Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Monkey business
(Ally Fogg, Commentary, The Guardian, November 01 2008)

One evening when my son was about four years old, he interrupted his bedtime story routine to impart a fascinating piece of knowledge he had picked up from his little friend Ella in nursery that day.

"Did you know, Daddy," he chirruped with glee, "that a long, long, long time ago, you and me and Mummy and Ella and everyone else in the whole wide world ... we all used to be monkeys!"

Notwithstanding a slightly shaky grasp of the mechanics of natural selection and random generational mutation, my little Flea has since revelled in his simian family connections. He often uses it to explain his prodigious talent for clambering up ropes, trees, climbing frames or dad's creaking old limbs, and uses it as a Get Out Of Jail Free card when chastised for impertinence or mischief. "I can't help it, I'm a cheeky monkey."

Two years on from his evolutionary awakening, Flea is in Year 2 at a non-faith state primary school. Currently decorating the walls outside his classroom are a series of crayon pictures drawn by him and his classmates, on pre-printed segmented exercise sheets entitled "How the world was made". Each square contains a different picture from the book of Genesis, beginning with darkness and ending with Eve, a serpent and an apple.

As an atheist and a rationalist I might be expected to take exception to this display. I don't. I fully expect that in a few weeks' time the pictures will be of Santa Claus delivering presents, and for all I care they could illustrate the transformation of Peter Parker into Spiderman. The story of Adam and Eve is a cracking myth. Like Santa and Spiderman, it forms a central part of our collective culture, and I think it is entirely correct to include it in the broad education of our young people. And perhaps more importantly, I firmly believe that six-year-olds should be learning how to read a bit, write a bit, count a bit and make a farting noise by putting their hand under their armpit. Everything else is just filler.

My issue is not with what is being said, but with what is not being said. I asked Flea about the Adam and Eve lesson, and sure enough, he had been told that this was how God had made people. I asked him whether the teacher had mentioned the alternative, scientific explanation. Unsurprisingly, she hadn't. I then asked whether he had thought of putting up his hand and mentioning it himself. His answer was deeply depressing. "No, I would never do that because everybody would laugh at me and call me a monkey."

Perhaps I should make a fuss about this, and demand reassurances from the headteacher or school governors that teachers will at least acknowledge the evolutionary process and support or protect pupils who raise the issue in class. But it is hard to see what that would achieve, other than mark me and my family out as troublemakers. The school is not at fault here. There is no obligation on primary schools to teach evolution, even in passing. Indeed the first mention of it in the National Curriculum comes at Key Stage 4, which is GCSE level.

That's right, it is possible for a child to go through state education right up to the age of 15 before a teacher must give a mention to the most central and significant tenet of current scientific understanding. Evolutionary theory underpins all contemporary biological science, and marks the frontline of the ideological battle between rationalism and superstition - but you won't learn that in our schools. Meanwhile there is still a legal requirement for all schools to hold a religious assembly every day. The inevitable consequence is that children who hold a rational, realistic worldview are marginalised and potentially humiliated for no greater sin than being right. Is it any wonder that there is a growing popular belief that evolution, creationism and intelligent design are equally valid, competing explanations of nature?

Last year, Professor Michael Reiss warned that many teachers now fear discussing evolution for fear of offending religious pupils. This cannot be allowed to continue. Teachers and pupils alike need to be able to discuss scientific truth at any age, with the full backing of the National Curriculum.

The much-maligned Professor Reiss has now fallen on his sword, and the time has come for the debate to move on. The real argument is not about getting God out of the classroom. It's about getting the monkeys in.

Project Steve
Humorous Testing of the Scientific Attitudes Toward "Intelligent Design"
Via Scientists Named "Steve"

Copyright © 2003
[Posted: May 26, 2003]
[Last update: October 3, 2003]

Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

Project Steve is a parody of these lists conducted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It is a listing of scientists with doctorates who support the following statement:

Quote:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

The catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen." It estimates that about one percent of the population of the United States has such a name. When the Project was first publicly announced on February 16, 2003 it had 220 Steves, which corresponds to about 22,000 scientists with doctorates agreeing with the statement. By May 23, 2003 that number had increased to 367 Steves which corresponds to about 36,700 scientists. The current total can be found by consulting the Steve-o-meter. The NCSE expresses the hope that in the future when lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" are presented that it will be asked "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

My issue is not with what is being said, but with what is not being said. I asked Flea about the Adam and Eve lesson, and sure enough, he had been told that this was how God had made people. I asked him whether the teacher had mentioned the alternative, scientific explanation. Unsurprisingly, she hadn't. I then asked whether he had thought of putting up his hand and mentioning it himself. His answer was deeply depressing. "No, I would never do that because everybody would laugh at me and call me a monkey."

