September 27, 2005My boss on CNN (Lou Dobbs) last night...
My, my, my... It's certainly been interesting around the office lately. My boss has been out at the Dover case and last night was interviewed by CNN's Lou Dobbs (while standing outside in the pouring rain with the CNN crew and their truck after sitting in the Dover courtroom all day long, yikes.)
I have to say it would be a breath of fresh air if instead of all of this meme-buzzing and sneaky wordplay from the folks on the side of ID (along with their lawyers), they'd just approach this thing in a more honest fashion-- all they need to do is just say point-blank "WE JUST WANT TO CHANGE THE LAWS REGARDING CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION". It's just shameful that after so many countless years of this ancient argument of "Who Done It?" and "Why Are We Here" that so many valuable resources (not to mention millions of dollars and countless hours of time) which could be put to much better use toward say-- um-- EDUCATION, perhaps?
Here's the (rough) transcript, in full:
The highly controversial issue of intelligent design, the focus of a new trial in Pennsylvania today. 11 parents are challenging the Dover Area School District's decision to add intelligent design to the curriculum. The families are arguing that the new curriculum edition violates separation of church and state. But the school district says the case is about free inquiry in education.
Joining me now with two very different views on this issue from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Eugenie Scott, she's the executive director of the National Center for Science Education and fighting intelligent design in the classroom along with the ACLU.
And from San Diego, Frank Sherwin, he's from the institute of Creation Research and co-author of "The Human Body and Intelligent Design," supporting teaching the theory to students. Thank you both for being there.
Let me start, if I may, with you, Eugenie. The idea that intelligent design in this case it's going to be a brief mention. It's not as if a curriculum has been designed around it, but just introducing the concept to the students of evolution. What's the problem with that?
EUGENIE SCOTT, DIR. NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION: The problem is that intelligent design has been judged by the scientific and the educational communities to not be science and not be appropriate for teaching in the high school science classroom. Why should we clutter up the science classroom with nonscientific ideas?
Similarly, it is an introduction of a religious view as science into the public school classroom. And why should we be violating the separation of church and state suggested by the first amendment?
DOBBS: Frank, Eugenie's concerns are certainly rational, it seems. What's the problem? Why is it necessary, in your judgment, for intelligent design to be injected into the classroom?
FRANK SHERWIN, INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH: Well, Lou, I would maintain there's plenty of religion right now in American public schools that teach that in the young people have come from lower forms of life, ultimately from bacteria. Now, as a scientist via real problem with that. And I think it's a breath of intellectual fresh air to allow the students to understand that there is a significant part of the scientific and educational population that are not convinced that we came from bacteria.
As a matter of fact, I have to quote from Charles Darwin when he said in 1859, a fair result can be only obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. So certainly we would agree with that. We are not advocating any kind of religious indoctrination, we are simply trying to show the students there's a significant group out there that believe we have been intelligently designed.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you both this question. And we can go before going to the issues of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, let me ask you both, in your judgment, scientifically, Eugenie, and you, if you will, Frank, what is the origin of life? How would you answer that question in one sentence? Frank?
SHERWIN: Well, obviously, with the complexity of life, and I have had quite a few classes in regard to the complexity of organic life as we know it, is horribly complex, Lou. There's absolutely no way naturalistic way explain the spontaneous origination of organic life from inorganic nonlife.
Now, even non...
DOBBS: Now, that tells me what it isn't, Frank. I'm asking you in your judgment in one sentence is the origin of life?
SHERWIN: OK. With the origin of life we belief a creator is behind an origin of life.
DOBBS: Eugenie, your thought?
SCOTT: In other words...
DOBBS: Your thoughts?
SCOTT: What Frank just said was -- Frank's position is God did it. Whether God did it or not, the issue that we're talking here is what do you teach in science class? And in science, you teach science.
DOBBS: No, Eugenie. What we're talking about -- No, Eugenie, excuse me -- I'm asking you is, what is the origin of life in your judgment?
SCOTT: The origin of life is as yet unsolved problem in science. We do not have agreement among scientists for a natural origin of life. However, you just heard Frank say that this unsolvable problem.
The problem with intelligent design is that it says when you have a difficult problem like origin of life, or the bacteria flagellum, or the blood clotting cascade, you should just throw up your hands and say this unsolvable. We have to say God did it. And that's not the way you teach science.
