Reflectorites
Here are two articles about the Scopes Trial. The first is by IDer Nancey
Pearcey, who points out the irony of the fact thatt:
"Whereas in 1925 the teaching of evolution was banned from the
classroom, in 2000 the teaching of anything but evolution is
effectively banned from the classroom."
The ABC news article has an interview with Phil Johnson who briefly states
the ID position on evolution and distinguishes it from Biblical literalism:
"An Intelligent Designer Philip Johnson is a professor of law at the
University of California at Berkeley and a proponent of the
intelligent design theory. He rejects evolution because, he says, we
lack sufficient hard evidence to prove life came from non-living
material. He does not take the bible literally and accepts that the
Earth is millions of years old. However, he adds, life is still the
result of an "intelligent designer, what many people call God."
and
"Evolution is still a theory," he said. "It's not a fact and it should be
taught as a the controversial theory it is. Science is about
questioning things and we should question evolution."
Steve
==========================================================
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-200072413225.htm
The Washington Times
[...]
July 24, 2000
Scopes in reverse
Nancy R. Pearcey
As Kansas wound down its week long observance of the 75th anniversary
of the Scopes Trial, a striking irony largely escaped notice: Whereas in
1925 the teaching of evolution was banned from the classroom, in 2000 the
teaching of anything but evolution is effectively banned from the
classroom. Academic freedom is just as restricted as ever - only this time
it's the pro-evolution side doing the censoring.
One of the most popular events this past week was a dramatic presentation
based on transcripts of the original Scopes Trial, sponsored by pro-
evolution People for the American Way (PAW). The audience was
prompted with cue cards saying, "hiss" and "hubbub," but many went
beyond the instructions, breaking in with eager cheers and applause.
The topic clearly generates a high level of interest. And that interest is not
always what one would expect. One recent poll found that 79 percent of all
Americans want creation taught in the school, which was almost as many
people who support teaching evolution in school (83 percent) - these
results greatly surprised PAW, who commissioned the poll. What is more,
30 percent do not want creation relegated to history or social studies
courses; they want it taught as a scientific theory.
Critics charge this would inject religion into the science classroom. But the
idea life exhibits design is a timeless observation that has been held by
religious and non-religious alike since the time of the ancient Stoics.
Contemporary "design theory" relies on scientific evidence to determine
whether an event is caused by natural or intelligent causes - just as a
detective relies on evidence to decide whether a death was natural or
murder, or an insurance company relies on evidence to decide whether a
fire is an accident or arson.
In explaining, for example, the origin of life, an open-minded scientist
would weigh evidence whether natural causes (chance and law) are capable
of creating the vast stores of information in the DNA code. The answer
scientists are finding is "no." Chance produces randomness, while physical
law produces simple, repetitive order (like using a macro on your computer
to print a phrase over and over). The only thing that produces complex,
non-repeating, specified order is an intelligent agent.
That is why today qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that
design theory makes better sense of the data. Influential new books are
coming out by scientists like molecular biologist Michael Behe ("Darwin's
Black Box," The Free Press) and mathematician William Dembski ("The
Design Inference," Cambridge University Press), which identify problems
with Darwinian evolution and highlight evidence for intelligent design in
the universe.
Of course, any theory of origins will have religious implications -but that
doesn't mean it should be barred from the classroom. Darwinism itself has
religious implications (or rather, anti-religious ones), but the theory is still
taught in public schools. Darwinism and design theory are not two different
subjects; they are competing answers to the same question: How did life
arise and diversify on Earth? If one viewpoint is taught, the other should be
taught as well.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has strong-armed many
school districts into banning anything but neo-Darwinian evolution, but
their scare tactics represent a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court
actually said. Teaching a variety of scientific theories about origins "might
be validly done with the clear secular purpose of enhancing the
effectiveness of science education," the court stated in Edwards vs.
Aguillard.
The court even asserted that academic freedom requires alternative theories
about origins to be permitted in public school science classrooms. And
under its definition of academic freedom the court included a teacher's right
to teach scientific alternatives to the dominant Darwinian approach to
biological origins. In other words, the court has explicitly stated it is
constitutional for teachers and school boards to expose students to the
scientific problems with current Darwinian theory, as well as to any
scientific alternatives.
In fact, suppressing alternatives constitutes "viewpoint discrimination,"
something the court has else where pronounced unconstitutional.
Those celebrating the anniversary of the Scopes Trial ought to take a
lesson from the Supreme Court and support the principle of openness in
science education. How ironic that today it is the pro-evolution groups,
like PAW, that are on the side of intolerance. The audience cheering the
academic freedom won in 1925 ought to be calling for the same freedom in
today's classroom.
Nancy R. Pearcey is a senior fellow at the Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and is managing editor of
the journal Origins and Design. She is coauthor of "The Soul of Science
and of How Now Shall We Live?"
[...]
All site contents copyright (c) 2000 News World Communications, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scopestrial000723.html
ABCNEWS
[...]
