It isn’t news that the media has a liberal bias—but what about scientists? According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, 87% of scientists identify themselves as being either moderates or liberals while only 9% of scientists are conservatives.
Promoters of Darwinian evolution don’t like it when they are confronted with the public’s desire that both sides be taught on the issue of origins science. They often defend the exclusion of other views by stating that science isn’t a democracy.
It sure isn’t—it sounds like they think they are an aristocracy.
The survey found that the public’s views on the issue of evolution was “strongly linked to religion.” “The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public,” the survey stated.
Among scientists, 51% believe in God or a higher power while 95% of the general public believes in God or a higher power.
Should the “aristocracy” decide what is taught in the PUBLIC classroom?
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction
Knox County Common Pleas Judge Otho Eyster said he only has jurisdiction to compel the attendance of a witness when the person refuses to comply with a subpoena. In the case of Mount Vernon school board members, they were not refusing to comply because they had already “quashed” their own subpoenas, Eyster stated.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Eyster gave no explanation as to the legal reasons for the board being able to dismiss their own subpoenas.
(Click here for copy of ruling.)
For further information, see past articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.” (6-12-09)
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas." (6-18-09)
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction" (6-20-09)
UPDATE: 7-11-09
Mount Vernon News reporter Pamela Schehl has written an article—“Judge explains denial in Freshwater case”—that gives further details on the judge’s decision. “First, he explained, to quash a subpoena means it’s as if it never existed,” Schehl wrote.
The judge is credited as saying that his ruling had nothing to do with the appropriateness of the board choosing to quash the subpoenas—it’s a matter of them simply being able to quash. “Since the matter is an administrative hearing, the judge said, the board has the legal authority to issue and quash subpoenas,” Schehl wrote.
UPDATE 7/14/09:
R. Kelly Hamilton, Attorney for John Freshwater, stated that he plans to appeal the decision made by Judge Eyster. Hamilton said that there will probably not be a decision on that appeal until close to the time when the two related federal cases go to trial—the hearing will be on hold until that time. (Source: “John Freshwater interview” 7-10-09 Bob Burney Live Programs.)
UPDATE:
See the following Mount Vernon News article regarding the resolution of this matter before the Ohio Supreme Court: “Ohio supreme court rules in school board’s favor.”
In his ruling on Tuesday, Eyster gave no explanation as to the legal reasons for the board being able to dismiss their own subpoenas.
(Click here for copy of ruling.)
For further information, see past articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.” (6-12-09)
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas." (6-18-09)
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction" (6-20-09)
UPDATE: 7-11-09
Mount Vernon News reporter Pamela Schehl has written an article—“Judge explains denial in Freshwater case”—that gives further details on the judge’s decision. “First, he explained, to quash a subpoena means it’s as if it never existed,” Schehl wrote.
The judge is credited as saying that his ruling had nothing to do with the appropriateness of the board choosing to quash the subpoenas—it’s a matter of them simply being able to quash. “Since the matter is an administrative hearing, the judge said, the board has the legal authority to issue and quash subpoenas,” Schehl wrote.
UPDATE 7/14/09:
R. Kelly Hamilton, Attorney for John Freshwater, stated that he plans to appeal the decision made by Judge Eyster. Hamilton said that there will probably not be a decision on that appeal until close to the time when the two related federal cases go to trial—the hearing will be on hold until that time. (Source: “John Freshwater interview” 7-10-09 Bob Burney Live Programs.)
UPDATE:
See the following Mount Vernon News article regarding the resolution of this matter before the Ohio Supreme Court: “Ohio supreme court rules in school board’s favor.”
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Evolution – Is It More Speculative Philosophy than It Is Science?
Darwinian evolution pushes the boundaries of science—maybe to the breaking point. It falls into the category of “origin science” and attempts, like intelligent design (ID), to answer the philosophical question of “Where did we come from?”
Those that advocate teaching evolution in the public school system, at the exclusion of other views, do so claiming that it is scientifically testable. The irony is that those same people often do not want the tenets of evolution to be challenged in the classroom.
Back in 2003, Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher John Freshwater submitted a proposal to the school titled “Objective Origins Science Policy.” If the school had adopted the proposal, it would have expanded the teaching of evolution to include information on any “assumptions which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented.”
