.jpg)
(Photo: Sean P. Harris)
Governor Rick Perry announced on Friday his appointment of board member Gail Lowe to replace Don McLeroy as chairperson of the Texas State Board of Education. Gail Lowe is a Lampasas newspaper editor and has been a member of the State Board of Education since 2002. She is also a proponent of Intelligent Design.
Last January, the board voted on whether ID should be included in high school biology textbooks for the state of Texas. Chapter 112.34.(7a-f) of the curriculum included the language “analyze and evaluate” in accordance with all teachings regarding evolutionary theory.
In my previous article about the evolution of intelligent design in Texas schools, I highlighted the criticism of board members (notably religious conservative Cynthia Dunbar) for nominating well known creationists to the advisory panel. The most controversial advisor on the panel was Vice President of the Discovery Institute, Stephen C. Meyer, a well known scientific philosopher and champion of the Intelligent Design movement. He was the co-author of the textbook Explore Evolution which the Texas Citizens for Science says “falsely [misrepresents] the accuracy and reliability of modern evolutionary science.”
Governor Perry’s appointment of Gail Lowe coincides with the publication of Stephen C. Meyer’s new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. The promotional website for the book says that Dr. Meyer shows how “it is precisely our modern scientific age that is in the process of burying materialist theories of life’s development.” During a speech at the Heritage Foundation to launch the publication of his book, Dr. Meyer argued that the information encoded in our DNA could be proof of ID because the only thing “capable of producing information . . . is intelligent agency.”
The aim of Dr. Meyer is to approach the probability of ID from an empirical rather than a religious perspective in order to promote it in the scientific community. The benefit of this approach for supporters of ID is that it contradicts the arguments of Evolution proponents like Richard Dawkins who follow Brandon Carter’s “self-selection principle” which says that the origin of life was a “chemical event that forged the first self-replicating molecule and hence triggered natural selection of DNA and ultimately all of life" (Dawkins, 94-95).
If Meyer is able to garner enough support for ID as a scientific theory, future board of education debates over ID in the biology curriculum could go very differently. It would also help the religious right side-step the “separation of church and state” argument. Dr. Meyer stands to benefit monetarily since he is a textbook author and one of the country’s leading experts on Intelligent Design.
The Texas Board of Education’s current list of adopted biology textbooks expires in 2010. Gail Lowe’s term as chair expires Feb. 1, 2011. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Texas State Board of Education revisit the issue of Evolution and Intelligent Design in the near future, especially if Meyer’s theory gains momentum. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a new biology textbook from Dr. Meyer or the Discovery Institute in the coming years.
Governor Perry’s appointment of Gail Lowe to chair the SBOE and the publication of Meyer's new book could be a turning point in the evolution of Intelligent Design in Texas schools.
Other references:
Pinker, Steven, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Lisa Randall, Marc D. Hauser, and Tim D. White. "Intelligent Aliens". Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. Ed. John Brockman. New York: Vintage, 2006. p. 92-106.
Comments
"Last January, the board voted on whether ID should be included in high school biology textbooks for the state of Texas."
Excuse me, but can you please show me where it says that intelligent design should be included in the high school biology textbooks because I'm trying to figure out which side lies the most, and so far... it is you, rather than them who “falsely [misrepresents] the accuracy and reliability”... of whatever...
Thanks
island:
You're right..the author should have said "...whether ID should be covertly included..."
tm61 then he'd be abusing science to play politics, based on assumption, rather than established fact.
The lie is that the integrity of science has anything to do with this culture war between ideologically opposing fanatics.
"The aim of Dr. Meyer is to approach the probability of ID from an empirical rather than a religious perspective"
The problem is that you can separate from it's religious roots. It doesn't start from empirical facts, it starts from the assumption that the supernatural exists.
Ouabache has it right. At the end of the day, Meyer's perspective still has no basis in science.
He is not the first to attempt to give empirical wings to the dominant creation story. That has been the program of western religious conservatives studying nature since before Darwin, and over the course of that history, the empirical facts have almost always pointed away from their desired conclusions. Each time, they give a little ground and adjust the rules of the program... and leave a few people behind defending absurd outdated positions.
"If Meyer is able to garner enough support for ID as a scientific theory." Enough support??? This is not what science is about. To garner enough support does not turn an idea into a theory. Intelligent Design has been rejected by the scientific community.
Meyer, Lowe, and McLeroy want people to believe that there is a debate occurring in Biology over the validity of the theory of evolution. There is none.
No matter a biologist language, religious belief, or country they all accept the scientific theory of evolution. They also view creationism as a hindrance to a quality scientific education, and have to spend extra time reteaching the principles of evolution to students.
