Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" Should Not be Implemented into Science Courses.

Before I launch into the legitimacy of the Discovery Institute's campaign, I would like to address the basis of the debate which essentially is; should we give the government power to decide what is or is not taught in our schools? I for one believe that we should not, because we as Americans cannot give the government the power, to decide what merits mention in the classroom. Once this power is given, we have given the government the ability to censor us. This of course has many implications: A step towards communism, loss of freedom, and it would take the power of government away from the people; it would take control of the country away from the average American citizen and give it to the elite politician. You may ask, how is censorship happening towards this issue in the status quo? Well, the ACLU has sued some public school districts that have asked their students to approach the subject with an open mind, for teaching religion and federal judges have begun to side with the ACLU. Now I will respond to TheSkeptic's reasons to oppose the campaign. (1) "Evolution is not a controversy" (A) First of all this blanket statement is completely false. Many Americans believe that evolution is still a theory, not a fact. In fact many completely dismiss it as being false. On October 23, 2005, a CBS poll states, "Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved." So as I'm sure you can see there is still a controversy here. When over half of Americans believe in some form of intelligent design it is evident there is some disagreement on the issue. (B) The second part of TheSkeptic's statement was "instead one of the most accepted and supported theories today" Let us look to a National Geographic News article written on August 10, 2006 "In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea." What we can see here is that it is not widely accepted among the American public. Therefore is it an invalid reason to launch a campaign, when an idea that is accepted by half of the American public is forbidden from being taught in schools? No, It is a completely valid reason. (2) The "unresolved issues" the Teach the Controversy campaign discusses are certainly not unresolved nor scientific weaknesses. They are laden with scientific evidence. Let's talk about some of the action taken by the Teach the Controversy Campaign: The Kansas Evolution hearings, and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. The Kansas Evolution Hearings: The Associated Press wrote on May 12, 2005 "A modern-day Monkey Trial in Kansas ended Thursday with a public argument over whether the State Board of Education is damaging science education and whether evolution's defenders have misbehaved. In advocating evolution-friendly science standards for the state's public schools, Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray spent two hours attacking language proposed by intelligent design advocates, the advocates' motives and the board's conservative majority. The entire board plans to consider changes by August in the standards, which determine how fourth-, seventh- and 10th-graders are tested on science statewide." - As you can see, the Discovery Institute took action in this instance, when curriculum aimed at favoring evolution, was being advocated. the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District: From Pepper Hamilton LLP, Accessed August 25, 2008 Pepper Hamilton LLP served as lead counsel to the plaintiffs in the landmark "intelligent design" case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that was decided in Pennsylvania in December 2005 (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)). Pepper, along with lawyers from the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, successfully represented in federal court eight families who challenged the Dover policy that included intelligent design in the curriculum. - In this instance, the Discovery Institute came to the defense of the Dover Area School District, when a lawsuit was filed, aimed at outlawing the teaching of intelligent design. Is there anything wrong with fighting to preserve the free exchange of ideas within a school district? No, also I would like to point out the Discovery institute was not fighting to advocate the theory of intelligent design but to stop the outlawing of it. (3) Intelligent Design concepts such as Irreducible complexity have been rejected by the scientific community and refuted in peer-reviewed research papers. (A) Where are these research papers to be found? (B) Craig E. Nelson is Professor Emeritus of Biology at Indiana University in Bloomington, named the Outstanding Research and Doctoral Universities Professor of the Year in 2000, wrote in the Journal Gazette, August 28, 2005 "Michael Behe is the most prominent biologist arguing that some features in cells (cilia, for example) are so complex that they could not have functioned in a less complicated form and, thus, apparently could not have evolved. He terms this "irreducible complexity" and concludes that if it appears that these features could not have evolved, they must have been designed by an intelligence. In a class where ID was being taught, teachers would have to help students examine Behe's claims and purported evidence closely. Indeed, the core process of science is the comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of any unresolved issues that are presented." The first key problem for teachers and students would be with the nature of any intelligent designer. Behe states, "I strongly emphasize that it (ID) is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God." He states that "candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel – fallen or not; Plato's demiurge; some mystical New Age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent force." He also notes that the designer may or may not be interested in humans, may or may not be competent and may have designed only some details, leaving others to "the vagaries of nature.'" Later in the article he states "What makes ID clearly not science is the conclusion it draws. If a complex feature seems to be inexplicable at the moment, ID claims that it probably will never be explained scientifically and so must be attributed to some kind of a designer. There is no logical justification for such a leap – the correct conclusion would be simply that the feature is currently unexplained." Now you may ask, why did you read those sections of the article? Well the reason is actually quite simple. 1.Through the first segment, the basis for intelligent design is given. 2.In the second portion of the article you can see how the concept does not specifically point out an actor, but gives a list of actors. 3.Through the third point we can see a very realistic presentation of the idea in the classroom. (after discussing the idea of irreducible complexity) "There are many people who attribute this to some form of intelligent being, while others say that we simply do not have the technology to understand the unexplained portions of evolution." That is what the discovery institute is launching its campaign, to allow ideas to be presented. They are not fighting to have them advocated. I believe that this is a necessary distinction to make in the objectives of the campaign.