Evolution at Aims Community College: Update

Posted 9 November 2011 by Matt Young

Gaythia Weis has just sent me the following announcement:

Associated Students of Aims Community College invite the public to a free program to discuss evolution The public is invited to attend a discussion on the theory of evolution, led by Richard Bond, Ph.D. "Science, Theories, Stories: The Real Issue," will be presented on Nov. 14 from noon to 1:30 p.m. in Ed Beaty Hall Theater on the Aims Community College Greeley campus. Bond is a former president of Morgan Community College and the University of Northern Colorado, where he holds President Emeritus status as well as Professor Emeritus of Zoology. He has also served three terms in the Colorado Legislature in addition to eight years on the Aims Board of Trustees. He also occasionally teaches adult education at First Congregational United Church of Christ.

The program is sponsored by the Associated Students of Aims Community College, and the announcement is followed by this disclaimer:

The views presented at this program do not necessarily represent those of Aims Community College or the Associated Students of Aims Community College.

A pity that the college has to state publicly that they do not necessarily support genuine science, but at least they are on the right track.

3 Comments

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 9 November 2011

That's even better news than making clear that the creationist propaganda wasn't endorsed by the school.

We've had creationist talks and "seminars" at our local community college, but there's never been any confusion about sponsorship and lack of any endorsement from the college. And one of the head guys there told me how they specifically pointed out to SDA (there's an Adventist ghetto around here) teachers who applied to teach there that they would be expected to teach evolution.

Interestingly, in the specific instance he mentioned, the SDA teacher had no problem with teaching evolution.

Glen Davidson

advenioadveritas · 24 November 2011

It seems to me that the disclaimer at the bottom of the announcement serves more as a general disclaimer for legal purposes that the school probably uses on a regular basis. I don’t see it serving to warn people against or for evolution, just the school protecting themselves should someone be offended by what is said at the event.

I do applaud the school for holding an opening meeting on the topic. It is fundamental for the sciences to openly discuss and debate the current theories and challenges to those theories. As long as it is done fairly without resorting to ad hominem attacks, seminars and conferences that seek to openly discuss evolution can provide great information for students seeking to know more about it and about whether is any validity to intelligent design. Of course, old school creationism that doesn’t employ actual scientific evidence should be excluded.
I’m not opposed to requiring professors or even high school teachers to teach evolution, as long as it’s a balanced approach that acknowledges the areas where the prevailing version of it doesn’t quite answer all the questions or fit all the evidence (Cambrian Explosion, consciousness, and cellular development (like the bacterial flagellum)).

For science to really move forward all options should be considered instead of discounting some work simply because it doesn’t fit the prevailing theories. By denying a voice to those who have done legitimate research and have arrived at differing answers it seems that some in the sciences haven’t learned from the church’s treatment of Copernicus or Galileo.

So bravo to Aims for bringing the debate forward without denigrating those with differing views.

j. biggs · 30 November 2011

advenioadveritas said: It seems to me that the disclaimer at the bottom of the announcement serves more as a general disclaimer for legal purposes that the school probably uses on a regular basis. I don’t see it serving to warn people against or for evolution, just the school protecting themselves should someone be offended by what is said at the event.

That seems reasoable enough. Although I wouldn't have a problem if ACC didn't put in the disclaimer because it is an academic institution supporting the scientific consensus, not mere opinion.

I do applaud the school for holding an opening meeting on the topic. It is fundamental for the sciences to openly discuss and debate the current theories and challenges to those theories. As long as it is done fairly without resorting to ad hominem attacks, seminars and conferences that seek to openly discuss evolution can provide great information for students seeking to know more about it and about whether is any validity to intelligent design.

You are getting into the fair argument here which makes me question your knowledge of how science really works. Science is fair, all ideas get an equal shake, but if they don't pan out they get discarded. Intelligent design is one of the ideas that didn't pan out. There is no real scientific literature or research that actually supports any proposition put forth by intelligent design conjecturists. When ID proponents actually do research and publish the results they will be taken more seriously.

Of course, old school creationism that doesn’t employ actual scientific evidence should be excluded.

Why should ID get a pass if Creationism doesn't. Judge Jones basically stated in his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision that ID is a repackaged form of Creationism. I am inclined to agree with that assessment.

I’m not opposed to requiring professors or even high school teachers to teach evolution,..

Good, because evolution theory and common descent are the best supported scientific explanations currently available and that is exactly what should be taught in a science course.

...as long as it’s a balanced approach that acknowledges the areas where the prevailing version of it doesn’t quite answer all the questions or fit all the evidence (Cambrian Explosion, consciousness, and cellular development (like the bacterial flagellum)).

Your agenda becomes evident. Science does acknowledge where the "prevailing version doesn't quite answer all the questions". When that happens it is acknowledged that science can not answer that question yet; what is not done is add, "therefore goddidit". And as explained previously, if the prevailing theory, "doesn't quite fit all the evidence" it is discarded or modified. None of the things you mention are a problem for the theory of evolution. In fact there are hundreds if not thousands of published peer-reviewed research articles that explain the very things you mention using actual science. All ID posits is, these things are too complex to occur naturally so ~~God~~ designer did it, without even attempting to address what is currently known. What you are proposing professors and science teachers teach in their lectures is not science, but an appeal to the supernatural, or put more appropriately, an appeal to our ignorance.

For science to really move forward all options should be considered instead of discounting some work simply because it doesn’t fit the prevailing theories.

The options you want considered were more than one hundred years ago. They were found not to fit the evidence and discarded. Deal with it.

By denying a voice to those who have done legitimate research and have arrived at differing answers it seems that some in the sciences haven’t learned from the church’s treatment of Copernicus or Galileo.

Please point out any legitimate research ID conjecturists have done in support of their ID conjecture. If you can actually come up with some acual research that supports ID instead of a bunch of long refuted arguments (like the ones you mentioned earlier) that cast unfair doubt on legitimate science, then you may get your wish. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

So bravo to Aims for bringing the debate forward without denigrating those with differing views.

Bravo for coming here and illuminating the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. ID is Creationism in disguise and the Wedge document proved this. The Discovery Institute and other cdesign proponentsists have a sectarian agenda. This group of poorly disguised Creationists has no interest in advancing our scientific knowledge.