http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/55596/

Teach the controversy about evolution
CHUCK WARNER
Sunday, January 16, 2005


What is intelligent design? Are our kids being taught to think? Do
schools want to give a good education?

The York Daily Record definition says, "ID holds that all living
organisms are so complex that they must have been created by an
unspecified divine being."

Educated experts from http://www.discovery.org say ID is, "The
scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain
features of the universe and of living things are best explained
by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural
selection. Note: Intelligent design theory does not claim that
science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor
does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a 'divine being'
or a 'higher power' or an 'all-powerful force.' All it proposes is
that science can identify whether certain features of the natural
world are the products of intelligence."

An article titled "Students should learn to assess competing
theories," by Steve Meyer, Ph.D., and John Campbell, professor at
the University of Memphis, says, "A good education presents
students with competing perspectives held by credible experts, and
offers them the skills to judge these views themselves." And
"teachers should describe differing views to students and explain
the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief
proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy." This makes
perfect sense to me; that is if we want to teach the kids to
think.

In the same article, they refuted the theory of evolution, saying,
"More than 330 scientists, including professors from institutions
such as M.I.T, Yale and Rice universities, along with the
Smithsonian Institution, have signed a statement authored by the
Discovery Institute in Seattle that questions the creative power
of the selection/mutation mechanism."

The article also said, "Teachers should also be free to tell their
students about alternative new theories such as Behe's design
theory, provided these theories are based (as Behe's is) upon
scientific evidence, not biblical passages." Behe is a professor
of biochemistry at Lehigh University,
http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm. Behe is also the author of
"Darwin's Black Box."

Meyer and Campbell went on to say, "There are many reasons to
adopt this 'teach the controversy approach. First, constitutional
law permits it. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that state legislatures (and by extension state boards)
already have the right to mandate teaching scientific critiques of
prevailing theories. Interestingly, the court also determined that
teachers have the right to teach students about 'a variety of
scientific theories about origins . . . with the clear secular
intent of enhancing science education.'

"Second, federal education policy calls for it. The authoritative
report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act states that
"where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as
biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to
understand the full range of views that exist."

"Third, polls show that more than 70 percent of the electorate
(both in California and nationally) favor teaching both the
evidence for and against Darwin's theory of evolution."

After reading that, I was very impressed with the Dover school
board's decision, and I had to ask myself:

1. Why are the 11 protesters and lawyers trying to derail a good
education?

2. Why don't the minority (11 parents, plus a few lawyers) want to
seek the truth?

3. If 70 percent of America is in favor of teaching both theories,
why is this such a big deal? What are they afraid of? Isn't this a
democracy?

Charles Darwin wrote, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully
stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of
each question."

In summary, 330 scientists and professors do not support
evolution. Perhaps the York College instructors are superior to
these scholars. I seriously doubt it. As far as teaching ID,
constitutional law permits it, federal education policy calls for
it, and polls show that 70 percent of U.S. citizens favor teaching
the opposing views of evolution. In York County, we have 11 people
opposing the teaching of ID; of the 11, only one of them has a
child who will be in a ninth-grade Dover biology class this year.
Talk about extreme minority.

From a scientific standpoint, it is more obvious to me than ever
that "the theory of ID is a far superior theory" and it should be
taught in the biology classroom, in public schools. If we are
fortunate enough to have school vouchers implemented, which will
create competition and will improve our schools, I will be glad to
send my kids to a school that follows the "teach the controversy"
method.

Chuck Warner lives in York Township.

---
http://lastliberal.org

I believe that all bosses and employers should be able to fire a
homosexual for being gay. However, I also believe they should be able to
fire people for the color of their skin. - Ken

If 70 percent of America is in favor of teaching both
theories, why is this such a big deal?

In the same article, they refuted the theory of evolution, saying,
“More than 330 scientists, including professors from institutions
such as M.I.T, Yale and Rice universities, along with the
Smithsonian Institution, have signed a statement authored by the
Discovery Institute in Seattle that questions the creative power
of the selection/mutation mechanism.”

Meyer and Campbell went on to say, “There are many reasons to
adopt this ‘teach the controversy approach. First, constitutional
law permits it. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that state legislatures (and by extension state boards)
already have the right to mandate teaching scientific critiques of
prevailing theories.

Interestingly, the court also determined that
teachers have the right to teach students about ‘a variety of
scientific theories about origins . . . with the clear secular
intent of enhancing science education.’

“Second, federal education policy calls for it. The authoritative
report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act states that
“where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as
biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to
understand the full range of views that exist.”

“Third, polls show that more than 70 percent of the electorate
(both in California and nationally) favor teaching both the
evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

3. If 70 percent of America is in favor of teaching both theories,
why is this such a big deal? What are they afraid of? Isn’t this a
democracy?

