Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

I cannot understand how you can approach biology from a theological angle.

That kind of rethoric would in Belgium only find a mild response from a bunch of old women, nostalgic for pristine youth when catholic nuns told them what to do, what to say, what to think. When life was oh so simple and secure.

A sequence of chromosomes isn't altered by a particular way of thinking.

Human beings are the most intelligent species on the planet because our brains have evolved to cope with complex social situations, according to this year's Royal Institution Christmas lecturer, Professor Bruce Hood. This important function takes decades to develop properly, however, and explains why we humans spend a much larger proportion of our lifespan as children than any other animal.

We don't understand how complicated they really are. I want people to come away with a sense of wonder about how a thing like the brain has such flexibility and such powerful processing capability to create this experience we have.

Bills aim to roll back teaching evolution
(By Sarah Palermo / Concord Monitor / December 29, 2011)

To state Rep. Jerry Bergevin, the horrors of the Columbine school shooting and the atrocities of Nazi Germany are linked by the theory of evolution, and that's all the evidence he needs to see that New Hampshire's children shouldn't be taught that it's correct.

Bergevin, a Republican from Manchester serving his first term, introduced one of two bills that will be before the Legislature next year addressing evolution, the first in the state since the late 1990s.

The second bill, introduced by Reps. Gary Hopper of Weare and John Burt of Goffstown, more vaguely calls for science teachers to "instruct pupils that proper scientific (inquiry) results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis . . . and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories."

Hopper points to the state constitution and its order that teachers support their students' "morality and piety" for the justification of his bill.

Evolution as it's currently taught tells students "life just happens. It's just a byproduct of the universe and they are here by accident," he said.

"But more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that it was not even remotely possible that it happened by accident. I want to introduce children to the idea that they have a purpose for being here."

He would like to see intelligent design - the idea that a creator controlled how early life on Earth developed - taught in classrooms, but hasn't been able to find an example of the philosophy being successfully legislated into schools.

"I want the problems with the current theories to be presented so that kids understand that science doesn't really have all the answers. They are just guessing," he said.

Currently, science class "is like having a creative writing class where the students are told what to create," he said. "Science is a creative process, not an absolute thing."

Bergevin is less interested in the science of evolution than he is in the political and religious views of Darwin and his disciples. His bill would require schools to teach evolution as a theory, and include "the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

"I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented. It's a worldview and it's godless. Atheism has been tried in various societies, and they've been pretty criminal domestically and internationally. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, China today: they don't respect human rights," he said.

"As a general court we should be concerned with criminal ideas like this and how we are teaching it. . . . Columbine, remember that? They were believers in evolution. That's evidence right there," he said.

While some evolutionary biologists claim to be Christians or otherwise religious, "it changes every six months. What today is evolution is going to be different six months from now."

But none of that is true, said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes education of evolution, climate change and the teaching of science as a way of knowing facts about the world.

"Yes, it is the case that scientific explanations change with new data, but at some point you reach the stage where there is an agreement among scientists. . . . You're not improving science education for young people by pretending that well-established ideas are up for grabs. The idea of evolution, that living things have common ancestors, is not being challenged in science today," she said.

"Neither of these bills are going to advance science education in New Hampshire and neither of them deserve to be inflicted upon the students in your state."

Legislators in seven other states proposed similar bills this year, and all were defeated. The bills confuse the scientific use of the word "theory" with the common use, she said.

Bergevin's bill "should be obviously unacceptable to legislators on its face. They ought to be able to see pretty quickly that this bill is just silly," Scott said.

"Evolutionary scientists are Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Greens and everything. Similarly, their religious views are all over the map, too. . . . If you replace atheism in the bill with Protestantism, or Catholicism, or Judaism or any other view, it's clear to see it's not going to pass legal muster."

Besides, the bill would present teachers with the impossible task of tracking down information about every scientist mentioned in a textbook or other class material, "which is pretty dopey," she said.

Hopper's bill is more broadly worded and could be used to challenge scientific teachings on any topic.

"In a sense that makes it more dangerous," she said.

Both bills have been referred to the House Education Committee for hearings in early February.

They ought to be able to see pretty quickly that this bill is just silly.

which is pretty dopey.

In a sense that makes it more dangerous.

Monster mussels and faceless fish – the weird world of subsea Scotland
(Scotsman.com, December 30, 2011)

If the name isn’t familiar, don’t rely on remembering the face either.

Amphioxus, a prehistoric “faceless and brainless” fish which is one of Scotland’s most elusive residents, has been spotted in the waters off Tankerness in Orkney.

