NEWS
Representative drafts bill to ban Intelligent Design in science classrooms
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Carolyn Smith:
- Senate committee scrutinizes UW (October 20, 2005)
- Duo unveils universal healthcare proposal (October 21, 2005)
- In-Depth: WiCell unveils stem cell breakthrough (January 15, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Religious course stresses mythology (November 29, 2005)
- Northwestern offers evolution minor (October 5, 2005)
- Intelligent' theory takes on evolution (January 25, 2005)
- Kansas leans away from evolution teaching (September 29, 2005)
- Berceau tackles consumer issues, stands up for reproductive rights (February 7, 2006)
by Carolyn Smith
Wednesday, February 8, 2006
Surrounded by University of Wisconsin professors, state Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, introduced legislation at the Capitol Tuesday that would exclude the teaching of intelligent design and creationism from science education in the state.
Berceau said she was prompted to draft the bill as a means to stop the "undermining" of science instruction by "pseudo-science" and to boost the state's science standards.
"Every major scientific professional organization has stated clearly that ID is not science," Berceau said. "In spite of all of this, the pressure to introduce intelligent design into science curricula, and to challenge established scientific ideas like evolution, continues abated."
Though it would prohibit the teaching of ID and creationism in science classes, the legislation would allow those ideologies, and other related ideologies, to be taught as a part of other curricula.
"It does not ban the discussion of intelligent design or any other ideology in schools in non-scientific contexts," Berceau said. "It simply states that if something is presented as science, it must actually be science."
Several UW professors of various disciplines, including science and philosophy, spoke in favor of the legislation, echoing Berceau's concerns that the "assault on science" could be detrimental to the state and nation, including its universities and its economy.
Michael Cox, a UW professor of biochemistry, said while testable science has led to technological and medical innovations, ideologies like ID have not produced such benefits to society and humankind.
"The economic and military might of this nation is grounded in our preeminence in almost every scientific discipline," Michael Cox, a UW biochemistry professor said. "That preeminence cannot survive a dismantling of science education."
Cox also said exposing ideas of ID and creationism in the classroom as science makes students less prepared for higher education.
"If our students get a confusing and inaccurate presentation of science in high school — if they are misled about what science is — they may be less likely or unable to tackle the rigors of a university science program," Cox said.
Berceau also noted cases of the "assault on science" which have taken place in Kansas — where the state school board has made efforts to redefine science — and Grantsburg, Wis., where local school board members worked to have other theories on the origin of life added to the school district's science curriculum.
"This bill was inspired by recent events and trends in our nation and our state," Berceau said. "Think tanks have sprung up to provide experts trained to challenge the clear scientific consensus on issues like global warming."
If a school were to violate the proposed law, Berceau said parents would have the power to take action against the school.
But John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research in California, said ID and creationism are just as science-based as others say evolution is.
"I think evolution is on very shaky ground scientifically," Morris said. "The only way that it can continue is if people pass laws so nobody can talk about the alternatives, because if the door is open, evolution will lose."
Additionally, Morris said evolution is a form of religion and history, but not sound science.
"Evolution is obviously not happening today," Morris said. "If it happened, it happened in the unobserved past. Science has to do with the observed present."
However, Elliot Sober, a UW professor of philosophy, said ID proponents use their theory as a "smoke screen" to attack evolution to "distract from the poverty of their own ideas."
"Defenders of intelligent design have a simple formula — whenever you see a complicated feature that an organism possesses, you should declare that the feature is present because an intelligent designer put it there."
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 6:29am):
Morris is the dumbest human being I have seen quoted in a long, long time. Science is not what "happened in the unobserved past"? So geology, cosmology, etc., are also crap?
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 8:18am):
Forward. Thinking. Finally!
Petra Pettigrew (February 8, 2006 @ 9:40am):
Thank-you Mr. Morris for standing up for the rest of us , who hate being told we into our humanity from monkeys. I love what you said in this article- you summed things up nicley.
But John Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research in California, said ID and creationism are just as science-based as others say evolution is.
"I think evolution is on very shaky ground scientifically," Morris said. "The only way that it can continue is if people pass laws so nobody can talk about the alternatives, because if the door is open, evolution will lose."
Additionally, Morris said evolution is a form of religion and history, but not sound science.
"Evolution is obviously not happening today," Morris said. "If it happened, it happened in the unobserved past. Science has to do with the observed present."
I personally will be making sure to teach my children "Intelligent Design."
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 3:52pm):
Does education in general mean being open to other ideas that may or may not be controversial?
Science aside...isn't the basis of education to provide children/students/adults with a breadth of knowledge which they then weed through in their own minds? I know I don't believe everything that I'm taught but controversial things are what probe discussion and genuine learning.
