Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

The only thing that gunga fails in, is the inability for his worldview to provide us with anything new...

Rabbis' open letter backs teaching of evolution in public schools
(By Robert Mitchum, Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2008)

For Rabbi Gary Gerson of the Oak Park Temple B'nai Abraham Zion, evolution does not oppose religious belief but strengthens it.

"If anything, it all the more underscores the magnificence of creation as the expression of some highest order," Gerson said. "We as Jews every day praise God for the times and seasons and the order of being, and that perhaps is the greatest miracle of all. This is not caprice. There is a natural order to things."

Seeing evidence of the divine in the theories of Charles Darwin meant that Gerson did not hesitate to sign an open letter drafted by a suburban Chicago rabbi this summer supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools. The two-paragraph letter, written by Rabbi David Oler of Congregation Beth Or in Deerfield, has attracted 235 signatures since its completion in July, with Jewish leaders from across the United States supporting its cause.

The effort, Oler said, spun off from the Clergy Letter Project, launched in 2004 by Michael Zimmerman, now the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. Zimmerman asked Christian clergy to draft an open letter, since signed by 11,000 religious leaders, supporting the public teaching of evolution and emphasizing that religion does not have to be an enemy of science.

But Oler, who also holds a doctorate in clinical psychology, felt that Jewish clergy should also be given an opportunity to endorse the teaching of evolution while rebuking the addition of creationist theories to school curricula.

"I would say that as Jews, being a minority, we're particularly sensitive to not having the views of others imposed on us," Oler said. "Creationism and intelligent design are particularly religious matters that don't belong in public school system."

Arguments about whether alternatives to evolution should be taught in public schools continue to be raised across the United States, most recently in state legislatures in Louisiana and Florida.

The debate has also been refueled by reports that Republican vice-presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she supported the teaching of creationism along with evolution in public schools during a 2006 gubernatorial debate.

To Zimmerman, "the goal of both letters is to say that religious leaders, both Jewish and Christian, can come together and be secure in their faith without having their faith impact and pervert modern science. There are fundamentalists of many stripes whose religious predilections have perverted scientific worldview. When that narrow religious perspective ends up being taught as science, we're doing society a real harm."

Rabbi Debra Newman Kamin of the conservative Am Yisrael synagogue in Northfield, who signed the letter last month, called the movement to teach creationism in public schools alongside evolution "horrifying."

Carl Feit, the Ades Chair of Health Science at Yeshiva University in New York City and an ordained orthodox rabbi, said that compared with American Christianity, Judaism is largely untroubled by evolution. The majority of Jewish scholars moved away from literal readings of the creation story in Genesis hundreds of years ago, Feit said.

Influential 12th Century Jewish philosopher Maimonides wrote that where science convincingly contradicts Jewish text, the text should be reinterpreted, he said.

But opinions still differ within the Jewish faith about how evolution should be taught to students in both public and religious schools.

Rabbi Gerald Teller, rabbi-in-residence at the Solomon Schechter Day School, which operates Conservative Jewish grade and middle schools in Skokie and Northbrook, said that their science classes teach that evolution is the "unfolding of God's will."

"We believe that there is a designer behind the world, somebody who operates as creator," Teller said. "When God began the process of creation, one of the natural laws in the process was evolution."

Teller said that he believed public schools should allow for the discussion of alternate views of creation, religious or otherwise, a view echoed by Rabbi Asher Lopatin of the orthodox Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel synagogue in Chicago.

"I think public schools have to show that they are sensitive to that issue . . . that not anyone who challenges evolution is considered evil," Lopatin said.

Feit said that in his introductory biology course at Yeshiva, he teaches students both the science of evolution and Jewish texts relevant to the creation of the world to show how to reconcile any apparent conflicts.

With efforts such as Oler's letter, Feit hopes that a similar understanding can be reached between opponents on the issue of teaching evolution in public schools.

"The voices that people have heard, particularly in the religious world, have been from one particular segment of religion, and so the people not involved generalize the religious position," Feit said. "I think it's very important that other significant religious views also be heard. . . . There's nothing monolithic going on here, different religions have different points of view."

'Big bang' in Britain over creationism
(Al Webb, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, September 20, 2008)

LONDON | One of the world´s leading biologists, who is also an ordained Anglican priest, has sparked uproar in both religious and scientific circles by campaigning to teach creationism, along with evolution and the "Big Bang" theory in science classrooms.