DOBBS: Is that true, Frank?
SHERWIN: Lou, I never said that. Not once in the organization I represent ever threw up our hands and say it's unsolvable. Certainly, we like to think the creators thoughts after him.
DOBBS: Forgive, I thought that's exactly what you did say, Frank. I'm sorry I thought you did say it was unsolvable.
SHERWIN: No. No. I didn't say that...
SCOTT: You did say it was unsolvable.
SHERWIN: I said we like to enjoy the investigation of the living world. When it comes to the origin of life, I said then we said, yes, life only comes from life. We believe the creator created it.
However, that's a far different issue than blood clotting cascade, the flegellum and such that Eugenie just mentioned. We love to study that.
SCOTT: Actually, I agree. I agree.
In fact, there's a big difference between what we study in evolution and the issues like the origin of life.
DOBBS: Let me ask you both.
SCOTT: And we're much more confident about evolution.
DOBBS: Is your basic objection, Eugenie -- and in court, is it the idea that we are injecting religion in the guise of intelligent design into the public school curriculum?
SCOTT: That is the major problem, yes.
Because what intelligent design says is that there exists incredibly complicated things out there in nature that by their nature are incapable of being he explained by a natural cause. Therefore, they are off the table. God did it. That's a religious view.
Although they tend to be fairly coy about who the intelligent agent is but everybody knows it is God.
SHERWIN: What we're saying simply is that life is so complex, it shows an irreducible complexity that points to a creator.
Eugenie, you're wrong, we're not saying that we advocate that God did it. We are simply leaving that up to the student.
Now, if you think this is creationism through the back door of American public schools, then evolutionary naturalism as it is presently being taught in American taxpayer paid public school is bringing atheism in through the front door.
SCOTT: Well, intelligent design is bringing religion in through the back door. And as a matter of fact, I probably have talked to more teachers than you have teachers are not...
DOBBS: Eugenie Scott, Frank Sherwin, I have got to say thank you very much. We are out of time. The case will be resolved in federal court, it appears, at least unless it is insoluble. The case has begun. And we will be following it closely as I know both of you will in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the federal courtroom. Thank you very much.
SHERWIN: Thank you, Lou.
(link)
I have to say it would be a breath of fresh air if instead of all of this meme-buzzing and sneaky wordplay from the folks on the side of ID (along with their lawyers), they'd just approach this thing in a more honest fashion-- all they need to do is just say point-blank "WE JUST WANT TO CHANGE THE LAWS REGARDING CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION". It's just shameful that after so many countless years of this ancient argument of "Who Done It?" and "Why Are We Here" that so many valuable resources (not to mention millions of dollars and countless hours of time) which could be put to much better use toward say-- um-- EDUCATION, perhaps?
Here's the (rough) transcript, in full:
The highly controversial issue of intelligent design, the focus of a new trial in Pennsylvania today. 11 parents are challenging the Dover Area School District's decision to add intelligent design to the curriculum. The families are arguing that the new curriculum edition violates separation of church and state. But the school district says the case is about free inquiry in education.
Joining me now with two very different views on this issue from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Eugenie Scott, she's the executive director of the National Center for Science Education and fighting intelligent design in the classroom along with the ACLU.
And from San Diego, Frank Sherwin, he's from the institute of Creation Research and co-author of "The Human Body and Intelligent Design," supporting teaching the theory to students. Thank you both for being there.
Let me start, if I may, with you, Eugenie. The idea that intelligent design in this case it's going to be a brief mention. It's not as if a curriculum has been designed around it, but just introducing the concept to the students of evolution. What's the problem with that?
EUGENIE SCOTT, DIR. NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION: The problem is that intelligent design has been judged by the scientific and the educational communities to not be science and not be appropriate for teaching in the high school science classroom. Why should we clutter up the science classroom with nonscientific ideas?
Similarly, it is an introduction of a religious view as science into the public school classroom. And why should we be violating the separation of church and state suggested by the first amendment?
DOBBS: Frank, Eugenie's concerns are certainly rational, it seems. What's the problem? Why is it necessary, in your judgment, for intelligent design to be injected into the classroom?