I think ID is important to teach as a theory. Isn't that what it is? A theory? Evolution is a theory. Big Bang is a theory. Those are still taught.
Banning it is just a step in the direction of censorship but apparently people think it's okay if the material being censored is related with the conservative, religious or right wing.
Progress doesn't come from censorship.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 5:01pm):
There has never been a single major scientific theory invalidated by theological beliefs no matter how deeply and piously they are held. Obvious examples include the Copernican, sun-centered solar system which was deemed blasphemous for centuries before its obvious truth was accepted by the Church.
ID and Creationism will inevitably fail in similar ways. One does a disservice to whatever Creator they worship by limiting their intellectual search to religious text and belief systems. Personally I seek to be a student of God and learn from his works rather than make him a construct of my own ignorance.
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 5:56pm):
National Certification of Science Teachers:
Hello.
This letter is to inform you that I teach a class on Genesis
to science teachers. The title of the course is "Moses &
Creation: Biblical Reality". It is a 15-hour class that tells
the truth about the first three chapters of Genesis, so that
the teachers won't be speaking in ignorance about what
Genesis is saying to mankind. Neither theology nor
secular science are anywhere close to knowing what
advanced scientific knowledge is contained in Genesis.
My name is Herman Cummings. I am the foremost terrestrial
authority on the book of Genesis. Due to the current pseudo
controversy between what is written in Genesis and the
conclusions of secular science, I believe my services are
most needed. I would come the site designated by the
local school or district to conduct the class.
I am the only person I know or ever heard of presently on
this Earth that is qualified to teach Biblical Creation. However,
"creation" is not the counterpart of the doctrine of evolution,
as most of humanity believes. Biblical Creation is the doctrine
that God created our Earth & universe (4.6 billion BC) and
deposited original life on this planet at that time. Since
Genesis does not tell us how the Earth was created,
"Creation" can't be taught. It would be the counterpart of
the "Big Bang" theory. However, Evolution is the doctrine
that simple life began to evolve (from an unknown beginning)
into complex life forms over many millions of years, into
the forms of life that we have presently in our world.
The counterpart of evolution is the correct interpretation of the
first two chapters of Genesis, which tells of the past
appearance and demise of various life forms over the course
of time, and the history of modern mankind. This is called
the "Observations of Moses", or "OM". Many school districts
are grappling with the doctrine of "Intelligent Design".
Unfortunately, "ID" is an inept and shallow doctrine that merely
says that life on Earth is too complex to have developed by
chance. It tells nothing about the 600 million year fossil record,
and how ancient life forms appeared, plus when and why many
became extinct.
The student is now left in a state of confusion because of what
unqualified people have "said" what the Bible teaches, and
what secular science has discovered. In reality, the doctrines
of evolution and "OM" are explaining the same thing,
acknowledging the same geologic periods of time, but "OM"
explains what happened and why it happened, from 4.6 billion
years ago until 4267 BC. There is agreement on when the life
forms perished, but new information is given in the class about
when those, and additional unknown, life forms were born.
After completing this course, the schoolteacher will be able to
resolve the conflict in students' minds about what they read in
Genesis, and scientific reality. The teachers will also be able
to answer most any question atheists or theists can think
of to ask. The course covers the periods of time before Earth
was created, the advents of prehistoric mankind, up until the
appearance of modern mankind. The students receive
"closure", and become more receptive to instruction, because
they don't feel like they are only being taught false conclusions.
This is not a course on teaching "creationism", but how to
convey the scientific information that Genesis has for mankind.
I've asked that the U.S. Department of Education be proactive
and sanction the issue of certificates for science teachers in an
effort to be reasonably sure that all teachers teach the same
material to all students. I've already written the governor and
members of the education committees of every state legislature.
I have hope that officials will introduce legislation that will
free the public schools to teach all viable theories of origins,
and explanations of the ancient history of life on Earth,
removing the threat of (atheist) lawsuits.
Sincerely,
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808-1745
Ephraim7@aol.com
(706) 662-2893
Anonymous (February 8, 2006 @ 7:48pm):
The bill is very simple. It says nothing about intelligent design. It reads as follows:
Science instruction. The school board shall ensure that any material presented as science within the school curriculum complies with all of the following:
(1) The material is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only
natural processes.
(2) The material is consistent with any description or definition of science
adopted by the National Academy of Sciences.
That's it. Now what's your objection to that, Petra?
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 12:47am):
"evolution is a science."
no, there is a difference between crafting science around tested research, and crafting science to come into compliance with religious beliefs.