Creationism, an issue that has triggered furious debates in churches, schools and even courts in the United States, rejects Charles Darwin´s theory of evolution and holds that God created the universe and all that goes with it " most of all, man " in six days.

Darwin was one of the early leading lights in Britain´s august Royal Society of science, among whose most eminent present-day members is the Rev. Michael Reiss, its director of education " and now himself one of its most controversial.

Mr. Reiss has truly stirred the pot " and the fury of his fellow scientists " by proposing that creationism has the right to a place in school lessons along with the conventional theories of the evolutionary origins of man and the theory that the universe exploded from a single point billions of years ago " the Big Bang.

"My central argument," the professor said simply in what turned out to be a stunner of an address at the British Association Festival of Science at England´s University of Liverpool, "is that creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a world view."

Anyway, the professor insisted in his speech earlier this month that his days as a biology tutor had taught him that "simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn´t lead some pupils to change their minds at all."

Anti-evolutionism has a long history in the United States, including the Scopes "monkey trial" of 1925, centered on the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of Darwin´s theory in the schools of Tennessee. That ban was not repealed until 1967.

In its most popular latter-day form, creationism, retains a strong hold in deeply religious communities. In the United States, Mr. Reiss estimates, the proportion of creationist children is as much as 40 percent.

In Britain, perhaps 10 percent of students come from families with sincere creationist beliefs.

Its adherents include Republican vice-presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin, whose stance on evolution versus creationism reflects that of Mr. Reiss: "Teach both," she said in a gubernatorial address in Alaska two years ago.

"You know, don´t be afraid of information," Mrs. Palin said at the time. "Healthy debate is so important, and it´s so valuable in our schools."

As recently as June 2007, a Gallup Poll published in the United States showed that 66 percent of those interviewed believed that creationism´s idea that human beings were created by God "pretty much in their present form" in the last 10,000 years was "definitely" or "probably" true.

Despite his own significant clout in the world of science, when it comes to support for teaching creationism in any form, Mr. Reiss is almost on his own.

The Royal Society greeted his remarks in Liverpool with scarcely concealed disdain: "The Royal Society," it said in a tersely worded statement, "is opposed to creationism being taught as science.

"The society remains committed to the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for the history of life on Earth."

Fellow scientists were equally scornful.

"Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes," Lewis Wolpert, a biologist at London´s University College Medical School told journalists.

"There is no evidence for a creator," Mr. Wolpert said, "and creationism explains nothing."

John Fry, a physics professor at the University of Liverpool, was just as scathing. "Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence."

Even the Church of England, which once instructed him in the priesthood at age 29 and still keeps him on as an ordained minister, gave the professor´s creationism campaign the thumbs down.

"Creationism should not be taught as a scientifically based theory," said a church spokesman, although he conceded that it "could be included in discussion of the development of scientific ideas down the ages ..."

As for the Church of England, also known as the Anglican Church, it said it owes Darwin some sort of apology.

The Rev. Malcolm Brown, who heads the church's public affairs department, issued a statement to mark Darwin's bicentenary and the 150th anniversary of the seminal work "On the Origin of Species," both of which fall next year.

Mr. Brown said the Church of England should say it is sorry for misunderstanding him at the time he released his findings and, "by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand [Darwin] still," the Associated Press reported.

Still, Mr. Reiss argued that "an increasing percentage of children [in Britain] come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of the species."

His path, to crack the classroom door to let in creationism, is the sensible one, the professor insists. Otherwise, "what are we to do with those children?"

Proposed curriculum standards in Texas would give Darwin a boost
(By TERRENCE STUTZ, The Dallas Morning News, September 23, 2008)

AUSTIN " Proposed curriculum standards for science courses in Texas schools would boost the teaching of evolution by dropping the current requirement that students be exposed to "weaknesses" in Charles Darwin's theory of how humans and other life forms evolved.

Science standards drafted by review committees of teachers and academics also would put up roadblocks for teachers who want to discuss creationism or "intelligent design" in biology classes when covering the subject of evolution.

The standards are subject to approval by the state Board of Education, where a majority of members have voiced support for retaining the current mandate to cover both strengths and weaknesses of major scientific theories, notably evolution, in science courses. A close vote is expected on the issue when it comes before the board early next year.

Standards adopted by the board will remain in place for the next decade, dictating what is taught in science classes in all elementary and secondary schools, and also providing the material for state tests and textbooks used in schools.