The writers of the Constitution had not heard of Darwin you know. They didn't think of themselves as descended from monkeys. And neither did their wives.

relax ros, youre gonna schvemp a geimeissen und kvetchen. If we remove all superstition and fairy tales, we are kinda left with a sterile landscape that wont celebrate fantasy and imagination.

It cause them great klempt

I was attempting to insert some yiddisher humor.

Candidates support teaching creationism
(By Jon Gillooly, Marietta Daily Journal, October 22, 2008)

MARIETTA - Several candidates running for the four open seats on the Cobb Board of Education on Nov. 4 say they support the teaching of creationism, or Intelligent Design, along with Darwin's theory of evolution.

In 2002, Cobb school board members voted to put evolution disclaimers in science textbooks, a move a federal court judge ruled unconstitutional.

Even so, both candidates seeking to represent South Cobb say they support teaching evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design.

"Teaching creationism/Intelligent Design and evolution gives students the opportunity and perspective to have a comprehensive vantage point on a particular topic. This is bound to bring about vigorous debate, which is good in the world of academia," said David Morgan, who bested board Chairwoman Betty Gray in the Democratic primary. Morgan heads a political action committee for school choice.

Steven Lahr, a retired Delta mechanic who drives a school bus for the district, is the Republican in that race.

"I think both ideas should be presented and let people make the decision as to what they think best suits their beliefs," Lahr said.

In the east Cobb race, Republican David Banks, a computer analyst, also supports teaching evolution, creationism and Intelligent Design - so long as each is taught from a theoretical perspective.

"To teach evolution is to teach a scientific theory. A theory is not a fact and is often discarded as being wrong. So far, evolution is not a fact. Most people believe in creation by a deity which again is a theory, not a provable fact, but one that most people do accept as a fact. To ignore the belief of a vast majority of the people and refuse to teach creationism is an affront to the belief system that most of the community holds," Banks said.

Banks and Democrat Linda Schwartz, a community advocate, are seeking the seat now held by Johnny Johnson.

Schwartz said the district must follow state guidelines.

"I have also done some research on this and have found that college professors with students that have not received detailed instruction in evolution, the widely accepted explanation, find that those students are lacking in knowledge that is required for them to succeed in college coursework. We should strive for successful high school graduates that become successful college students.

"I recognize that there are other beliefs /explanations out there, and I respect everyone's right to think as they choose. I believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in the home, not in the public schools," Schwartz said.

Voters in the central part of the county may choose between Democrat Alison Bartlett and Republican Ron Younker, who was elected in September to fill the remainder of Dr. Teresa Plenge's term.

Younker, a Southern Company manager, supports teaching various theories.

"The Georgia Performance Standards mandate certain material be taught, as designated by the Georgia Department of Education, including evolution. In my opinion, that should not preclude alternative theories, including Intelligent Design, from being discussed as other possible hypotheses," Younker said.

Bartlett, who teaches ninth-grade math at Chapel Hill High School in Douglas County, said evolution should be taught first.

"In my family, it is important to my husband and I that our children are educated on Christian beliefs. When I hear or see the word creationism/intelligent design I wonder which religion or belief system are we discussing? This is a general statement that has many different meanings depending with whom you are speaking. There are many creationism stories.

"If a teacher had the time to cover these beliefs while covering all the standards required by law during the discussion of evolution, I would not take issue. But I do not perceive this as possible," she said.

Neither candidate for the west Cobb seat, now held by Lindsey Tippins, objected to current guidelines.

Republican Lynnda Crowder-Eagle, a former principal of Kincaid Elementary School, said simply: "Cobb County is obliged to teach the Georgia Performance Standards which are outlined for each science course. I support the standards set forth."

Democrat Tim Brew, who teaches world history at East Paulding High School, does not support teaching creationism.

"Our Western civilization, since the Renaissance and scientific revolution, is predicated on using and instructing with the scientific method. The science and facts of the day are quite clear that man has evolved. I think it therefore appropriate that we teach evolution and leave any other theory, like creationism and intelligent design, to our religious institutions," Brew said.

"I have also done some research on this and have found that college professors with students that have not received detailed instruction in evolution, the widely accepted explanation, find that those students are lacking in knowledge that is required for them to succeed in college coursework. We should strive for successful high school graduates that become successful college students.