Along with other unusual creatures, including giant mussels and brightly coloured molluscs, the rare fish has been uncovered during a series of 15 marine surveys during 2011 which have furthered our knowledge of the biodiversity of Scotland’s seas.

Amphioxus is regarded as a modern representative of the first animals that evolved a backbone. With a nerve cord down its back, it has no specific brain or face.

It grows to about 5cm long and has a translucent, fish-like body, but without any paired fins or other limbs.

While Amphioxus does have some cartilage-like material around the gill slits, mouth and tail, it has no true skeleton.

New Year Brings New Attacks on Evolution in Schools
(Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience.com, January 1, 2012)

The new year is bringing new controversy over teaching evolution in public schools, with two bills in New Hampshire seeking to require teachers to teach the theory more as philosophy than science.

Meanwhile, an Indiana state senator has introduced a bill that would allow school boards to require the teaching of creationism.

New Hampshire House Bill 1148 would "require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

The second proposal in the New Hampshire House, HB 1457, does not mention evolution specifically but would "require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes."

Innovation can indeed overturn old ideas, but the theory of evolution is too well-established to be tossed out like yesterday's garbage, scientists say.

"Bill 1457 turns skepticism into bewilderment," said Zen Faulkes, a biology professor at the University of Texas, Pan America. "It would ask teachers to say to students, 'Don't commit to the hypothesis that uranium has more protons than carbon,' or 'Remember, kids, tomorrow we might find out that DNA is not the main molecule that carries genetic information.' Evolution is as much a fact as either of those things, so it should be taught with the same confidence."

The theory of evolution has become a flashpoint for religious conservatives, many of whom argue that the idea of life evolving over billions of years clashes with Biblical beliefs. Republican State Rep. Gary Hopper, who with his Republican district mate John Burt introduced HB 1457, told the Concord Monitor that the theory of evolution teaches students that life is nothing but an accident.

"I want to introduce children to the idea that they have a purpose for being here," Hopper told the newspaper.

Hopper said he would like to see intelligent design, or the idea that a creator sparked life's development, taught in schools, but that he did not write the requirement into his bill because similar attempts have failed around the country.

Jerry Bergevin, a Republican who introduced HB 1148, went further, telling the Concord Monitor that atheism was linked to Nazism and the 1999 Columbine school shooting.

"I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the idea to be presented," Bergevin said. "It's a worldview and it's godless."

New Hampshire isn't the only state where battle lines have been drawn over evolution. In 2011, at least seven states considered bills that would limit the teaching of evolution in public schools. Anti-evolution bills in the last several years have failed except in Louisiana. That 2008 law gives teachers the right to bring in supplemental classroom materials that teach ideas contrary to established science in fields including evolution, climate change and the origin of life.

New Hampshire's two bills are set for hearings in the state's House Education Committee in February. Nashua Telegraph columnist David Brooks, who has been following their course, said bills related to evolution in public schools are rare in the state. The last time evolution was an issue was in 1994.

Brooks added that New Hampshire, with 1.3 million people, has 400 state representatives, each of whom gets paid $100 a year to serve. "Most of them are volunteers, many of them are retirees, so a lot of unusual bills get proposed," Brooks told LiveScience. "So the fact that an unusual bill gets proposed in New Hampshire is not always as big a deal as it would be in other states."

Indiana's proposal, state Senate Bill 89, would require that "the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation."

"This is a bill that directly promotes that teaching of creation science," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization in Oakland, Calif., that defends the teaching of evolution and climate change in public schools.

"What a dinosaur. Bills specifically saying 'Thou shalt teach creation science' haven't been around for a couple of decades," Scott told LiveScience.

That's because a 1987 Supreme Court decision in the case Edwards v. Aguillard found that teaching creationism as science in public schools is unconstitutional. Any laws passed requiring the teaching of creationism would thus be thrown out by the courts.

Nevertheless, Scott said, the NCSE is keeping a close eye on state legislatures around the country. The organization helps local groups oppose anti-evolution legislation.

"Teaching students that scientific explanations that are not controversial are controversial is mis-educating them," Scott said. "And that's why these bills are bad."

"And that's why these bills are bad."

That's because a 1987 Supreme Court decision in the case Edwards v. Aguillard found that teaching creationism as science in public schools is unconstitutional.

"Bill 1457 turns skepticism into bewilderment," said Zen Faulkes, a biology professor at the University of Texas, Pan America. "It would ask teachers to say to students, 'Don't commit to the hypothesis that uranium has more protons than carbon,' or 'Remember, kids, tomorrow we might find out that DNA is not the main molecule that carries genetic information.' Evolution is as much a fact as either of those things, so it should be taught with the same confidence."