John Freshwater’s 2003 Proposal
The focus of the proposal was on keeping bias out of science and encouraging the students to use critical thinking when learning about evolution. The proposal, in part, read:
“It is the intent of this board that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and nonreligious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that science which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity (origins science), be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumptions… .”
The language of the proposal did come from the website of an ID organization— intelligentdesignnetwork.org (IDN). The proposal, which makes no mention of creationism or ID, was voted down by the school board. (See copy of the proposal and the Science Curriculum Committee response.)
IDN says that while the language of the proposal “would permit appropriate discussions about design theory, it does not require that schools teach design theory.”
Science Curriculum Committee
The letter written by the Science Curriculum Committee—on why they did not recommend the board adopting Freshwater’s proposal—addressed the proposal as if the proposal had been to teach ID. (A copy of the letter was provided to AccountabilityintheMedia.com by John Freshwater.)
The only thing in Freshwater’s proposal that comes close to inclusion of ID is this statement: “understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life and its diversity, and understand why origins science may generate controversy.”
The language of the proposal contained no statement that ID was part of “the full range of scientific views.” For the Science Curriculum Committee to come to the conclusion that the proposal was to teach ID, they first had to accept ID as science. However, in their own words they said it was not science:
“Intelligent Design is not science: not repeatable, measurable, etc. (belongs perhaps in social studies).”
AND
“Intelligent Design is basically a religious issue—how do we account for all other religions not represented [...]?”
The committee acknowledged that some portions of the proposal was appropriate and in fact was already a part of school policy:
“Proposed mentioned critical thinking skills—redundant, we’re already doing this.”
AND
“The board of education policy addresses controversial issues—Freshwater proposal is already addressed.”
Is Evolution Controversial?
While the proposal was under consideration, Rev. Donald Matolyak wrote a letter to the superintendant and the board about the issue. One of the reasons that Matolyak gave for why the board should support the proposal was its consistency with school policy on controversial issues:
“The policy states that ‘consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools. Properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help students learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating positions.’”
The committee stated in their letter that eighth grade science did not have anything controversial in it, even though the standards for that grade did include evolution.
According to a list supplied by Freshwater, one of the members on the committee was Bonnie Schutte. During Schutte’s testimony at Freshwater’s employment hearing, she acknowledged that evolution was a controversial topic in society but said that it should not be. “If evolution was taught in a scientific manner, they would no longer think evolution was controversial,” Shutte said.
Andrew Petto, in an article for The National Center for Science Education—an organization dedicated to promoting evolution—agrees with Schutte’s assessment. “Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory,” Petto states. “Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges.”
Not everyone agrees with Petto. Ken Ham, in an article for Answers in Genesis—a creationist organization—argues that evolutionists have failed to prove that mutations can produce the diversity of life that now exists:
“Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. The fact that mutations do not add new information to the gene pool is rarely mentioned. All we have ever observed is variation within a kind. Science has never observed a change from one kind to another kind.”
Legal Issues
One of the eight reasons the committee gave for not approving the proposal was ominous—it simply said “Illegal.”
The IDN website gives some information on legal issues raised by the evolution controversy. It cites the Supreme Court in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968):
“Government in our democracy, state and nation, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, or foster or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
IDN argues that origin science is a religiously charged issue:
“Although the State should avoid involvement in religious issues, when it decides to provide information to children about where they come from, the State has chosen to encounter a religiously charged question. Once in this arena, it must remain constitutionally neutral. The best way to maintain this neutrality is to see that the subject is taught objectively.”
On An Editorial Note
Writing as a journalist about the debate between evolution and ID is difficult. Both sides have strong opinions—and journalists are not immune from seeing the claims being made by one side or the other as being more credible.
I could almost swear that the most avid supporters of Darwinian evolution are lying about their views not being speculative philosophy. It presents a challenge for me to take the evolutionists seriously, when every time I have heard them speak or read their literature they were unable to scientifically support their view.
Those that believe in creationism or ID admit that although they claim some scientific support for their view, the interpretation of data related to origins science is often influenced by a scientist’s assumptions.
To what extent should the agenda of avid evolutionists be patronized? Should the government continue to back down in face of their demands that they be given exclusive control of the science classroom?
Those that advocate teaching evolution in the public school system, at the exclusion of other views, do so claiming that it is scientifically testable. The irony is that those same people often do not want the tenets of evolution to be challenged in the classroom.