Groups backing science teachers applauded the proposed changes, while a conservative foundation said such a move would amount to censorship of teachers who want to examine the pros and cons of scientific theories.

State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, said Tuesday he will oppose the recommendation.

"I like the present language on strengths and weaknesses," Dr. McLeroy said. "This is something we've been doing for over 20 years in Texas, and we should keep doing it."

Dr. McLeroy, who describes himself as a creationist, said the theory of evolution has "plenty of weaknesses," and those should be outlined to students when studying evolution in biology classes.

"To teach it as scientific fact presents a real problem for me," he added.

The Texas Freedom Network and Science Teachers Association of Texas, along with other science educator groups, supported the change.

"These common-sense standards respect the right of families to pass on their own religious beliefs to their children while ensuring that public schools give students a sound science education that prepares them to succeed in college and the jobs of the future," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network.

Ms. Miller said the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement has been seized on by creationists " who espouse the biblical interpretation of how life evolved " to promote unscientific attacks on evidence supporting evolution.

"It's time for state board members to listen to classroom teachers and true experts instead of promoting their own personal agendas," she said.

But Jonathan Saenz of the conservative Free Market Foundation said it is "outrageous that these educrats have expelled the truth from state standards that have been in place for over 20 years."

"This type of pure censorship in shutting down a debate is the exact opposite of what true science is supposed to be. We strongly disagree with their recommendation."

The review committee recommendations would drop the strengths-and-weaknesses rule for all science courses except astronomy and chemistry. In addition, the biology review committee proposed language that states that supernatural and religious-based concepts such as creationism have no place in science classes.

AUSTIN " Proposed curriculum standards for science courses in Texas schools would boost the teaching of evolution by dropping the current requirement that students be exposed to "weaknesses" in Charles Darwin's theory of how humans and other life forms evolved.

Evolution in Play in Texas
(Sean Cavanagh, Education Week, September 24, 2008)

Texas officials are embarking on a revision of their state's science standards, a process that has generated a furious debate in several states in recent years"most of it focused squarely on the topic of evolution.

A first draft of the new standards, released this week, seems likely to please the scientific community. The new document removes language from the current document that says students should study the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Many scientists consider that to be code language used to suggest"falsely, they say"that the theory is pocketed with holes, rather than being one of the most well-supported theories in all of science.

The new document describes evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. The committee that drafted it also seemed intent on providing a thorough definition of what science is, and what it is not. It says that ideas "based upon purported forces outside of nature" are not scientific, because they can't be tested through science. Many scientists make that same point when they rejected alternative explanations for life's development, such as intelligent design and creationism.

Here's the section on the definition of science. It cites the National Academy of Science as a source: "Science uses observational evidence to make predictions of natural phenomena and to construct testable explanations. If ideas are based upon purported forces outside of nature, they cannot be tested using scientific methods. Scientific explanations are open to testing under different conditions, over time, and by independent scientific researchers. Many theories in science are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially; however, they are subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously."

Public dramas over how to define and discuss evolution in state academic standards have played out memorably in Ohio, Kansas, and Florida in recent years. The discussion in Texas is likely to unfold over several months. The state's board of education is scheduled to accept public comments and discuss the document in November. A final vote could occur in March of 2009, Suzanne Marchman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, told me.

The draft includes language on another topic that will probably please scientists: climate change, which has been largely absent from many state standards and textbooks to date.

"The interacting components of the Earth system change by both natural and human-influenced processes," the draft says. "Natural processes include hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, meteorite impacts, and climate change. Human-influenced processes, such as pollution and nonsustainable use of Earth’s natural resources, may damage the Earth system. Examples include climate change, soil erosion, air and water pollution, and biodiversity loss. The time scale of these changes and their impact on human society must be understood to make wise decisions concerning the use of the land, water, air, and natural resources. Proper stewardship of Earth will prevent unnecessary degradation and destruction of Earth’s subsystems and diminish detrimental impacts to individuals and society."

Many scientists make that same point when they rejected alternative explanations for life's development, such as intelligent design and creationism.

Public dramas over how to define and discuss evolution in state academic standards have played out memorably in Ohio, Kansas, and Florida in recent years.

A first draft of the new standards, released this week, seems likely to please the scientific community.

A first draft of the new standards, released this week, seems likely to please the scientific community. The new document removes language from the current document that says students should study the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Many scientists consider that to be code language used to suggest"falsely, they say"that the theory is pocketed with holes, rather than being one of the most well-supported theories in all of science.