Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Two questions-

1--How many teachers are required to teach evolution?

2- What qualifications do they need to be approved in interviews?

Royal Society to be called to account for creationist view
(Mark Henderson, The Times, September 16, 2008)

Britain's national academy of science is to be asked to explain its views on creationism in classrooms by a senior MP “horrified” at the reported views of its education director.

Professor Michael Reiss, of the Royal Society, suggested that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world-view”. His comments have alarmed Phil Willis, the chairman of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee.

“I am at the Royal Society on Wednesday and I will be raising this very issue,” he told The Times yesterday. “I was horrified to hear these views and I reject them totally. They are a step too far and they fly in the face of what science is about. I think if his [Professor Reiss's] views are as mentioned they may be incompatible with his position.”

Mr Willis's intervention follows uproar among senior Royal Society fellows at the opinions of Professor Reiss, a professor of science education at the Institute of Education in London who is also an ordained Church of England clergyman.

Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1993, is organising a letter from other Nobel laureates calling for his dismissal. The Royal Society hierarchy is standing by Professor Reiss, insisting that he has been misinterpreted.

The furore followed a speech given by Professor Reiss to the British Association for the Advancement of Science on Thursday, in which he said teachers should accept that they are unlikely to change the minds of pupils with creationist beliefs.“I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all,” he said. “There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts - hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching - and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion.”

A spokesman for the society said: “Michael's views are the views of the Royal Society. Our position is that if young people put forward a creationist perspective in the classroom, it should be discussed.”

1. silliness spendi. I assume you can answer this question without raising too much of a wake.

2. This isnt a court proceeding so theres no voire dire or "test" for competency. Ive seen Creationists being interviewed by newspapers as representatives of science. Interviewers arent arbiters of competency, they merely want sound bites or quotes for print.

A spokesman for the society said: “Michael's views are the views of the Royal Society. Our position is that if young people put forward a creationist perspective in the classroom, it should be discussed

Re: wandeljw (Post 3403577)
Quote:
A spokesman for the society said: “Michael's views are the views of the Royal Society. Our position is that if young people put forward a creationist perspective in the classroom, it should be discussed

This does not seem too unreasonable, besides, if a question were raised by some Creationist student, addressing it with the evidence at hand would go far to shine some light on the Creationists and ID mumbo jumbo.

Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row
(Lewis Smith and Mark Henderson, The Times, September 17, 2008)

The Royal Society’s embattled director of education resigned last night, days after causing uproar among scientists by appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism.

Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.

His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.

Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1993, described such views as outrageous, and organised a letter to the society’s president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, demanding that Professor Reiss be sacked. Phil Willis MP, the chairman of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, was due to meet Royal Society officers today to demand an explanation of Professor Reiss’s comments.

The Royal Society stood by the scientist initially, insisting that he had not departed from its official policy and that his remarks had been misinterpreted. Many senior figures, however, felt that Professor Reiss had been naive, at best, to make statements that could easily be seen to back teaching creationism as if it were science, and should not have done so while speaking in his Royal Society role.

The society said in a statement: “Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s director of education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education " a part-time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full-time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.”

The resignation has divided scientists and administrators. While some welcomed the move, others felt that Professor Reiss had raised an important point and should have been supported. Lord Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London, who is not a Royal Society Fellow, said: “I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science " something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

Mr Willis said: “It is appropriate for the Royal Society to have dealt with this problem swiftly and effectively, rather than provoking continued debate. I hope the society will now stop burying its head and start taking on creationism.”

The furore came after a speech given by Professor Reiss to the British Association for the Advancement of Science last week, in which he said that teachers should accept that they were unlikely to change the minds of pupils with creationist beliefs.

“My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science,” he said.

“I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson . . . There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have " hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching " and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion.”

The Royal Society said that “creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.”

Chris Higgins, Vice-Chancellor of Durham University, said: “While I have no doubt that Michael Reiss’s comments have been misinterpreted by parts of the media, I think that the fact that he has generously stood down allows the Royal Society to clarify the robust position on this issue. There should be no room for doubt that creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory.”

Professor Reiss was not available for comment.

Would we feel the same if young people put forward an alchemist view of chcmistry in the classroom? Or an astrology view of human behavior or the voodoo theory of zombies?

There are a billion different views on everything in the world. I suppose it just depends on what you wish to spend your time talking about.

Has Creationism elevated itself above insanity simply by being the cultural topic of the day?

I dont see alchemy or astrology being similarly determined to push their noses beneath the science tent.

As you see, Ive modified my position a bit from being a strict "Constructionist" to someone who welcomes open debate as long as it leads to a conclusion that is evidence based.

I dont see alchemy or astrology being similarly determined to push their noses beneath the science tent.

