Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

It's a mighty risk just so you can look to be ahead in your thinking.

HAVE I CREATED A MONSTER?

do what I didi and clip your post and put it all into google and the firwt return is the entire on line version of Desmond/Moore.

Lets not start a cherrypicking quotation segment herein. Even though Desmond and Moore did a credible job of research, there are some overlooked issues that come out only with a more precise timeline of events in his life.

Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?
(Michael Reiss, New Statesman, Published 06 April 2010)

To some people's incredulity and others' satisfaction, creationism's influence is growing across the globe. Definitions of creationism vary, but roughly 10-15 per cent of people in the UK believe that the earth came into existence exactly as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Quran, and that the most that evolution has done is to change species into other, closely related species.

The more recent theory of intelligent design agrees with creationism, but makes no reference to the scriptures. Instead, it argues that there are many features of the natural world - such as the mammalian eye - that are too intricate to have evolved from non-living matter, as the theory of evolution asserts. Such features are simply said to be "irreducibly complex".

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be central to the biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every disparate aspect of the life sciences into a single, coherent discipline. Most scientists also believe that the universe is about 13-14 billion years old.

The well-known schism between a number of religious world-views - particularly Judaeo-Christian views based on Genesis and mainstream Islamic readings of the Quran - and scientific explanations derived from the theory of evolution is exacerbated by the way people are asked in surveys about their views on the origins of human life. There is a tendency to polarise religion and science: questions focus on the notion that either God created everything, or God had nothing to do with it. The choices erroneously imply that scientific evolution is necessarily atheistic, linking acceptance of evolution with the explicit exclusion of any religious premise.

In fact, people have personal beliefs about religion and science that cover a wide range of possibilities. This has important implications for how biology teachers should present evolution in schools. As John Hedley Brooke, the first holder of the Andreas Idreos Professorship of Science and Religion at Oxford University, has long pointed out, there is no such thing as a fixed relationship between science and religion. The interface between them has shifted over time, as has the meaning of each term.

Most of the literature on creationism (and intelligent design) and evolutionary theory puts them in stark opposition. Evolution is consistently presented in creationist books and articles as illogical, contradicted by scientific evidence such as the fossil record (which they claim does not provide evidence for transitional forms), and as the product of non-scientific reasoning. The early history of life, they say, would require life to arise from inorganic matter - a form of spontaneous generation largely rejected by science in the 19th century. Creationists also accuse evolutionary theory of being the product of those who ridicule the word of God, and a cause of a range of social evils (from eugenics, Marxism, Nazism and racism to juvenile delinquency).

Creationism has received similarly short shrift from evolutionists. In a study published in 1983, the philosopher of science Philip Kitcher concluded that the flat-earth theory, the chemistry of the four elements and medieval astrology were all as valid as creationism (not at all, that is).

Evolutionary biologists attack creationism - especially "scientific creationism" - on the grounds that it isn't a science at all, because its ultimate authority is scriptural and theological, rather than the evidence obtained from the natural world.

After many years of teaching evolution to school and university students, I have come to the view that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception, but as a world-view. A world-view is an entire way of understanding reality: each of us probably has only one.

However, we can have many conceptions and misconceptions. The implications of this for education is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the basic scientific position. Over the course of a few school lessons or a run of university lectures, it is unlikely that a teacher will be able to replace a creationist world-view with a scientific one.

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons to 14- to 16-year-olds? The first thing to note is that there is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about human origins in other subjects, notably religious education. In England, the DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) and the QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) have published a non-statutory national framework for religious education and a teaching unit that asks: "How can we answer questions about creation and origins?" The unit focuses on creation and the origins of the universe and human life, as well as the relationships between religion and science. As you might expect, the unit is open-ended and is all about getting young people to learn about different views and develop their own thinking. But what should we do in science?

In summer 2007, after months of behind-the-scenes meetings, the DCSF guidance on creationism and intelligent design received ministerial approval and was published. As one of those who helped put the guidance together, I was relieved when it was welcomed. Even the discussions on the RichardDawkins.net forum were positive, while the Freethinker, an atheist journal, described it as "a breath of fresh air" and "a model of clarity and reason".

The guidance points out that the use of the word "theory" in science (as in "the theory of evolution") can be misleading, as it is different from the everyday meaning - that is, of being little more than an idea. In science, the word indicates that there is substantial supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community. The guidance makes clear that creationism and intelligent design do not constitute scientific theories.

It also illuminates that there is a real difference between teaching something and teaching about something. In other words, one can teach about creationism without advocating it, just as one can teach in a history lesson about totalitarianism without advocating it.