From a scientific standpoint, it is more obvious to me than ever
that “the theory of ID is a far superior theory”

Chuck Warner lives in York Township.

http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/55596/

Teach the controversy about evolution
CHUCK WARNER
Sunday, January 16, 2005


What is intelligent design? Are our kids being taught to think? Do
schools want to give a good education?

The York Daily Record definition says, “ID holds that all living
organisms are so complex that they must have been created by an
unspecified divine being.”

http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/55596/

Teach the controversy about evolution
CHUCK WARNER
Sunday, January 16, 2005

An article titled "Students should learn to assess competing
theories," by Steve Meyer, Ph.D., [who teaches philosophy at
Whitworth College,] and John Campbell, professor [in the Department
of Communication] at the University of Memphis

http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/55596/

Teach the controversy about evolution
CHUCK WARNER
Sunday, January 16, 2005


What is intelligent design? Are our kids being taught to think? Do
schools want to give a good education?

The York Daily Record definition says, “ID holds that all living
organisms are so complex that they must have been created by an
unspecified divine being.”

http://ydr.com/story/op-ed/55596/

Teach the controversy about evolution
CHUCK WARNER
Sunday, January 16, 2005


What is intelligent design? Are our kids being taught to think? Do
schools want to give a good education?

The York Daily Record definition says, "ID holds that all living
organisms are so complex that they must have been created by an
unspecified divine being."

Educated experts from http://www.discovery.org say ID is, "The
scientific theory of intelligent design holds that certain
features of the universe and of living things are best explained
by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural
selection. Note: Intelligent design theory does not claim that
science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor
does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a 'divine being'
or a 'higher power' or an 'all-powerful force.' All it

that science can identify whether certain features of the natural
world are the products of intelligence."

An article titled "Students should learn to assess competing
theories," by Steve Meyer, Ph.D., and John Campbell, professor at
the University of Memphis, says, "A good education presents
students with competing perspectives held by credible experts, and
offers them the skills to judge these views themselves." And
"teachers should describe differing views to students and explain
the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief
proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy." This makes
perfect sense to me; that is if we want to teach the kids to
think.

In the same article, they refuted the theory of evolution, saying,
"More than 330 scientists, including professors from institutions
such as M.I.T, Yale and Rice universities, along with the
Smithsonian Institution, have signed a statement authored by the
Discovery Institute in Seattle that questions the creative power
of the selection/mutation mechanism."

The article also said, "Teachers should also be free to tell their
students about alternative new theories such as Behe's design
theory, provided these theories are based (as Behe's is) upon
scientific evidence, not biblical passages." Behe is a professor
of biochemistry at Lehigh University,
http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm. Behe is also the author of
"Darwin's Black Box."

Meyer and Campbell went on to say, "There are many reasons to
adopt this 'teach the controversy approach. First, constitutional
law permits it. In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that state legislatures (and by extension state boards)
already have the right to mandate teaching scientific critiques of
prevailing theories. Interestingly, the court also determined that
teachers have the right to teach students about 'a variety of
scientific theories about origins . . . with the clear secular
intent of enhancing science education.'

"Second, federal education policy calls for it. The authoritative
report accompanying the No Child Left Behind Act states that
"where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as
biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to
understand the full range of views that exist."

"Third, polls show that more than 70 percent of the electorate
(both in California and nationally) favor teaching both the
evidence for and against Darwin's theory of evolution."

After reading that, I was very impressed with the Dover school
board's decision, and I had to ask myself:

1. Why are the 11 protesters and lawyers trying to derail a good
education?

2. Why don't the minority (11 parents, plus a few lawyers) want to
seek the truth?

3. If 70 percent of America is in favor of teaching both theories,
why is this such a big deal? What are they afraid of? Isn't this a
democracy?

Charles Darwin wrote, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully
stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of
each question."

In summary, 330 scientists and professors do not support
evolution. Perhaps the York College instructors are superior to
these scholars. I seriously doubt it. As far as teaching ID,
constitutional law permits it, federal education policy calls for
it, and polls show that 70 percent of U.S. citizens favor teaching
the opposing views of evolution. In York County, we have 11 people
opposing the teaching of ID; of the 11, only one of them has a
child who will be in a ninth-grade Dover biology class this year.
Talk about extreme minority.

From a scientific standpoint, it is more obvious to me than ever
that "the theory of ID is a far superior theory" and it should be
taught in the biology classroom, in public schools. If we are
fortunate enough to have school vouchers implemented, which will
create competition and will improve our schools, I will be glad to
send my kids to a school that follows the "teach the controversy"
method.

Chuck Warner lives in York Township.

---
http://lastliberal.org

I believe that all bosses and employers should be able to fire a
homosexual for being gay. However, I also believe they should be able

fire people for the color of their skin. - Ken