Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

After watching the movie and discussing in class I think that books about
religion, evolution, and intelligent design should be present. These books
may not have to take time in the class room but possibly in the libraries
of public schools and the teachers should make mention to the fact that
they are available for the students to read if they choose. I understand
that teaching evolution or intelligent design in the classroom setting
brings up the controversy of whether or not evolution/intelligent design
are religion in disguise. I also think that it may be beneficial to bring
these tipics up in a classroom setting. However, I do understand we then
face the question of where do we teach these topics in a science setting
when whether or not something like intelligent design even is science runs
through many peoples’ minds. I do not have a clear cut answer for that
problem or any of them at all really but I do think that possibly defining
what each of them are in a quick homeroom type setting might give the
children at least the ability to be curious and ask questions. I think by
not mentioning these kinds of topics we are sheltering students from things
that might help them become better learners and/or teachers in the future.

Diversity makes the world go round. With that being said, the only reservation I have with a minute paragraph declaring Evolution as a “theory” is in the situation of the Dover High School, the intent was not to promote diversity but a more religious agenda. No one can actually force another human being to read a statement they do not believe in just for the sake of a disclaimer. It sounds legally reasonable but ethically irresponsible. As an avid reader I am absolutely fine with making “Of Pandas and People” available in the library, but to include a constant note reminding people that it’s there for browsing does not seem to promote “student choice.” I am even considering finding a copy myself. Although I do not share in the same views, I am always up for reading something different.

Aside from providing tangible evidence in scientific research there are no other restrictions or limitations when it comes to science. I do not think a “super natural” influence is running science, but rather adds to ongoing scientific questions. We may not understand it now but if the question is being asked, an answer will be found somewhere. When most of the Intelligent Design witnesses did not show up for trial, it made a negative impression on me. It made me wonder why there was no reason given. Its not extremely hard to make an excuse (not that I endorsed lying. They could just state that they no longer want to participate. ), but something does not seem right when your own team disappears on you. I find re-enactments to be sort of annoying. It would have worked better if the documentary had one long clip rather than show 5 seconds and than 10 seconds. Due to the abrupt cuts of clips, the court atmosphere was not really conveyed to me.

Honestly, I am really glad that we are done discussing evolution versus intelligent design because I feel like we have analyzed so much evidence for both sides and it really hasn’t gotten us anywhere. All that I feel we have concluded is that there are two sides to look at for every piece of evidence that arises and that this argument will probably never reach a compromise.

There are two things I want to say though. First, evolution definitely has the better argument, considering ID is based on a negative argument but that does not mean evolution has the perfect one. I still believe there is room for a better answer. Second, I kinda agree that “Intelligent Design” is another way to say “creationism.” Based on that, it’s probably not the best to TEACH in schools, but teachers could still bring up the fact that there are other beliefs as to how life came to be.For example, they could read the one minute statement and tell the students that “Of Pandas and People” is available to them in the school library and then move on. That’s really all they have to do.

On that note, I wish we had spent some time discussing what other non-Western cultures/non-Christian religions believe human existence came to be. This class is supposed to be “science, religion, and the search for human nature” but it just feels like “science vs. Christianity” and this was especially the case these last few weeks. Yes, these are the two most pertinent arguments to our culture, but still I wish that we had spent some time exploring what other cultures/religions believe.

Lastly, I think the reenactment part of the video was one of the most interesting parts. It was clear and allowed us to make our own judgments on what was happening.