Norman Peterson (February 9, 2006 @ 8:56am):
Hello:
I find it fascinating that every time the evolution vs creation discussion comes up, the folks committed to Darwinism gather up their academic degrees and puff themselves up to stare us down from their academic strongholds and condemn any mention of a created universe. "Pseudo science!" they rant as though all scientific research is hinged on Darwin's theory that all life is a random act of time/chemicals. Science (real science) seems to reinforce creation and bring it to light. No one can reproduce evolution and no one has been able to create life either so let's do some real research instead of presupposing the outcome beforehand.
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 2:28pm):
I know that Intelligent Design is a fact and I have the evidence to prove it after 1 1/2 years of extensive research. I have notified different agencies (news, educational & science); however, because I am an independent researcher and have no fancy title by my name and no one has ever heard of me before, no one will give me the time of day or respond to my emails to present the evidence I have accumulated of it's existence. Donna Khoury, California
Anonymous (February 9, 2006 @ 2:30pm):
I know that Intelligent Design is a fact and I have the evidence to prove it after 1 1/2 years of extensive research. I have notified different agencies (news, educational & science); however, because I am an independent researcher and have no fancy title by my name and no one has ever heard of me before, no one will give me the time of day or respond to my emails to present the evidence I have accumulated of its existence. Donna Khoury, California
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 7:56am):
I don't favor heavy-handed legislation, as it will only make the "ID" hold-outs feel persecuted. Having said that, I find the whole Creationism thing ludicrous. Related species do indeed share massive amounts of DNA. And natural selection is very easy to observe in the field. And the human body, far from being "intelligently designed" is a disaster, prone to illness, aging, and death, full of genetic "junk". For example, cows can makle their own vitamin C; in man, the gene that codes for that mutated eons ago, so man can not. But since we can eat citrus, thankfully, man has managed to survive without that ability.
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 8:19am):
"I think ID is important to teach as a theory. Isn't that what it is? A theory? Evolution is a theory. Big Bang is a theory. Those are still taught."
It used to be thought that disease was caused by evil spirits. Now we have germ theory. Maybe we should teach Evil Spirit Theory in the classrooms.
The problem with your logic here is that science CHANGES when something is disproved-- like Intelligent Design. If you want to get rid of evolution, you have to come up with something better that explains the world we see. I recommend you read some Stephen Jay Gould books-- they are very readable-- to understand why we scientists are so confident about natural selection. It really permeates all the natural world and explains a lot of stuff otherwise difficult to account for.
Michael Dean (February 12, 2006 @ 7:42pm):
The "battle" between evolution and creation is full of confusion, half-truths, and outright lies. It is a very complex issue that cannot be fully discussed in less than book form. For a much broader discussion, please visit the talkorigins.org website.
MISCONCEPTION: Humans "came from" monkeys (apes, etc.) Evolution theory states we have a "Common ancestor." An analogy would be to say you "came from" your cousin Joe, when you actually share a common ancestor, your grandmother (your father and his father were brothers).
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is just a "theory." It is, but THEORY does not mean HYPOTHESIS or GUESS. It is a theory with evidence supporting it just as atomic theory and gravitational theory. A THEORY is a repeatedly tested explaination that explains all observed phenomena AND makes predictions that can be tested. Evolution IS THE BACKBONE OF BIOLOGY just as gravity is the backbone of physical science.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution has not been "proved." This one is correct, it has not been "proved," but the misconception is that 1) it must be proved and 2) lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for ID. Science is about DISPROVING a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis gathers enough supporting evidence and has been broadened to become a theory, it can still be modified or disproved (as Newton's laws were by Einstein.)
MISCONCEPTION: ID is science. Intelligent Design Theory fails the test of science on several major points:
1) It is not testable (name an observation which will invalidate it.)
2) It makes no predictions.
3) It requires a supernatual entity
I cannot speak for personal motivations, but the record clearly indicates that ID was created as means to bring a RELIGIOUS BELIEF into the school to compete with Evolution. ID supporters confuse, hide, and misrepresent evidence to support their predetermined position.
If you choose to believe ID, it is your right (just as belief in a flat earth) to do so. This country, however, cannot afford to teach non-scientific dogma in the science classroom and hope to maintain a position of science preeminence. Evolution may well be wrong, but it is the ONLY accepted SCIENTIFIC theory of life's origins.
Herman Cummings (February 15, 2006 @ 3:40pm):
To the Honorables Governor Jim Doyle
Lt Gov Barbara Lawton
Sen: Luther Olsen,Alberta Darling,Sheila Harsdorf,
Glenn Grothman, Robert Jauch,Dave Hansen,
Jon Erpenbach
Rep: Brett Davis,Steve Kestell,John Lehman,Stephen Nass,
Scott Newcomer,Sondy Pope-Roberts,Don Pridemore,
Christine Sinicki,Debi Towns,John Townsend,
Terry Van Akkeren,Leah Vukmir,Annette Williams,
Jeffrey Wood
School Supt: Elizabeth Burmaster
Greetings. My name is Herman Cummings. I had written all of you
(except Lt. Governor Lawton & Supt. Burmaster) near the end of last year,
and all the governors again earlier this year. As a private citizen, I consider
all you (except Lt. Governor Lawton at this point) as either being lazy, inattentive
to the needs of your constituents, or as fellow collaborators to erode our public
schools. As far as I can tell, none of you have done anything meaningful to
address the issue which I earlier had brought forth to you.