Island: This is not about the integrity of science. It is about education.
On the integrity of science, consider one of the central claims of ID: that the presence of intelligence can be detected/proven. This would be an important discovery in science much broader than creationist arguments against evolution! I've studied information theory, and I find the claim vaguely plausible and extremely enticing. So, where's the beef??? It's not there! They are putting forth a purely philosophical argument disguised as an empirical one!
island:
did you follow the links on this page? also-I think the point is that it is a fanatical argument-but that doesn't make it any less threatening to the education of children in texas.
hm2199, yes I read the links on the page, but I find it extremely telling that you only see one side of the debate as being comprised of fanatics.
Critical analysis isn't ID, and critical analysis certainly does not hurt science education... rather, it strengthens it, and is also a very important part of the scientific method.
Just because you assume that critical analysis somehow equates to ID does not make it so, and there are a number of states with these laws on the books that serve as strong evidence that it does NOT equate to ID, which exposes the lie of the ideological left.
Mr. Orange, I'm fairly certain that the integrity of science education what I was talking about.
And then Mr. Orange goes on to make an irrelevant argument against ID, rather than to address anything that the proponents of critical analysis have proposed.
Wow... just wow...
island says: "Critical analysis isn't ID..."
George Gilder, co-founder and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute said:
"I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an 'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are [the Discovery Institute], What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content."
Boston Globe article, "The evolution of George Gilder," by Joseph P. Kahn, July 27, 2005
tinyurl.com/msulw4
Mr. Orange says: "I've studied information theory,..."
Then you probably realize that the lead proponent of information theory in the cause of ID, William Dembski, fails to offer a consistent, noncircular definition of his key term, "complex specified information." He also shifts suspiciously from Shannon to Kolmogorov information theory whenever convenient, even though "information" is defined differently in the two theories. In short, the use of information theory in the cause of ID lacks rigour.
Living in TX, I do not send my child to public school that preaches ID. My child goes to a private more advanced school that places an emphasis on science, math, language. Better to be educated correctly and logically than being taught by ignorant idiots with religioius views.
I too have studied information theory and can attest that information theory only applies to applied mathematics and electrical engineering. Anyone trying to convince someone that information theory can be applied to biology is being dishonest at best, or just misinformed.
Being a person who loves mathematics and science, ID seemed an interesting concept. However, in the realms of "abstract logic" and "applied logic" it is just nonsense.
The integrity of science is protected by the scientific method. 150 years later. Independently discovered by two men. We can proudly say evolution has been proven true.
Problem with Intelligent Design Creationism is that stupid people don't realize they are stupid.
It doesn't start from empirical facts, it "starts from the assumption that the supernatural exists."
...and you hate even the thought that God exists, let alone the presupposition that God exists. So you want to force the opposite presupposition (that God does not exist) on everyone else, regardless of the evidence.
It is more evident every day that the most most narrow minded and bigoted of our citizenry are atheists operating under the guise of methodological naturalism, and accusing everyone who disagrees with them as being creationists. What irony! What double talk!
Regardless of the question a scientist asks, the definitive scientific process is: devise a question; formulate a hypothesis; develop methods, tests, and results; make conclusions based on these results; submit the results in manuscript form for peer-review scrunity. From there, more questions and conclusions are obtained with more peer-review; a theory, (or better-worded) an explanation, is developed; more questions/tests/results, more peer-review, further refinement of that theory/explanation, etc. Then, and only then, can science end up in the school classroom (at any level, grade school, high school, university). The problem with intelligent design being taught in classrooms is that there are no peer-reviewed journal articles that support it; a question is asked: how did man/life come to be. Hypothesis: An intelligent designer. Where are the tests, experiments, results? Then, where is the peer-reviewed scrunity by scientists who are experts on the question of origin of life?
(Part 2 of 2)
Unfortunately, for proponents of intelligent design, these will be scientists who are going to accept evolution. Intelligent design would have to present the evidence to "win over" these experts in the field to get their evidence published. Then, I think, the scientists would accept (or even advocate for) intelligent design's inclusion in the school curriculum. Also, it seems like the conclusions (in this case, that an intelligent designer is responsible for man's origins, and not evolution) are being drawn before the conducting of any tests/experiments; this doesn't adhere to the scientific process of how scientific data makes its way out of the field or lab and into the scientific community (much less reaching the grade-school textbooks).
Interesting story. I have just written about the Islamic concept of evolution, based on a new scientific experiment conducted in my home state of Oregon. I would be interested to see your feedback. Islam does not create this war between creationism and evolution. Islam believes in evolution and teaches that it does not contradict the power or existence of God.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!