Is intelligent design scientific? Of course a scientist would jump to say “no” and a creationist would say “yes”, however, fundamentally, is it science? If we were to remove all presuppositions regarding religion and “God”, maybe the intelligent design argument could have a bit more weight. ID is not as far out as creation as ID seeks to at least evaluate the evidence, where creation rules it out altogether. ID does have an interesting argument however quite weak. To elaborate on Ken Miller’s comment on the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap as a tie clip, ID infers a purpose of the mousetrap – to kill mice. On the same idea, looking at a bacterial flagellum would lead one to a conclusion of purpose in movement but as we saw, if the “motor” part is taken away, the bacterium is left with a perfect pilus to transfer genetic material to other bacteria. I thought of a similar analogy to the two given above. If you’ve ever skipped rocks on a lake or river, you are always looking for that “perfect skipper”–perfectly round and flat. Once you have found the perfect skipper, it begs to be skipped. In finding such a perfect stone, are we to say it is of transcendent intelligence? I think not. Over many hundreds of years, the stone is shaped by the currents in the water exerting forces on the stone eventually making it smooth, round and perfect for skipping. We give the stone a purpose in the desire to test our skipping talent. Just as the bacterial flagellum is perfectly constructed for what we see it to be fit for, the skipping stone is perfectly constructed for a similar reason–it serves as a perfect skipping stone. If we break the perfectly round stone in half, the stone now has jagged sharp edges in addition to being unbalanced, and is no longer a great skipper. If we throw these two pieces back into the lake or river, over time, the jagged edges would disappear and eventually each piece would become a perfect skipper once more. In reference to the experiment talked about in the film, I think it would be very interesting to see what happens in the experiment where bacteria were grown over 10000 generations. If a flagellum was seen at any point in the assay over an observable time period, ID would be proven false.– that’s high stakes on ID’s part.

I found the NOVA video on the Dover case quite interesting. I remember when there was a lot of coverage on the television surrounding the case, but I didn’t recall the specific details. I think the judge should be commended for his decision in the case. I would not have expected a judge who was recommended by Rick Santorum and appointed by President Bush to rule the way he did. I don’t think it is a huge deal that the scientists who supported intelligent design were not interviewed mainly because I personally feel that their arguments were quite baseless. I think that they would have been most likely to repeat the same words that were used in the reenactment of the trial. As I have said before, I don’t think there is a huge problem with mentioning intelligent design in public schools, but I think it should be mentioned alongside evolution. I think that the one minute statement was probably over the top. The motivation the school board had in requiring the teachers to read it was to put doubt in the students mind that evolution was false. I personally feel that there are much more gaps in intelligent design than in evolution. I think reenactments kind of take away from the story; I would rather have them show images while someone is narrating what occurred in the courtroom.

The supporters of intelligent design in the Dover case, mainly the Discovery Institute and Bill Buckingham, seemed personally offended by evolution. I’m not trying to put words in their mouths—this is just my perception of their views based upon the movie. To them, evolution means that people are direct descendant from animals. Animals don’t have morals, and they if evolution is true, that would mean humans couldn’t have morals either. A designer is necessary to give humans morals. Bill Buckingham seemed to imply the world is worse off because of Darwin. (I’d like to know if this is an accurate perception.)

If my perception is remotely accurate, I have a few questions to ask the Discover Institute and Bill Buckingham. How is the human race worse off because of Darwin? What evidence do you see that morality has decreased since the Origins of Species was published? What evidence Do you think that Darwin’s discoveries have allowed other scientists to make meaningful discoveries that contribute to society? I want to better understand why Darwin and evolution is so personally insulting to Bill Buckingham. I think that most humans possess some amount of morality. If we actually are decedents from animals, doesn’t our morality make us truly special? I think the implications of our morality are stronger because we are decedents from animals. I’d like to get Buckingham’s perspective on this.

The NOVA video was interesting to say the least. I really liked that parents on both sides of the matter stood up and showed concern for what their children are being taught. Today, it seems that many parents are not involved in their children's lives outside the home and don't fully realize what they are being exposed to. Secondly, I found the reenactments to be interesting. It definitely gave insight into what actually occurred during the trial, but I did find it to be a little biased against ID. Perhaps there was much more evidence for the plaintiffs to present, but the video made the ID team look like bumbling fools. Or maybe that was how it actually happened? Also the judge appeared to look very confused throughout the video. I felt to best part of the video was when the plaintiff team found the discrepancies in the book Of Pandas and People. It is obvious that the publishers and supporters of this book were relying on the information never being discovered. The typos were really priceless.