FRANK SHERWIN, INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH: Well, Lou, I would maintain there's plenty of religion right now in American public schools that teach that in the young people have come from lower forms of life, ultimately from bacteria. Now, as a scientist via real problem with that. And I think it's a breath of intellectual fresh air to allow the students to understand that there is a significant part of the scientific and educational population that are not convinced that we came from bacteria.
As a matter of fact, I have to quote from Charles Darwin when he said in 1859, a fair result can be only obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. So certainly we would agree with that. We are not advocating any kind of religious indoctrination, we are simply trying to show the students there's a significant group out there that believe we have been intelligently designed.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you both this question. And we can go before going to the issues of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, let me ask you both, in your judgment, scientifically, Eugenie, and you, if you will, Frank, what is the origin of life? How would you answer that question in one sentence? Frank?
SHERWIN: Well, obviously, with the complexity of life, and I have had quite a few classes in regard to the complexity of organic life as we know it, is horribly complex, Lou. There's absolutely no way naturalistic way explain the spontaneous origination of organic life from inorganic nonlife.
Now, even non...
DOBBS: Now, that tells me what it isn't, Frank. I'm asking you in your judgment in one sentence is the origin of life?
SHERWIN: OK. With the origin of life we belief a creator is behind an origin of life.
DOBBS: Eugenie, your thought?
SCOTT: In other words...
DOBBS: Your thoughts?
SCOTT: What Frank just said was -- Frank's position is God did it. Whether God did it or not, the issue that we're talking here is what do you teach in science class? And in science, you teach science.
DOBBS: No, Eugenie. What we're talking about -- No, Eugenie, excuse me -- I'm asking you is, what is the origin of life in your judgment?
SCOTT: The origin of life is as yet unsolved problem in science. We do not have agreement among scientists for a natural origin of life. However, you just heard Frank say that this unsolvable problem.
The problem with intelligent design is that it says when you have a difficult problem like origin of life, or the bacteria flagellum, or the blood clotting cascade, you should just throw up your hands and say this unsolvable. We have to say God did it. And that's not the way you teach science.
DOBBS: Is that true, Frank?
SHERWIN: Lou, I never said that. Not once in the organization I represent ever threw up our hands and say it's unsolvable. Certainly, we like to think the creators thoughts after him.
DOBBS: Forgive, I thought that's exactly what you did say, Frank. I'm sorry I thought you did say it was unsolvable.
SHERWIN: No. No. I didn't say that...
SCOTT: You did say it was unsolvable.
SHERWIN: I said we like to enjoy the investigation of the living world. When it comes to the origin of life, I said then we said, yes, life only comes from life. We believe the creator created it.
However, that's a far different issue than blood clotting cascade, the flegellum and such that Eugenie just mentioned. We love to study that.
SCOTT: Actually, I agree. I agree.
In fact, there's a big difference between what we study in evolution and the issues like the origin of life.
DOBBS: Let me ask you both.
SCOTT: And we're much more confident about evolution.
DOBBS: Is your basic objection, Eugenie -- and in court, is it the idea that we are injecting religion in the guise of intelligent design into the public school curriculum?
SCOTT: That is the major problem, yes.
Because what intelligent design says is that there exists incredibly complicated things out there in nature that by their nature are incapable of being he explained by a natural cause. Therefore, they are off the table. God did it. That's a religious view.
Although they tend to be fairly coy about who the intelligent agent is but everybody knows it is God.
SHERWIN: What we're saying simply is that life is so complex, it shows an irreducible complexity that points to a creator.
Eugenie, you're wrong, we're not saying that we advocate that God did it. We are simply leaving that up to the student.
Now, if you think this is creationism through the back door of American public schools, then evolutionary naturalism as it is presently being taught in American taxpayer paid public school is bringing atheism in through the front door.
SCOTT: Well, intelligent design is bringing religion in through the back door. And as a matter of fact, I probably have talked to more teachers than you have teachers are not...
DOBBS: Eugenie Scott, Frank Sherwin, I have got to say thank you very much. We are out of time. The case will be resolved in federal court, it appears, at least unless it is insoluble. The case has begun. And we will be following it closely as I know both of you will in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the federal courtroom. Thank you very much.
SHERWIN: Thank you, Lou.
(link)
