Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

National Science Standards draft released
(Josh Rosenau, ScienceBlogs.com, July 12, 2010)

A draft of the Standards Framework for national science standards, sponsored by the National Governors Association and the US Chamber of Commerce (among others), has been published. The National Research Council drafted the framework, and is seeking comment until August 2, and I'll have more to say as I work through the draft. Forty-eight states (excluding Texas and Alaska) have agreed to use these standards, so getting them right is important. Good national standards will prevent a host of problems, while bad ones would create colossal problems.

Perhaps the most crucial thing to examine is how the standards define science and present the nature of science. If we get that right, and give teachers good training in teaching the nature of science, it'll go a long way towards heading off creationism, global warming denial, etc. And the draft does a solid job:
"The committee’s vision of science is captured by the view that science is:
--A creative and analytic human intellectual endeavor engaging hundreds of thousands of people worldwide to attain shared goals of understanding the material world and application of that understanding to solving real-world problems.
--A cumulative and evolving body of knowledge formalized into a rigorously-tested and mutually consistent set of clearly articulated theories.
--A set of practices for investigation, model and hypothesis development, theory building, argumentation, analysis, and communication of findings about the material world that support development of new understanding.
--A set of cross-cutting concepts and strategies that inform work in all disciplinary areas of the natural sciences."

Not exactly how I'd phrase everything, but the gist is right. This emphasizes that science is a thing you do, first and foremost. The repetition of "material world" is important, as it emphasizes science's limitation to natural phenomena, and that science class is not a place for discussing religion. That said, referring to it as "material" rather than "natural" or "empirical" makes me think someone on the writing is a fan of Madonna's ontological claim that "we are living in a material world, and I am a material girl."

God and Darwin: still fighting after 85 years
(Brad Hirschfield, The Washington Post, July 14, 2010)

Eighty-five years ago this week, John Scopes was hauled into a Tennessee court, and accused of violating the state's Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach evolution. So much and so little have changed since then, but one thing remains the exact same: God and Darwin are still fighting after all these years, at least in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.

So, if the fight hasn't changed, what has? Well, for one thing, the balance of power has shifted. Eighty-five years ago, it was Mr. Scopes that was in court fighting for the right to include Darwinian evolutionary theory in his school's science curriculum. Now it is biblical literalists who are bringing the suits in a system which accepts science as the norm.

Without minimizing the very real challenges presented by people who would give faith-driven claims an equal place in our science classrooms as those claims which are in fact scientific, the balance of power on this issue has really changed. That fact should encourage no less vigilance in defense of science books, not the Bible, being the text in our biology, earth science and human origins classes. But it should encourage a more open and gentle approach to those with whom we disagree.

Those with the most power should always be a little gentler with those who have less. However annoying and even dangerous some biblical literalists may be, they are the little guys in this fight. We should not be surprised that biblical literalists are so aggressive. That's what the little guy has to do. This doesn't get them a free pass, but it might help us to move this conversation from one which generates a great deal of heat to one which actually generates some light.

Personally, I find the fight unnecessary. For me there is no inherent contradiction between faith in the Bible and trust in the best available science. But I know that for many people that is just not so. They insist that it is either science or faith which must win out - that the two are irreconcilably incompatible. And it is those people who have made sure that God and Darwin are still punching it out in our courts and in the media.

But one need not believe that faith and science, even the Genesis story and Darwin, are entirely compatible to know that thrashing each other is not going to get us to any meaningful and lasting solution to this deeply divisive issue. That we are still fighting after 85 years is clearly proof of that.

We need to shift from a conflict-driven approach to a conversational approach on this and most other socially divisive issues. In a conflict, someone must lose for things to be resolved. In a conversation everyone needs to be engaged for it to be successful. The adversarial process of litigation demands a winner and a loser, so each time we try and resolve this debate through legal wrangling, we actually guarantee further fights - fights which serve nobody well but angry ideologues and expensive lawyers.

Instead of trying to win, each side should begin asking what it might learn from those on the other side of the issue. And each side should address what the limitations of its perspective are. Science and faith may both have a place in good education, including good public education, but they are not the same thing.