In addition, it seems that once again creationists are mostly offended my any idea that we came from any type of animal. It seems like such a pompous idea that there is no other animal that can be smarter or more agile than humans. When creationists refuse to acknowledge scientific studies refuting the idea of an Intelligent Designer and the likeliness we evolved from something else, they choose to ignore evidence..something that Intelligent Design does not have to back up its theory.

The goal of a science classroom setting is to teach students scientific theories and reasoning. I think that the decision the court made was upheld this purpose since Intelligent Design is not scientific, and they gave reasons for such a claim. The fact that teachers also refused to read the required statement showed that it did not support the purposes of a science classroom. Keeping student’s minds open is definitely a positive thing, but it seemed to me that the statement discredited evolution. In an ideal world it would be possible to introduce students to multiple ideas and foster discussion about the such ideas, but since we have this subject specifically for science, only scientifically supported ideas have a place there. I like the idea of having books in the library on Intelligent Design and other theories not taught in class available, and perhaps there could even be a discussion on why evolution is being taught rather than some of the other more religious theories.

On a side note…I thought it interesting that, after doing some research, I found this documentary won an award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I like seeing interviews with some of the trial participants because clearly this is an influential case in the teaching of evolution versus Intelligent Design.

It’s undeniable that the content of the intelligent design theory is religiously inspired, thus creating the religiously-charged movement to have it taught in public school science classrooms. If intelligent design were taught in a public school science classroom, I would consider it to be unconstitutional; separation of church and state means that religious teachings should not be taught in a public school setting. The intelligent design community argues that this theory is NOT a religious theory, as it does not label “God” as the “intelligent cause” that they believe caused certain features of the universe, and they identify gaps or weaknesses in current theories as evidence to support their argument. However, these gaps are gradually and continually being filled in over time. Furthermore, their lack of empirical evidence is an obvious sign that their theory is NOT science, and therefore is another reason why it should not be taught in a public school science classroom. At most, it would be acceptable to be taught in a religion class if one were offered at that particular school, where all religions and creation theories were taught side by side, but such theories should not be taught alongside evolution.

One thing that came to my mind while watching this video was that if the teachers of the sciences classes are unwilling to read the statement aloud concerning evolution and intelligent design, how can the rest of us question whether intelligent design is a science? Wouldn’t the teachers of science be better equipped to make these decisions than the rest of us? I think that scientists and science teachers are supposed to be experts in this matter, and I am influenced by their objections to intelligent design as a science.
I highly support religious texts, such as Of Panda and People, being made available to students. And I guess I don’t even object to students being told that there are other theories concerning scientific topics, as long as it isn’t exclusively related to evolution. Students should be taught that a lot science is theories.
This movie made me really excited to go see the lecture by Kenneth Miller. I am interested to hear what he has to say concerning these issues that we have been discussing.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around what exactly intelligent design is. What I know for sure, however, is that it is not science. I think it’s more of a topic that only can exist through process of elimination. But definitely not science, and definitely not even on the same level as the subjects taught in public schools. Like some of the people in the video said, it seems like intelligent design is creationism in disguise. Either way you put it, it is still the belief in something that cannot be proven in any sense of the word, and therefore doesn’t belong in public schools. If you want to learn about God, go to a church or synagogue, or even the internet. God, in any form other than the strict history of any religious belief, belongs nowhere near the public school systems. If ID was allowed in public schools (or at least the paragraph the school board in Dover was trying to argue for), what would be next? They would want a full page for ID. Then a whole chapter. Hey, while we’re at it, why not a whole book? It’s easy to become lax on the rules once a little leeway has been given.
I found the most entertaining part of the video when the woman found the phrase “crdesign proponentsists” in a rough draft of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People. It just goes to show how similar the two beliefs are. I was relieved that the judge in Dover, Pennsylvania ruled the way he did. In my opinion, arguing for or against intelligent design is a waste of time. Even talking about it is a waste of time. It’s a watered down version of religious belief and has no concrete answers for the “why” or “how” or “when” questions. ID doesn’t even attempt to answer any of these. It’s not quite religion and not quite science, stuck in limbo with no growth or change to speak of.