Monkey Trial Debate Over Creationism and Evolution Still With Us
[...]
By Claire Moore
July 23 - Seventy-five years after the Scopes `Monkey Trial' dominated
front page headlines nationwide, the debate over teaching evolution and
creationism in public schools remains as robust as ever, say participants on
both sides of the ongoing debate.
Looking back on 25 years of teaching biology to public high schools
students in Kansas, Brad Williamson can't recall even one year when a
student failed to passionately argue against the theory of evolution- a
theory the scientific community now accepts as fact, he said.
"There's always a handful who like to argue the point," Williamson said.
The point, to his students, is that evolution conflicts with what they believe
is the true story of creation, the one outlined in the Bible's Book of
Genesis.
The arguments "haven't changed at all," he said. "There have been legal
changes, but not psychological change. Just because you have a law that
says you can't teach creationism doesn't mean you don't believe it." Trial
of the Century For 15 days in July 1925, Americans and the rest of world
hung on the next report from the 100 newspapermen covering the trial,
which some scholars call the trial of the century.
Throngs of people came to see the "greatest defense lawyer in the land,"
Clarence Darrow, match legal wits with populist orator and three-time
Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.
At the center of the storm was John T. Scopes, 24, a likable football coach
and science teacher just a year out of the University of Kentucky who
violated a new Tennessee that made it illegal to teach evolution.
Scopes had volunteered to violate the anti-evolution statute as part of an
attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to test the new law in court.
Explaining Life's Origins Evolution, first broached by Charles Darwin in
his 1859 book Origin of the Species, states that the Earth is billions of
years old and life came from non-living matter and has developed over
millions of years.
Creationism teaches that the Earth and most life forms came into existence
no more than 10,000 years ago according to the Bible's Book of Genesis.
Many creationists today don't take such a literal approach, but still refuse
to accept that life could have come from non-living matter rather than an
"intelligent designer."
Darrow ended up losing the case for Scopes. But two years later the
Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling on a
technicality. The court never addressed the larger issue of the banning of
teaching evolution in the classroom.
It would be more than 40 years before the Tennessee Legislature would
repeal its antievolution law and the United States Supreme Court would
invalidate state laws barring the teaching of evolution.
Testing the Legal Boundaries Since the Scopes trial, courts and state
Legislatures have been testing the constitutional validity of teaching
evolution in the classroom and whether it is appropriate to include
creationism in a biology class.
During the 1970s and 1980s more than 20 state Legislatures introduced
"equal time" bills requiring creationism be taught with evolution. But only
two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, passed such laws. In 1987 the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled such laws were invalid because creationism is a
purely religious concept and not a scientific one.
But just last year, the Kansas Board of Education told its schools to de-
emphasize Darwinism and a Gallup Poll found that only 49 percent of
Americans agree that mankind developed over millions of years through the
process of natural selection.
Brad Williamson teaches at Olathe East High School in Kansas and says his
local school board has decided not to alter their science curriculum to meet
the new state standards for fear the issue may divide their close-knit
community.
"The state board is asking that something that isn't science be brought into
the classroom as science," he said. "I think that's the biggest threat of all.
It's important to treat each kid's beliefs with a great deal of respect...but
creationism does not belong in a science class or a science textbook."
In June, the Supreme Court refused to let a public school district require
the teaching of evolution to be accompanied by a disclaimer mentioning the
biblical version of creation and other teachings on life's origin. The court
again deemed creationism a religious and not scientific theory.
An Intelligent Designer Philip Johnson is a professor of law at the
University of California at Berkeley and a proponent of the intelligent
design theory. He rejects evolution because, he says, we lack sufficient
hard evidence to prove life came from non-living material. He does not
take the bible literally and accepts that the Earth is millions of years old.
However, he adds, life is still the result of an "intelligent designer, what
many people call God."
"Evolution is still a theory," he said. "It's not a fact and it should be taught
as a the controversial theory it is. Science is about questioning things and
we should question evolution."
Although the Scopes trial had little legal impact during its time, over the
decades it has become a tale of American legend, said Edward Larson,
author of the Pulitzer Prizewinning book, Summer for the Gods: The
Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.
"It's probably the best-known trial in American history because it
symbolizes so many things-the conflict between science and religion ... and
the specific debate of creation versus evolution that continues with us to
this day."
But it is the myth of the trial that people recall, a myth created largely by
the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind, according to Johnson.
"The trial itself had almost no impact at all. It was only overturned on a
technicality because the judge in Dayton had fined Scopes $50 too much."
he said.
"I think evolution is as much a religion as creationism. I think we should
add an ism to the end of evolution because I think they both require a
certain amount of faith."
[...]
Copyright (c)2000 ABC News Internet Ventures. Click here for Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy and Internet Safety Information applicable to this
site.
==========================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are
built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a
conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if'. As the genius of
Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one." (Huxley J.S.,
"Evolution in Action," [1953], Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK,
1963, reprint, p.16)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 19:39:43 EDT