Back in 2003, Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher John Freshwater submitted a proposal to the school titled “Objective Origins Science Policy.” If the school had adopted the proposal, it would have expanded the teaching of evolution to include information on any “assumptions which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented.”
John Freshwater’s 2003 Proposal
The focus of the proposal was on keeping bias out of science and encouraging the students to use critical thinking when learning about evolution. The proposal, in part, read:
“It is the intent of this board that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and nonreligious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that science which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity (origins science), be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumptions… .”
The language of the proposal did come from the website of an ID organization— intelligentdesignnetwork.org (IDN). The proposal, which makes no mention of creationism or ID, was voted down by the school board. (See copy of the proposal and the Science Curriculum Committee response.)
IDN says that while the language of the proposal “would permit appropriate discussions about design theory, it does not require that schools teach design theory.”
Science Curriculum Committee
The letter written by the Science Curriculum Committee—on why they did not recommend the board adopting Freshwater’s proposal—addressed the proposal as if the proposal had been to teach ID. (A copy of the letter was provided to AccountabilityintheMedia.com by John Freshwater.)
The only thing in Freshwater’s proposal that comes close to inclusion of ID is this statement: “understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life and its diversity, and understand why origins science may generate controversy.”
The language of the proposal contained no statement that ID was part of “the full range of scientific views.” For the Science Curriculum Committee to come to the conclusion that the proposal was to teach ID, they first had to accept ID as science. However, in their own words they said it was not science:
“Intelligent Design is not science: not repeatable, measurable, etc. (belongs perhaps in social studies).”
AND
“Intelligent Design is basically a religious issue—how do we account for all other religions not represented [...]?”
The committee acknowledged that some portions of the proposal was appropriate and in fact was already a part of school policy:
“Proposed mentioned critical thinking skills—redundant, we’re already doing this.”
AND
“The board of education policy addresses controversial issues—Freshwater proposal is already addressed.”
Is Evolution Controversial?
While the proposal was under consideration, Rev. Donald Matolyak wrote a letter to the superintendant and the board about the issue. One of the reasons that Matolyak gave for why the board should support the proposal was its consistency with school policy on controversial issues:
“The policy states that ‘consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools. Properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help students learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating positions.’”
The committee stated in their letter that eighth grade science did not have anything controversial in it, even though the standards for that grade did include evolution.
According to a list supplied by Freshwater, one of the members on the committee was Bonnie Schutte. During Schutte’s testimony at Freshwater’s employment hearing, she acknowledged that evolution was a controversial topic in society but said that it should not be. “If evolution was taught in a scientific manner, they would no longer think evolution was controversial,” Shutte said.
Andrew Petto, in an article for The National Center for Science Education—an organization dedicated to promoting evolution—agrees with Schutte’s assessment. “Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory,” Petto states. “Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges.”
Not everyone agrees with Petto. Ken Ham, in an article for Answers in Genesis—a creationist organization—argues that evolutionists have failed to prove that mutations can produce the diversity of life that now exists:
“Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. The fact that mutations do not add new information to the gene pool is rarely mentioned. All we have ever observed is variation within a kind. Science has never observed a change from one kind to another kind.”
Legal Issues
One of the eight reasons the committee gave for not approving the proposal was ominous—it simply said “Illegal.”
The IDN website gives some information on legal issues raised by the evolution controversy. It cites the Supreme Court in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968):
“Government in our democracy, state and nation, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, or foster or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
IDN argues that origin science is a religiously charged issue:
“Although the State should avoid involvement in religious issues, when it decides to provide information to children about where they come from, the State has chosen to encounter a religiously charged question. Once in this arena, it must remain constitutionally neutral. The best way to maintain this neutrality is to see that the subject is taught objectively.”
On An Editorial Note
Writing as a journalist about the debate between evolution and ID is difficult. Both sides have strong opinions—and journalists are not immune from seeing the claims being made by one side or the other as being more credible.
I could almost swear that the most avid supporters of Darwinian evolution are lying about their views not being speculative philosophy. It presents a challenge for me to take the evolutionists seriously, when every time I have heard them speak or read their literature they were unable to scientifically support their view.
Those that believe in creationism or ID admit that although they claim some scientific support for their view, the interpretation of data related to origins science is often influenced by a scientist’s assumptions.
To what extent should the agenda of avid evolutionists be patronized? Should the government continue to back down in face of their demands that they be given exclusive control of the science classroom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