I was quite surprised the judge ruled the way he did in the case, being appointed by the Bush administration.

The video showed me just how far some people will go to push their ideologies onto the boundaries of other peoples'. I find it interesting that no one argues about the theories in mathematics or the syntaxes in our english language. Why does "intelligent design" choose the science class room? Interestingly, science is more of a form of study, a very specific way of study in fact. It's as almost if ID is trying to claim that it is within that realm of study. To me, and I think a lot of the class, it's not. ID doesn't observe things objectively. Rather, it does the opposite. ID is very subjective.

With that being said do the parents and others that believe in ID really believe that a paragraph at the beginning of study will suffice in the introduction of ID to their children? I agree with what Val says above me, you give them one inch and the next thing you know, they'll want a mile. That's why, unfortunately, you can't budge an inch on these rulings.

I personally think the whole Dover Court Case and the events that preceded it was people making mountains out of mole hills. Parents were upset that their children were being taught documented and well-supported scientific theories but not alternative beliefs generated from religious teachings. I would have no problem with a teacher telling me that there are other theories opposite scientific theories, such as intelligent design in this case, and that we can freely study it on our own, but at the same time, I would not want to be forced to learn about intelligent design because of it's religious implications. And I believe most students, if given their own choice and not pressured by the possibility of disappointing their parents, would agree with me.

What stuck out to me about the court case was when the experts testifying for intelligent design described creationism as a science. This brings up the bigger question of what is a science and what is an art, something I've discussed in many classes with several students and teachers. In my opinion, I think people have the idea of science vs art misconstrued. Instead of categorizing subjects as sciences or arts, I believe any one subject can be defined in either terms. Scientific characteristics are objective, empirical, testable, and supportive facts while artistic characteristics are subjective, personal uniqueness, creativity, interpretations, and perceptions. But even though everything could be described as an art or a science, I also believe some topics have more characteristics of one than the other. Creationism deals with stories of the past and individual perceptions of nature, which makes it more of an art, even if those perceptions of nature can be defined in scientific terms.

But everything aside, I do think the court made a wise decision in declaring it unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools because of it's direct relationship to religion and thus the teaching of it a potential violation of our freedom of religion.

This movie was shockingly entertaining. I was surprised by how suspenseful it was; the information was presented in such a way that I was on the edge of my seat until the end.

As a judge, I think the decision would be harder to make than I initially expected. He was the one to interpret the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which many people think includes the words “separation of church and state”. Instead, he had to interpret the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” From this clause Jones had to decide that Intelligent Design was in fact religion and not science, and that the teaching of this as science was a violation of his reading of the Establishment Clause. This decision was much deeper than I initially thought. It is really disappointing that he experienced what he did after his decision (death threats, etc). A person puts a lot of work into making such a hard decision, knowing it will inevitably be controversial. He was put in an unfortunate position; he only had to interpret the Constitution as he saw right, only had to do his job objectively, but ended up paying a high price (requiring around-the-clock protection).

The Dover Court Case at fist glance seems to have been blown way out purport ion. Who really cares if some quick questions are raised about the evolution theory in the science classroom and an additional textbook is available in the library? This really doesn’t threaten the emphasis on evolutionary theory that scientists find important and it could even be said such a curriculum is in the spirit of critical thinking. However, this analysis is wrong for two reasons; one it fails to take into account the ultimate motivations of proponents for the intelligent design in the classroom, and two it fails to account for the power of precedent in the legal system. This court case would have validated intelligent design as classroom worthy science in an United States district court (as this court has power over many other courts), then the school boards could go back the next year and push the agenda further, introducing Of Pandas and People as a primary text…and from there this precedent would be used to spread the agenda across the country. This agenda is clearly spelled out in the Discovery institutes “Wedge Strategy,” a document designed by very skilled lawyer/policy makers who have experience putting their ideologies into law.

The very interesting thing about the Dover Court Case is the players behind the scenes, such as the ACLU and Discovery Institute, that use these local tensions as staging grounds to fight wars in their much larger battle.

