Does Changing the Definition of Science Solve the Establishment Clause Problem for Teaching Intelligent Design as Science in Public Schools? Doing an End-Run Around the Constitution

[Excerpt] When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection in 1859, it sparked some of the most contentious debates in American intellectual history, debates that continue to rage today. Although these debates have numerous political ramifications, the question posed in this paper is narrow: Does the Establishment Clause permit a particular assessment of current evolutionary theory – intelligent design (“ID”) – to be taught as science in American elementary and secondary public schools? This article shows that it does not. To understand current disputes over whether and how to teach the origins of life – including human life – in the science classes of public schools, it is necessary to understand both the legal and the scientific frameworks. I describe those general frameworks below in Part II. There I also show that Darwin’s theory of evolution meets the definition of science, an important step in showing that teaching evolution has a bona fide secular purpose as required by the Constitution. I also explain the relationship between Darwin’s theory and other explanations for the origins of life, such as creationism and classical versions of the design inference. I show, in particular, that neither creationism nor the design inference meets the definition of science, but belong rather to the religious domain. In Part III, I examine the origins of the conflict between evolutionary theory and creationism. That debate centered around two questions: May states constitutionally prohibit public schools from teaching evolution because its account of human origins is antithetical to the account set forth in the Book of Genesis? If not, does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment permit a state to insist that its schools provide a balanced treatment of creationism and evolution when presenting human origins theories? Examining the historical development of the Establishment Clause in this context illuminates the question whether the current “teach the controversy” dispute is a historical product of the past controversies involving creationists. Answering that question helps determine whether efforts by ID proponents have a constitutionally impermissible religious purpose. In Part IV, I examine the modern theory of ID to determine whether it meets the definition of science. Again, answering that question helps to determine whether current efforts by ID proponents to “teach the controversy” have a secular purpose. I conclude that they do not, by showing that ID not only fails to meet the definition of science, but it also is linked to such famous proofs for the existence of God as St. Thomas Aquinas’ fifth proof, and Bishop Paley’s design inference. In Part V, I examine one school board’s solution to the constitutional problem – to change the definition of science. I conclude that the school board’s actions are unconstitutional to the extent they are attempting to inject proofs for the existence of God into public school science classes. And in Part VI, I draw some broad conclusions regarding the compatibility of theistic and scientific responses to origins of life inquiry

Determination of Metals in Whey and Vegan Protein Supplements using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry

Driven by a demand for health and wellness products worldwide, the dietary supplement industry continues to expand with an economic impact \u3e$100 billion in the USA alone. However, the industry is plagued by a lack of regulation and incidents of contamination, including with toxic heavy metals that can put consumers at potential risk. In this study, eight trace elements (Cd, Pb, Fe, Co, Mn, V, Cu, and Cr), including heavy metals (Cd and Pb), were determined in whey and vegan protein powder by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) after microwave-assisted digestion using nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide. Samples were run in triplicate along with blanks and a reference material. Mean concentrations (µg/g ± 1SD) in the vegan protein powder were Fe (133±1) \u3e Mn (25.5±10.3) \u3e Cu (1.4±5.4) \u3e Cr (0.226±0.0414) \u3e V (0.17±0.01) \u3e Co (0.090±0.001) \u3e Pb (0.038±0.013) \u3e Cd (0.033±0.003). This was higher than the whey protein powder: Fe (11.5±4.3) \u3e Cu (1.91±2.2) \u3e Mn (0.20±0.01) \u3e Cr (0.0491±0.0505) \u3e V (0.018 ± 0.005) \u3e Pb (0.017±0.005) \u3e Co (0.012±0.001) \u3e Cd (0.010±0.001). These levels correspond to amounts per serving that were below the US FDA recommended daily allowance for both the whey and vegan protein powders. However, the vegan protein powder had concentrations of Mn and Fe that could exceed the FDA criteria and be a risk to the consumer if they ingest more than the recommended daily serving (which is common for body builders) or attain these metals from other dietary sources. We intended analyze additional samples to confirm this finding and to determine how widespread the issue is, but unfortunately, the ICP-MS became inoperable and is in need of repair. Instead, on suggestion from the Honor’s College, I conducted a deep literature review on the subject of heavy metal contamination in the supplement industry and current guidelines. Herein I also provide my overview and recommendations on this subject

Does Title VII Prohibit Discrimination in Employment-Transfer Decisions Only if They Cause Materially Significant Disadvantages for Employees?

Case at a Glance: Petitioner Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a sergeant for the St. Louis Police Department, was transferred to another unit within the department. Muldrow sued the City of St. Louis for making a discriminatory transfer decision in alleged violation of Title VII. This case presents the question of whether Title VII prohibits discriminatory transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the decision caused Muldrow materially significant disadvantages