This is a key point. Many scientists, and some science teachers, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them. That something lacks scientific support, however, doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.

I remember being excited, when I was taught physics at school, that we could discuss almost anything, provided we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument. I recall one of our A-level chemistry teachers scoffing at a fellow student, who reported that she had sat (outside the lesson) with a spoon in front of her while Uri Geller maintained he could bend viewers' spoons. I was all for her approach. After all, I reasoned, surely the first thing was to establish if the spoon bent (it didn't for her), and if it did, to start working out how.

When teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have in order to shape and provoke a genuine discussion. The word "genuine" doesn't mean that creationism and intelligent design deserve equal time with evolution. They don't. However, in certain classes, depending on the teacher's comfort with talking about such issues, his or her ability to deal with them, and the make-up of the student body, it can and should be appropriate to address them.

Having said that, I don't pretend to think that this kind of teaching is easy. Some students become very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said. But I believe in taking seriously the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it. Although it is unlikely that this will help them resolve any conflict they experience between science and their beliefs, good teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.

My hope is simply to enable students to understand the scientific perspective with respect to our origins, but not necessarily to accept it. We can help students to find their science lessons interesting and intellectually challenging without their being a threat. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution, but also better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.

Quote:

Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

Why not journey back to the book and find its essence and then lets talk. Im not here for your convenience. Believe me there are several major areas of overlook.

Ban a Science Book? School Board Delays Action
(By Jesse Fox Mayshark, Knoxville Metro Pulse, April 8, 2010)

With the Knox County school board seemingly minutes away from voting on an unprecedented motion to ban a high school biology textbook Wednesday evening, board Chair Indya Kincannon used a parliamentary procedure to postpone any action until next month.

Kincannon, clearly unhappy with the motion, invoked "personal privilege" to delay consideration of a Farragut parent's complaint about the textbook, Asking About Life, which is used in Knox County honors biology classes.

Kurt Zimmermann, a Farragut High School parent, filed a complaint in December about the textbook's characterization of creationism as a "Biblical myth." (The reference comes in a section of the book that discusses the political and cultural history of the concept of evolution.) A Farragut High School review committee made up of three teachers, a student, and a parent considered Zimmermann's complaint and concluded that the textbook was "appropriate." Zimmerman appealed to the school board, setting the stage for Wednesday's collision of politics, religion, and science.

Speaking to the board Wednesday night, Zimmermann said he had been approached by his son and other Farragut students (who he said are also his Sunday School pupils) who were upset about the implication that Christian beliefs are myths. He used the language of civil rights to make his case, saying, "Educational materials that offend, are intolerant, are racist or biased or one-sided in nature should not be used in our school system."

The ensuing board discussion sometimes wandered (there was debate over whether Dictionary.com's definition of "myth" carried as much weight as Merriam-Webster's), but it slowly became apparent that several board members, including Robert Bratton, Sam Anderson, Cindy Buttry, and Patrick Richmond, were sympathetic to Zimmermann's sense of grievance. Buttry, who represents the northwest Knox County 3rd District, praised him for his "courage to come here and do this." ("You have no idea," responded Zimmermann, who had already made dark pronouncements about the toll the effort had taken on him and his family.)

Karen Carson, of the West Knox County 5th District, tried to find middle ground with an amendment that would have upheld the school committee's recommendation but also offered to biology teachers a critical analysis of the textbook submitted by Zimmermann and written by Charles Voss. (Voss, a professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Louisiana State University, is a longtime activist for the cause of creationism and vice president of an outfit called the Origins Resource Association.) But Carson's amendment satisfied no one, especially after she revised it to make it subject to review by school system science staff, and it failed on a 3-6 vote.

That opened the floor to the real debate, where the most voluble contenders were Anderson, of East Knoxville's 1st District, and Dan Murphy, of the West Knoxville 2nd. Anderson started out complaining about what he saw as weaknesses in the school committee's decision to affirm the textbook, but he soon moved into meatier territory. "I personally believe that there has to be some intelligence in the design of life," he declared, "and no science teacher would ever be able to convince me different than that. It didn't just happen in Walden's Pond." He suggested sending the textbook back to the school committee or to Central Office for further review.

Anderson's views were quickly seconded by Bratton, and Buttry went even further. "I think it is offensive," she said of the book's contrast of evolution and creationism. "I take exception to the fact that it's not presented as theory, it doesn't state that it's theory, it presents it almost as, well, a fact. 'This is the way it is.'"

Buttry then offered a substitute motion: "That we not uphold the recommendation of the review committee, and that the book be banned from Knox County schools."