I enjoyed watching the film and thought it brought up a lot of interesting points. Intelligent design does undermine the practice of the scientific method, and was quite strongly bound to religious ideals; however, on behalf of the creationists, it is understandable for them to want Evolution to be taught as a "theory" instead of fact. I’m not saying that a 1 minuet statement is even necessary, but just that the teachers mention that evolution hasn’t explained everything, and is only a theory. I found it funny that the ID proponents kept thinking that they were going to make intelligent design the next paradigm in scientific research. They went so far as to making a 20 year plan to get creationism back on top of evolution. That is crazy. Instead I feel like they should be working with to promote intelligent design in a different fashion by expanding ideas found in the theory of evolution. Claiming that we appeared 6000 years ago along with all of the other creatures just wont cut it in today’s education system and the proponents of intelligent design should understand that, and move on.
I also think the ID guys were pretty much done for when their scientists didn't show up to court and testify on behalf of ID. With such a large body of evidence showing not only that evolution is firmly grounded in scientific research, but that there were typos detailing that Intelligent Design replaced the words creationism were obviously going to push the judge in the direction for the plaintiff.

Although I enjoyed watching the film in class, I couldn’t help but sigh at the “cliché-ness” of the argument(s) and the series of events that followed the feud. Of course a small town like Dover, Pennsylvania that houses Christians and those who follow science would have an intense debate over the definition of Intelligent Design and whether or not they should consider teaching the Theory of Evolution as well as Intelligent Design (or Creationism). In the court reenactment, they used the structure of the bacteria flagellum to argue that based on its specific and perfect design, it strongly infers that it is a product of man and was not derived from a generic mutation through nature. However, one could make a strong counter-argument and say that this perfect design was created by an omniscient being; in other words God is responsible for this design. Although I am not familiar with the origin of this bacteria, I do know that bacteria has been thriving in our world for a very long time and it is difficult for me to believe that a human, who lacks the tools necessary to created such a specimen during the earlier centuries, is capable of producing such a flawless organism. How would they know how to create the mechanics of the bacteria? Where did it come from originally? How have they obtained the knowledge necessary to build one? All of these questions contradict the theory that man is responsible for an “intelligent design.”

The only place ID should have in a science classroom is in a lesson plan teaching about the scientific method. It is one thing to point out that the evolution theory is not fully explained, in fact I would say that that is Very Important, but to go further and state that ID is the answer is wrong. The NOVA video was fascinating, though I sometimes thought that it was biased against the ID people. Several times the narrator had a (slightly, and this is my interpretation) condescending or sarcastic tone when talking about the ID side. Journalistically speaking, I thought they failed to equally present the ID believers' case, even if the people they contacted refused to agree to meet. Unfortunately, the people who need to be convinced that ID is not legitimate science will not listen to the NOVA video because of this perceived bias of another liberal mainstream media attack on their lifestyle. More families will choose to home school their kids and teach this pseudoscience. I wish there was a nation wide home school certification you had to pass in order to teach it, I remember the uproar a few years ago when the Californian legislature tried that. The point is moot by ninth grade anyway--children are already determined by the time they are seven.

I thought the movie was a great addition to our discussions about evolution and intelligent design. I was extremely surprised about some things in the movie and then not so surprised about others. One thing that really stuck out in my head was that many people got death threats sent to them. Obviously people feel very strongly about this topic and I hope they would if they are sending it to trial but, death threats, really? I was shocked that people that believed in intelligent design and in some cases creationism would threaten a persons life.
After all the discussions we have had about creationism and intelligent design in high schools I can’t make a decision where this information should be placed in a curriculum. However, I do agree that the information should be in the schools somewhere. I’m not really sure if it should be taught in a class room or presented and left open for the students to explore themselves, making there own decisions. It’s hard to say what would benefit the students the most since that should be the first thought of a public school. How can a school educate students the best and present them with adequate information to expand their brain?