I am confident that over 85 percent of our public high school science
teachers are actually Atheists, and teach our children with bias. Another
12 percent believe Genesis is a fairy tale. Since they themselves do not
know the facts about the "Observations of Moses" (Genesis), they either
knowingly or inadvertently are indoctrinating students with the concept that
there is no Creator. Without a counterbalance of factual concepts, our
students receive a one-sided view of reality.
I wrote to each governor and education committee legislator of
every state, and have not gotten any results. Only Rep. Bill Otto of
Kansas wrote back, being the only legislator that cared enough
to respond. Only the governors of Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Mexico, and South Carolina wrote back. But none
of them were meaningful or sincere. They would only refer me to
someone else in their administration, who was to "further assist"
me. Each one of them would not return my phone calls, being
conveniently "out" so that I had to leave a voice message, which
they ignored, with the exception of Kentucky.
What I asked the governors to do is to convey to all their local school
districts that my class for science teachers was available. They
didn't need to endorse the class, but only to inform each district of
it's availability. I asked the education committees to bring legislation
to the floor that would free the schools to teach any viable concept
that addressed the 4.6 billion year history of Earth, and the 600+
million year fossil record. By definition, that rules out "Creation
Science".
What I'm disturbed about is that there are so many unwise, and
uncaring people elected to office, that can't see what direction
our schools are headed, and refuse to do what is necessary to
undo the damage that has been done. An imbalance has a
stranglehold on our public school systems, and a balancing
reality is not being allowed in. Apparently, Rep. Terese Berceau
has trouble comprehending that.
Why is it that the Dept. of Public Instruction did not respond, and inquire about
the course I teach? I wanted to convey to them that my class is not about
"creationism", since Genesis does not tell us how the Earth was
created. My class is about the Genesis explanation of the 600+ million
year fossil record, which schools presently only explain using the
doctrine of Darwinism. The courts and school boards do not know the
definition of "religion", to the point that the term is mistakenly used to refer
to biblical history, and they blindly allow the religion of Atheism to be
taught in science classes.
Throw Intelligent Design out the window, or at least out of
science class. It teaches nothing about what happened to life
forms during the ancient history of our planet. My class
conveys the reality of what Moses saw to the science teachers,
so that will have a much better perception and appreciation of
Genesis. What I hope to accomplish is the get the teachers to
voluntarily present both the secular scientific view, and the correct
view from Genesis. The bill introduced by Rep. Terese Berceau was
both impudent and unnecessary. The refusal by the education
committees to take action allowed the door to remain opened for
such an undesired occurrence.
None of the teachers know how to respond to the questions
their students ask about alternative explanations about our origins. If
the teacher tells the students to "ask your parents", their parents
do not know the answers. Neither do any of their pastors, priests,
or rabbis. Therefore the students feel frustrated because no one is
answering their questions, and all the teacher knows is the humanist
explanation of reality, and the students are not satisfied.
Sincerely,
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808-1745
Ephraim7@aol.com
(706) 662-2893
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 12:11am):
I think that proponents of intelligent design are very adept at taking advantage of the misunderstanding of the general public's idea of evolution as a scientific theory. They say that there evolution is a weak theory because we don't see it happening now (see many of the comments to this article). But they don't realize that it is happening now. For example, look at bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. Scientists call ID pseudoscience because when you devote your entire life to studying how nature works, you don't want to pollute the field with untested theories that have no experimental basis (please point us to even one peer-reviewed scientific study that tests the theory of intelligent design).
Anonymous (February 17, 2006 @ 6:32pm):
From the teaching perspective teaching creation would be a lot easier. An intangible, invisible being was hanging around for a few billions of years or more and got bores to popped the universe into being with unknown powers, for unknown reasons. Job done. Of course it's not science.
Let's challenge the theory for the existence of a god. Oh! That's right, there isn't one that meets the scientific use of the word theory.
Herman Cummings (March 27, 2006 @ 12:14pm):
In response to the "teaching perspective" reply, the 15 hour
"Observations of Moses" class addresses the issue of what
God was doing to occupy Himself before He created our
Earth and universe. Current (other) creationists have no idea
what God was doing, nor why He created our existence.
You can't adequately teach American History without
first completely explaining Christopher Columbus.
Ephraim7@aol.com
(706) 662-2893