Has Creationism elevated itself above insanity simply by being the cultural topic of the day?

If Creationists succeed in derailing the process of science education by virtue of cultural confusion then we will have done a disservice not only to the people who wish to learn science, but to the nature of science itself.

No place for creationism in science class, state says
(By Ana Ribeiro, Wilmington Star-News, September 17, 2008)

Keep creationism out of science class, the state school system says.

At its meeting Tuesday, the Brunswick County school board began discussions on teaching creationism alongside evolution " something all four board members present showed a strong interest in. The talk began after Joel Fanti, a parent and graduate of the school system, told the board that he considered it a problem to teach evolution as a fact and that science teachers should include creationism in the curriculum, as well.

The audience applauded. The school board and staff said they would research whether creationism is allowed in the classroom.

But neither creationism nor the related “intelligent design,” which says life forms are so complex only a higher power could have created them, may be taught as a required course of study, Edd Dunlap, science section chief for the N.C. Department of Public Instruction, said Wednesday. These are considered religious teachings and may not be taught in science class or as fact, although they may be included as part of an elective, such as a course on religion or philosophy, he said.

While evolution is a course of study that must be taught in public schools, based on national standards, creationism is not, Dunlap said. Brunswick, New Hanover and Pender counties all follow the evolution curriculum.

“If you’re teaching something not in the standards, you’re not teaching what students need to be assessed on,” Dunlap said.

The Brunswick County school system offers a Bible as Literature course in high school, but it’s not being taught this year because no students signed up for it, according to administrators.

School board member Jimmy Hobbs expressed outrage on Tuesday about the restriction on Bibles in schools and the teaching of evolution, a concept he deems atheistic, without including creationism.

But things have changed since the notorious Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925, when high school biology teacher John Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching evolution in his Tennessee classroom.

Dunlap mentioned the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s mandate that evolution could not be taught unless accompanied by creationism, ruling the state’s act an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. He also recalls the Dover, Pa., case of 2005, when a federal judge forbade that school system from teaching “intelligent design” in the classroom.

That doesn’t mean the long, convoluted national debate on teaching evolution vs. creationism in schools is dying down. Some states still try to insert creationism or “intelligent design” in the science curriculum, and phenomena such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster make headlines.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a parody of intelligent design, alighted in 2005, after the Kansas State Board of Education voted to allow alternatives to evolution such as intelligent design to be taught. Physics major Bobby Henderson sent a letter challenging the board, saying that if intelligent design was taught, the schools should also teach about his belief that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.

The Kansas school board later changed its decision, repealing science guidelines it had put in place questioning evolution.

In a religious state such as North Carolina, teachers must plan carefully, Dunlap said. “They must make sure they’re teaching the standard course of study and not stray from it, and also not impose their beliefs on their students,” Dunlap said.

In New Hanover County, which does not teach creationism, “teachers don’t really focus on what’s in the beginning” of the evolutionary process, said Valita Quattlebaum, the county school system’s spokeswoman. Teachers have alternative assignments for students whose parents have objections about evolution, but students are still assessed on the topic in state tests, she said.

Dunlap said teachers should present evolution to students as a theory substantiated by scientific evidence, but students should not be taught what to believe.

He followed that when he taught earth science in deeply Baptist Wake Forest in the 1980s and ’90s, he said, and he never had a problem.

"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other hypothesis in natural science"- L Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 4.1122.

"Food comes first, then morals" - Bertolt Brecht, The Threepenny Opera.

Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
(By Carol Glatz, Catholic News Service, September 16, 2008)

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

Father Leclerc was one of several organizers speaking at a Sept. 16 Vatican press conference about the congress, part of the culture council's "Science, Technology and the Ontological Quest," or STOQ project.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate -- proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection -- also were not invited.

He reiterated that evolutionary theory "is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible's message."

Gennaro Auletta, professor of philosophy at the Gregorian and head of the STOQ project, said organizers hope the encounter will help theologians and philosophers be "a bit more humble and learn to listen a bit more" to what science is unveiling about humanity and the world.

Auletta said Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed "a fundamental interest" in the theory of biological evolution. However, the pontiffs' hopes that Catholics would gain greater understanding of the issues has not yet materialized, he said.

Phillip Sloan, a professor at Notre Dame, told the press conference the evolution debate, "especially in the United States, has been taking place without a strong Catholic presence ... and the discourse has suffered accordingly."

While there has been Catholic commentary on the compatibility of faith and evolutionary theories, there is no definitive written source to which people can refer to learn the church's position, he said.

Sloan said he hoped the March conference and other initiatives planned by Notre Dame and the Vatican would foster the development of "informed Catholic thought" on the subject.