Forgot to post this earlier, sorry all. I enjoyed watching this documentary, mainly because I have heard all the fuss about ID vs. Evolution in the classroom, but never really seen the basis for the argument. I think this film portrays the supporters of ID either old, stubborn coots or genuine who want to see some diversity in the classroom (possibly just trying to hold onto their roots). The theory of evolution is still the one that makes most logical sense in my mind, and should still remain that way for a long time to come.

As is the topic of most discussion revolving around the topic, I think that the information shouldn't be taught by teachers in schools, but should still be available to students if they choose to pursue the subject. Let them decide what to believe, while still maintaining the basis of high school education.

Forgot to post this earlier, sorry all. I enjoyed watching this documentary, mainly because I have heard all the fuss about ID vs. Evolution in the classroom, but never really seen the basis for the argument. I think this film portrays the supporters of ID either old, stubborn coots or genuine who want to see some diversity in the classroom (possibly just trying to hold onto their roots). The theory of evolution is still the one that makes most logical sense in my mind, and should still remain that way for a long time to come.

As is the topic of most discussion revolving around the topic, I think that the information shouldn't be taught by teachers in schools, but should still be available to students if they choose to pursue the subject. Let them decide what to believe, while still maintaining the basis of high school education.

This movie makes the strong argument that intelligent design, in its present form, has no place in the science classroom per the establishment clause in our first amendment. What I took away from this documentary, however, was that religion really SHOULD be present in the classroom. We are presented with the views of parents and teachers and scientists and lawyers, but students really only play as extras in particular scenes. It is clear that we live in a social climate greatly influenced by religious belief, and growing up in an environment in which discussion of religion is taboo, or frowned upon (namely the public school system in general) allows for a perpetuation of skewed understandings of religion. Students who are raised in a very religious home environment understand much of what they learn (particularly in early education) through the lens of their religion, while those who grow up in a less religious (or adamantly non-religious home) understand things very differently (and have a hard time in english class when it comes to biblical allusions). While I absolutely am NOT advocating teaching religion in the science classroom (and consider this sort of a no-brainer although it continues to come up in court), I think that it is important that religion remain a part of public school curriculum in the same way that it is a part of secular university curriculum. To remain silent on the topic is to allow the biases of upbringing to ferment and in many ways tint our judgment for the rest of our lives and, while many people may hold fast to these biases, I think it is important that we make an informed decision (and, at the very least, understand an important social institution in its many forms).

Should science teachers read a one-minute statement explaining that there are alternative theories to evolution? No. When there is controversy in science about a new finding, scientists take sides and there is rigorous debate. Eventually, however, more and more evidence is uncovered, more and more scientists come to agreement on a unified interpretation of the finding, and a new theory emerges. Schools and do not teach such findings or theories (nor should they) until the findings are well-proven and supported by overwhelming empirical evidence. For example, some scientists believe that global climate change is not related to human behavior. Textbooks often mention this disagreement and may even briefly describe alternative theories. However, they usually put the alternatives into context by explaining that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree, and the overwhelming majority of empirical evidence suggests that global climate change is in fact human-caused. The theory of evolution is beautifully unified, cohesive, interconnected, and all-encompassing, and it has at least a hundred and fifty years of supporting evidence since the theory was published. Reading the one-minute statement to students undercuts this strong theory by placing doubt in the minds of students. The statement offers up Intelligent Design as an equal alternative. But Intelligent Design is not an equal. It is not cohesive. It is not interconnected or all-encompassing. It is an argument looking for science to prove itself, when science is supposed to be the other way around. Intelligent Design has risen to its current level of popularity not because of scientific corroboration, but because creationists have nothing else. It is the only thing they have to get behind. And that is not a good enough reason to undercut evolution with a one-minute statement to students.

Should school libraries carry “Of Pandas and People?” Yes. Intelligent Design may not belong in the science classroom, but it does deserve to be accessible to students. Many interests, especially (and ironically in this case) the Church, have tried to ban books in the past. That is not the road we should continue down. We are supposed to be a free country with the right to speech as one of the tenants we hold most dear. Though it should not be promoted in schools, religion should be available to those who want to learn about it. Classes could be offered to discuss religious texts or debate issues between science and religion as long as schools promote learning and not proselytizing.