Here are excerpts from another participant in the Kansas school board decision
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Bill%20H.%205-11-99%20rem.htm
Remarks of William S. Harris, Ph.D.
Delivered at the Kansas State Board of Education Public Forum, May 11,
1999
My name is Bill Harris. I received my PhD from the Univ of Minnesota and
did my dissertation research at the Mayo Clinic. I spent 11 years at KU
Medical Center in the Department of Internal Medicine, and am currently
a full professor at the UMKC School of Medicine, the first recipient of
an endowed chair in metabolism and vascular biology. I have published
over 80 scientific articles over the last 20 years, and currently do
full-time research funded by the National Institutes of Health and the
American Heart Association. With that personal background, let me
address 5 questions pertinent to the issue of how theories of origin
ought to be taught.
1. Do students need to believe in ANY theory of origins be successful in
science and medicine? No. Origins theories have almost nothing to do
with the daily grind of science. The notion that kids who don't believe
in evolution will, in some way, be handicapped and non-competitive is
absolutely false.
2. Do students need to understand the basic principles of the theory of
evolution to be successful in science and medicine? Yes. This teaching
should be part of modern science education because it is so widely
believed to be an established fact.
3. Would embracing a design-based theory of origins mandate major
changes in the curriculum for science PhDs or medical students? Not at
all. The basic coursework required for life sciences: anatomy,
physiology, biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, microbiology, etc.
would not change. Biochemistry is the discipline most intimately tied to
Darwinian evolution, nevertheless, in a survey of 33 Biochemistry texts
published between 1970 and 1995, index entries referring to evolution
accounted for less than 0.1% of entries. In other words, we could live
without it. Modern life sciences seek to describe nature AS IT IS; there
is little need to guess at how it WAS or how it came to be. Origins
theories are fun to think about and provocative to discuss, but they do
not affect the work of the vast majority of scientists.
4. Can a design-based theory of origins be taught without invoking
religion? Absolutely. The conclusion that something was designed can be
reached without concluding anything about how or when it was designed,
or who the designer was. These are completely separate questions.
(snip)
When plausible theories are pre-defined as off limits
because they are politically or religiously unacceptable, we have left
the realm of science and returned to 1632, when Galileo was punished by
the established order for proposing disallowed ideas. In my opinion, we
must train students in the 21st century to do exactly as Galileo did ·
think outside of the box.
5. Darwinian evolution or Biblical creationism? Are there only 2
options? No.
The lines have been clearly drawn. We either teach that Darwinian
evolution is true (with a capital T) and that there is no other possible
way in which life could have arisen on planet Earth, OR we teach that
the Judeo-Christian God created all life in 6 days about 6,000 years
ago. Neither of these perspectives can be proven to be true by the
scientific method because both occurred in the distant past. The lack of
a middle ground has made compromise elusive.
So what should we teach? I would propose that our goal should be to
maximize freedom of thought. We should teach that there are two common
theories to explain the origins of life. One holds that life arose from
simple chemical compounds programmed by their very atomic structure to
develop into molecules, then into macromolecular complexes, simple life
forms, and finally complex plants and animals. This is one theory, and
there are data to support, but not prove, it. There is another theory
that proposes that a designer created the basic life forms. Many of
these have not survived to the present, and those that have, have
changed in relatively minor ways to adapt to differing environments.
Like the first theory, this one has some scientific support and also is
ultimately unprovable. Introducing both of these theories is the most
intellectually honest approach to take; it deals straight forwardly with
observations made in the world around us and it does not mandate that
either be accepted as established fact.
(snip)
As scientists we must remain open minded to all possible explanations of
the data; science education fails when, for fear of the social,
religious or political implications of a theory, plausible hypotheses
are automatically eliminated from consideration. Those who would have
our children taught that the only acceptable theory of origins is
Genesis 1 are being just as unscientific and close-minded as those who
would teach that the only possible way in which life could have arisen
is via Darwinian evolution. Both extremes are wrong and the truth is to
be found somewhere in between.
In conclusion, I believe it is intellectual tyranny to force students to
ignore any possible interpretation of a set of data. Our science
students must be free to take any theory to task; this is the purpose of
the scientific method we learned from Galileo. Science education is a
sham if it marches to any other drummer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 27 2000 - 07:35:35 EDT