A chance to be a pro-science activist!

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, the
DebunkCreation 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.htmland here:York Daily RecordI'm writing to let you know that the donation is now under "review" by
the 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, Richard
Nilsen, and Board President, Sheila Harkins, about the "review
process" for the donation:---------------------Dear Mr Nilsen:Our UPS records indicate that our recent donation
of 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 decision
as 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 sole
interest 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 of
the 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 and
informative.Lenny Flank, List Owner
DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com-----------------------Dear Ms Harkins:Hello.I am the founder of the DebunkCreation email list at yahoogroups
which recently donated 23 science books to the Dover Senior High
School Library.In a recent York Dispatch article about the donation, I found this
statement:"Board president Sheila Harkins said the board's curriculum
committee will review this donation the same as it did the "Pandas"
donation."This doesn't sound quite right to me . . . . "Pandas" was donated
specifically 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 being
followed by the board, in referring our donation to the curriculum
committee?I am also a little bit mystified by a statement attributed to you in
the 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 Owner
DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com--------------------And here is the letter I just sent today, in response to statements in
the latest news article:------------------Dear Ms Harkins:I am the founder of the DebunkCreation email list which recently
donated 23 science books to the Dover Senior High Library.Statements attributed to you in a recent York Daily Record article
have 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 a
donated 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 smartest
anywhere and that "educational appropriateness" has nothing to do
with student comprehension."I am a little confused; first you say you want to review the books
to 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 mind
clarifying 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 determine
their "educational appropriateness" and to make sure they're
scientifically accurate.""Scientifically accurate"? These books were written by some of the
best 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 explanation
from 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 that
you 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 permission
to 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 more
public 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 these
questions, would also be useful. Contact:York Daily Record:
http://ydr.com/forms/letters.php?PHPSESSID=ab97e239104f45...York Dispatch:
bparkinson@yorkdispatch.comAnd if anyone gets any responses (I don't think anyone will, though)
I'd appreciate if they get forwarded to me at lflank@ij.netThanks.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

"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.

quote:

---

People protest ID in schools, that's funny. Why eliminate it because of disagreement?

---

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

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.

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.

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.

Even if I overshoot the mark with that analogy, evolution vs. intelligent design is still much more debatable than the existence of the Holocaust. Even if intelligent design does not have as much evidence, would that be enough to justify outright exclusion? 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 If you cover evolution more, you reduce the breadth covered on a different theory.

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

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. 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. 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.

Rather than clutter this thread further let me take this to an existing or new ID thread. Give me a bit of time.

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.

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 ?

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?

NosyNed is moving that part of the discussion to a new topic, so hold off your replies until then.