No matter how much people call it "Intelligent Design" or anything else, while it may be appropriate to teach non-science driven explanations for the origin of the universe, faith arguments shouldn't be confused with the science driven ones. The difference between them is not that one is right and one is wrong. The difference is far more fundamental.

Faith-connected science confirms again and again that which it already believes. The science model however, seeks to falsify what it already believes as a way of pushing science forward. Science celebrates discovering its errors as much as its accuracies. That is hardly true for the faith driven accounts of the origins of our universe and species. That difference alone is, while both may have a place in our curricula, they do not belong in the same course.

Why should there be a place for both? Because they address different issues. Science wrestles with "How" things come to be. Religious approaches are concerned with "Why" things come to be. Both are important questions, but it is important to know that they are different questions. When either tries to masquerade as the other, it does a disservice to both.

So after 85 years of squabbling in which all that has changed is which side has more power, perhaps it's time to stop litigating and start talking about both the how and the why of human origins. Both are fundamental to good education. We don't need to hide from either question, as much as we need to learn the rightful place of each them and a respectful approach to the many answers that will hopefully be offered in response.

Science and faith may both have a place in good education, including good public education, but they are not the same thing.

What about me being on Ignore wande? Do you approve of that? And if you do you should not be quoting articles which talk about "conversation" and if you don't it is about time you said so.

Hi Neologist!

In my opinion, evolution teaching is being hurt by what's going on OUTSIDE the classroom.

It was heartbreaking for me to learn that some have you on ignore, spendi. I need more time to compose myself.

There is no way anyone can know all that is involved in this universe's evolution, so how can anyone teach it?

wandeljw wrote:

Hi Neologist!

In my opinion, evolution teaching is being hurt by what's going on OUTSIDE the classroom.

Hello wandeljw and I do agree that teaching is being assaulted with good reason too. There is no way anyone can know all that is involved in this universe's evolution, so how can anyone teach it?

William

World's biggest atom smasher gains pace: CERN

(AFP) – Jun 28, 2010

GENEVA — The world's biggest atom smasher is swiftly gaining pace as scientists seek to unravel the secrets of the universe, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said on Monday.

The Large Hadron Collider has been setting records for the intensity of proton collisions since scientists started firing beams of the sub-atomic particles at unprecedented energy levels on March 30, CERN spokesman James Gillies said.

"It's about CERN breaking its own records," he told AFP on Monday.

"We had one good run over the weekend when we were getting double the data sets that we had since the beginning," Gillies added.

"You'll keep on hearing this but we've got a long way to go."

The beams thrust around the 27-kilometre (16.8-mile) accelerator collide at nearly the speed of light, creating powerful but microscopic bursts of energy that mimic conditions close to the Big Bang that created the universe.

Scientists around the world are expected to take years to analyse the huge flow of data on a giant computer network, searching for evidence of a theorised missing link called the Higgs Boson, commonly called the "God Particle".

The experiment is still in the early stages of an initial 18- to 24-month run of billions of collisions.

Gillies said the "luminosity" of the beams -- a measure of their intensity and the frequency of collisions -- had been ramped up to 10 to the power 29, compared with 10 to the power 27 nearly three months ago.

Ten to the power 30 is scheduled for this week with a target of 10 to the power 34.

Scientists carefully examine each increase for safety and the reliability of the accelerator in a ring-shaped tunnel straddling the French-Swiss border near Geneva.

"Every time we increase the luminosity it comes with increased energy," said Gillies.

CERN hailed a new era for science when it began smashing atoms at energy levels of seven trillion (tera) electronvolts (TeV) on March 30.

It is aiming to trigger collisions at twice the energy, 14 TeV, equivalent to 99.99 percent of the speed of light, in the cryogenically-cooled machine after 2011.

At full power, the detectors in cathedral-sized underground chambers should capture some 600 million collisions every second among trillions of protons racing around the collider 11,245 times a second.

Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.

We try not to make these huge leaps of myth and legend. Thats for the divinity school.