Murphy, who had earlier warned of a "slippery slope" in accommodating the complaints of any one parent or group of parents, responded that he also wasn't happy with the book's use of the word "myth" in talking about Christian creationism. But, he said, "We are going down a road that will politicize every decision made in our schools." If one parent can force changes to one curriculum, Murphy said, any number of other parents will attempt to do the same to any number of other curriculums. He added, "I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of that one paragraph."

Superintendent Jim McIntyre also weighed in, asking the board to respect the process that had led the school review committee to recommend retaining the textbook. But Bratton responded that the school board has "the final say" in addressing parent complaints. (Bratton did allow that as the child of educators, he was a little uncomfortable with the word "ban": "I think about burning books when I hear that," he said. But he didn't say he would vote against it.)

At that point, with Buttry's motion still on the table and the likely disposition of a vote entirely unclear, Kincannon (who had sided with Murphy throughout the discussion) shut down debate by postponing further action for a month.

Earlier in the night, Zimmermann had told the board that his complaint had already generated national attention. A Google search Wednesday didn't turn up much more than an Associated Press story on the website of a Huntsville, Ala., TV station. But with an actual motion to ban a textbook, and the national media's Pavlovian interest in all things Tennessee and creationist, the interest level may well go up over the next few weeks.

KNOXVILLE TENNESSEE UPDATE

Quote:

Ban a Science Book? School Board Delays Action
(By Jesse Fox Mayshark, Knoxville Metro Pulse, April 8, 2010)

Kurt Zimmermann, a Farragut High School parent, filed a complaint in December about the textbook's characterization of creationism as a "Biblical myth." (The reference comes in a section of the book that discusses the political and cultural history of the concept of evolution.)

Evolution, Big Bang Polls Omitted From NSF Report
(Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, ScienceInsider, April 8, 2010)

In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data on Americans' knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species and that the universe began with a big bang.

They're not surprising findings, but the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), says it chose to leave the section out of the 2010 edition of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators because the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs.

"Discussing American science literacy without mentioning evolution is intellectual malpractice" that "downplays the controversy" over teaching evolution in schools, says Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has fought to keep creationism out of the science classroom. The story appears in this week's issue of Science.

Board members say the decision to drop the text was driven by a desire for scientific accuracy. The survey questions that NSF has used for 25 years to measure knowledge of evolution and the big bang were "flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated knowledge and beliefs," says Louis Lanzerotti, an astrophysicist at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who chairs NSB's Science and Engineering Indicators Committee.

The explanation doesn't appear to have soothed White House officials, who say that the edit"made after the White House had reviewed a draft"left them surprised and dismayed. "The Administration counts on the National Science Board to provide the fairest and most complete reporting of the facts they track," says Rick Weiss, a spokesperson and analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The deleted text, obtained by ScienceInsider, does not differ radically from what has appeared in previous Indicators. The section, which was part of the unedited chapter on public attitudes toward science and technology, notes that 45% of Americans in 2008 answered true to the statement, "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." The figure is similar to previous years and much lower than in Japan (78%), Europe (70%), China (69%), and South Korea (64%). The same gap exists for the response to a second statement, "The universe began with a big explosion," with which only 33% of Americans agreed.

The board member who took the lead in removing the text was John Bruer, a philosopher who heads the St. Louis, Missouri-based James S. McDonnell Foundation. He told Science that his reservations about the two survey questions dated back to 2007, when he was the lead reviewer for the same chapter in the 2008 Indicators. He calls the survey questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public understanding" of the two topics.

"I think that is a nonsensical response" that reflects "the religious right's point of view," says Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing who authored the survey 3 decades ago and conducted it for NSF until 2001. "Evolution and the big bang are not a matter of opinion. If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, even if scientists think it is not, how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate? Part of being literate is to both understand and accept scientific constructs."

When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically literate, he said: "There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution," adding that such questioning has led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he expected those academics to answer "false" to the statement about humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: "On that particular point, no."

Lanzerotti told Science that even though the board had been aware of concerns about the two questions since before the 2008 survey was conducted, officials had not had a chance to alter the questions because the volume of work that goes into producing the Indicators is "vast," unlike "writing a 2000-word news article." However, both Lanzerotti and Lynda Carlson, director of NSF's statistical office that manages the survey and produces Indicators, say that it is time to take a fresh look at the survey. Last week, less than 48 hours after his interview with Science, Lanzerotti asked the head of NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences directorate to conduct a "thorough examination" of the questions through "workshops with experts."

Miller, the scientific literacy researcher, believes that removing the entire section was a clumsy attempt to hide a national embarrassment. "Nobody likes our infant death rate," he says by way of comparison, "but it doesn't go away if you quit talking about it."