Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Re: farmerman (Post 3397749)
Thanks, farmerman. I was hoping that spendi would concentrate on the ID thread and leave this thread alone.

How about it, spendi? Can you say what you need to say on the ID thread and leave this thread alone?

Perhaps the wisest man I have met in my life was Alfred Russel Wallace, the scientist who wrote of the survival of the fittest some time before Darwin. Dr Wallace's pamphlet was so similar to Darwin's work that even some of its phrases appeared as titles in Darwin's MS. He was indeed the first to interpret the evolution of the world as Darwin afterwards interpreted it. It must be recorded in his honor that as soon as Darwin's book came out on the Origin of Species in 1859, Wallace hailed him as the chief of the school, and declared at once that the theory would be known as Darwinism, though he himself had promulgated it years before. When I asked him how he came to this unexampled generosity, he smiled in his kindly way and said, " You could not talk of Wallaceism, but you could talk of Darwinism. Besides, to be serious, Darwin had done all the spade work which I had neglected, thought unnecessary.

He believed devoutly, simply, in a life after death, in this life indeed as a mere moment in the life of the spirit, and he insisted that personal identity would be preserved beyond the grave. I could not follow him in this though I admired the spiritual beauty of the creed and its incalcuable effect on life and conduct.

and the struggle for spiritual, intellectual and moral existence. Evolution can account for the land-grabber, the company promoter and the sweater; but if it fails to account for the devotion of the patriot, the enthusiasm of the artist, the constancy of the martyr, the resolute search of the scientific worker after Nature's secret, it has not explained the whole mystery of humanity.

Teenagers are not stupid, even if creationism is
(Adam Rutherford, Education Guardian, September 12 2008)

Why is it that scientists get so wound up by creationism? Well, for starters it's wrong. Really easily demonstrably wrong. It has nothing to do with science in fact, but simultaneously glibly attempts to explain what scientists have worked hard at for millennia. And so, when Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says that creationism can be part of science lessons, the reaction is as vehement as if someone had drawn a devastatingly satirical cartoon about it. Reiss suggests that creationists simply have an alternative worldview that should be respected.

What I think he is saying is that there is no point in being militant about teaching evolution. Even though it is the best and only credible explanation for the origin and diversity of life in the universe, some people " 10% of pupils according to Reiss' numbers " simply won't sign up for it. Ten per cent is way too many, but the fact is that they exist. More troubling is that in the US, one of them is potentially 50 days and one heart attack away from leading the free world.

The only thing that bothers me about Reiss' position is that ultimately it is a massive concession to pressure from religious groups; it is in effect negotiating with fundamentalists. The brutal reality is that creationism is a ridiculous stance. If you wish not to offend believers by describing it as a "worldview", whatever that means, then fine. Reiss is an extraordinarily polite man of dizzying intellect. But it's no different from opposing heliocentrism, or suggesting that the Earth is a flat plate resting on the back of infinite giant turtles all the way down. The only point is that very few people are turtlists.

There are several issues at stake here. Recently, I met science teachers, pupils and Reiss for a documentary on creationism. Many of the teachers, including Christians (though none were creationists) indicated to me that the curriculum does not devote enough time to evolution, nor at an early enough stage. I am no teaching expert, but I do know that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution, which suggests to me that the curriculum is wrong. Others indicated that they didn't feel equipped to deal with questions of creationism in science lessons.

However, a debate about creationism is just the type of subject that enlivens any classroom. Students can learn about the sheer elegance of the unending scientific process by understanding how creationism is not science. Now more than ever, intelligent design should figure in these conversations, as its mimicry of science is a sharp lesson in how ideology can poison the font of knowledge. How ironic that such a well-understood and beautiful branch of evolution as mimicry should share so many traits with such a bogus impostor as ID.

To not be capable of or willing to engage in this debate within a science class is an error, because it will teach students that science is dogmatic and arrogant rather than a continuum of learning, founded on doubt: a way of knowing.

Furthermore, as Cif regulars are well aware, it's kind of fun. We often debate issues relating to the philosophy of science, and the guiding principles behind the scientific method. Can any of you remember how dull it was to learn about transpiration? Imagine a situation where a student asks about creationism and is told, "We can't talk about it, get back to the xylem". What a crappy message to deliver. Science teachers should be equipped to enable a debate about creationism. (Science teachers who teach either as an alternative to evolution should be booted out of their profession, and made to return their Bunsen burners.)

And for God's sake, won't somebody think of the children? If there's one nutbag in a class who thinks that T-Rex was a vegetarian and God's perfect design somehow includes shin bones, it's not as if they're going to indoctrinate the rest of the class. Teenagers are not stupid, even if creationism is. Most science at school, if you cast your minds back, is rote-learning facts, not the philosophical principles underlying the evolution of knowledge. I witnessed schools workshops at the Natural History Museum in London in which students split into groups and presented both sides of the debate. They developed their positions, of which they were previously totally unaware, de novo from guided learning at the exhibits. The arguments were as robust as any, if only lacking the detailed sophistication that practiced stalwarts of each position hold. This process is such good training for science as a way of thinking.

Sometimes " and bear in mind this is coming from someone who has devoted his professional adult life to it " science can be hard, and occasionally dull. The teleological argument is easy, and satisfactory to those who are not prone to thinking too hard about things. By no means am I saying science is responsible for the rise of creationism. It is not. But our job is not to ignore creationists because they are wrong, but to show them that as a way of knowing, science is so very much better.

“We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts.” -Scientific American.

Royal Society professor faces creationism backlash
(by Jenna Lyle, Christian Today, September 14, 2008)

Nobel Prize winners have called for the sacking of the Royal Society’s director of education after he said last week that creationism should be taught as part of the science curriculum at schools.

The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, said that excluding creationism from science lessons is unhelpful to children who adhere to different beliefs about the formation of the universe.

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, Reiss said, “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe.”

Now Nobel Prize winners Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts are calling for Reiss’ dismissal saying that his religious views make him unsuitable for the job of education director at the Royal Society, the oldest scientific organisation in the world.

Kroto, a Royal Society fellow and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, was quoted by The Observer as saying, “I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be.”

Roberts, meanwhile, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine, said, “I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates " which would be sent to the Royal Society " to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.”

Reiss told the British Association Festival of Science that around 10 per cent of British schoolchildren were from families that held creationist beliefs. He invited science teachers to regard creationism not as a “misconception” but rather a “worldview”.

A spokesman for the Royal Society indicated it would not be asking Reiss to step down.

“Michael Reiss’s views are completely in keeping with those of the Royal Society,” he was quoted as saying by The Observer.

A spokesman for the Royal Society indicated it would not be asking Reiss to step down.

“Michael Reiss’s views are completely in keeping with those of the Royal Society,” he was quoted as saying by The Observer.

State wants feedback on science standards
(by Tom Weber, Minnesota Public Radio, September 15, 2008)

St. Paul, Minn. " The Minnesota Education Department begins a series of public meetings tonight on a new set of science standards.

The new standards will not be in place until the fall of 2011, but the state is spending this school year deciding what those final standards will be.

Right now, it's just a first draft.

Education Commissioner Alice Seagren said one aim of the new standards is to focus more on technology, as well as hands-on engineering - showing students how things work in real life, and less teaching in the abstract.

"How you use levers and how you put things together and make them work, so I think that's going to be a big difference in our science standards," Seagren said.

Seagren said there are no changes on the subject of evolution - decisions on what to teach will still be left to each district.

I feel sure A2Kers are pretty sick of you continuously delineating my character