evolution through neo-Darwinian mechanisms and evolution through the same mechanisms with the occasional intervention by another unidentified force there is not the same level of compariable evidence. As for Gaian theory I don't see that as an alternative at all. It is simply a different view of the wider environment in which evolution is playing out. It is perhaps, but only speculatively, another selective pressure on all living things. When only one theory exists as a well developed theory with evidence for it and ongoing work and other ideas are speculation founded on little or no evidence and those other ideas have had their weaknesses clearly pointed out without adequate reply then only the one theory should be taught in a context of limited time and resources. It may well be that on advanced study one might wish to understand the history of the various ideas and what is being said. It is hard to find the time for that in a high school curriculum. Compared to the breadth of the subject evolution itself is barely being taught. Cerainly that should be beefed up before going off into speculations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
The civil war origin question may not have enough evidence to select very well between different ideas. That is, there may be no leading candidate based on the now available evidence. That would suggest presenting the whole package for review.
Even if I overshoot the mark with that analogy, evolution vs. intelligent design is still much more debatable than the existence of the Holocaust.
In the case of the debate between evolution through neo-Darwinian mechanisms and evolution through the same mechanisms with the occasional intervention by another unidentified force there is not the same level of compariable evidence.
Even if intelligent design does not have as much evidence, would that be enough to justify outright exclusion?
When only one theory exists as a well developed theory with evidence for it and ongoing work and other ideas are speculation founded on little or no evidence and those other ideas have had their weaknesses clearly pointed out without adequate reply then only the one theory should be taught in a context of limited time and resources.
The Center for Science and Culture reports that "Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia." Intelligent design has its followers, too, and intellectual ones at that, too. For all of the work people like these have put into intelligent design, you want to totally exclude it from the curriculum.Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture Compared to the breadth of the subject evolution itself is barely being taught.
If you cover evolution more, you reduce the breadth covered on a different theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Even if intelligent design does not have as much evidence, would that be enough to justify outright exclusion? What we teach when depends on the time and resources available. I presume we are talking about the high school level where resources are restricted indeed. I will continue to talk about it in that context. As another bit of context setting I presume we are agreeing that it is necessary to teach that evolution has occured and some details of that. This is, as I understand it, agreed to by the ID proponents. I think that some subset of the ID proponents also agree that much of that evolution can be well accounted for by neo-Darwinian mechanisms. It seems that would also be taught then. I'm not aware of any ID proponents who don't implicitely agree with this but I have not read all that much of it. That leaves the individual cases that ID proponents are speculating about. I am not aware of the more recent cases they wish to use now that the earlier set of them have been refuted. The problem is that there appears to be no evidence for ID. Even if there was some it is swamped by the totality of evidence for Darwinian evolution and with limited resources that is what you'd be left to teach as a background for any other teaching. As for the list of scientists who support ID I would not comment until I had seen their reasons: the evidence and the logic applied. I have read some of Dembski's material (IIRC) and the work of his that I did read was deeply flawed and I have yet to read any work improving on that. Perhaps you know of something. As a side note. Any further discussion of this should probably be taken to an ID thread. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-22-2005 09:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
What we teach when depends on the time and resources available. I presume we are talking about the high school level where resources are restricted indeed. I will continue to talk about it in that context.
Unfortunately, you can't see scarcity here both ways. This scarcity exists for both evolution and intelligent design. Reducing scarcity for one theory increases scarcity for another theory.
As another bit of context setting I presume we are agreeing that it is necessary to teach that evolution has occured and some details of that. This is, as I understand it, agreed to by the ID proponents.
I don't know how exactly you're planning to run this, but it does seem to be viewing evolution as a "sacred dogma." The Center for Science and Culture wants to stop that view and so do I.
That leaves the individual cases that ID proponents are speculating about. I am not aware of the more recent cases they wish to use now that the earlier set of them have been refuted.
Not quite. Intelligent design directly contrasts the most prevalent form of evolution, neo-Darwinism. I'll quote the Center for Science and Culture again on this one. "However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that 'has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.' (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges." Therefore, your process of eliminiation doesn't work here. And even if you want to bring up the other forms of evolution that could be compatible with intelligent design, these forms would not have nearly as much evidence behind them, thus diminishing your "evidence overload" argument. Which means that resources for school have to be allocated to one theory or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Rather than clutter this thread further let me take this to an existing or new ID thread. Give me a bit of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
There seems to be an inherent contradiction here. In your first letter, you say, "Since the school district has made clear that its sole interest is in teaching ALL sides of the controversy, and not in advancing or favoring any particular viewpoint," and your signature includes "DebunkCreation". Also, you explicitly said your motive for this donation was to counter the board's descision to teach ID. Perhaps that will give you a clue as to why the donation is under review.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Why would "teaching all sides of an issue" preclude accepting books on mainstream science, regardless of the motive for donating them ?
Why would there need to be a review before accepting these particular books for a school library when it is not a normal procedure for such donations ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For all of the work people like these have put into intelligent design, you want to totally exclude it from the curriculum. As soon as they actually have a theory, I'm sure there'd be much interest in discussing it in science classrooms. But as it stands, the discussion is more like this: 1) Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed empirical research and development on evolutionary models and findings, constituting a body of data 200 years old and contributed to by tens of thousands of researchers at every level of the biological sciences; vs. 2) A couple of books that some guys wrote. My wife is hard at work this week employing the theory of evolution to develop a phylogeny, through genetics, of a cryptically morphological family of common agricultural pests. If you or Behe or whoever could explain to her how ID could make a more accurate model or suggest a line of inquiry that could circumvent the laborious process of comparing inhereted homologous errors, I'm sure she'd be glad to hear it. But maybe until ID constitutes a little more than some misleading statistics and a few self-published books, it doesn't quite merit inclusion in science instruction, where we teach that which represents the mainstream and not the fringe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
NosyNed is moving that part of the discussion to a new topic, so hold off your replies until then.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024