Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

But proponents of such teaching are unbothered by the risks to sound science by including the "weaknesses" mandate. Don McLeroy, chairman of the State Board, believes there are many weaknesses to the theory of evolution. "To teach it as scientific fact presents a real problem to me."

This same conservative faction, which now holds the upper hand on the board, has already had its impact on the teaching of English. The board majority shoved aside the best thinking of English teachers whose own curriculum proposal was ditched. And the board has seen bickering in the past over the teaching of history. The single theme running through this is an agenda that sees the world narrowly and wants that view taught in the public schools.

The draft science curriculum won't be taken up until next year but the lines of division have been drawn for some time. And those lines have been drawn by the candidates for election to the board. The state Board of Education is not a high profile body, although it can have enormous influence on what schoolchildren are taught. That makes it imperative that voters inform themselves about the candidates vying for a place on the board and whether those candidates sound teaching of science or whether they advocate some intellectually slippery notion of "weaknesses" of one of the bedrock principles of science.

The state Board of Education is not a high profile body, although it can have enormous influence on what schoolchildren are taught.

Debate erupts over proposal to teach creationism in Brunswick schools
(By Ana Ribeiro, Wilmington Star-News, September 29, 2008)

A Southern Baptist minister thinks it’s a good idea. A Catholic priest disagrees. A Buddhist monk says, come all.

The Brunswick County school board’s desire to teach creationism alongside evolution in the classroom " which many consider a violation of the separation of church and state, as backed by past court decisions " has launched a debate that has spread to local religious communities, the Internet and beyond.

It has prompted people from outside the county to e-mail the board. It has drawn ridicule in online forums and blogs, reacting to the comments of board member Jimmy Hobbs, who characterized evolution as an atheistic concept, and parent Joel Fanti, who said he wasn’t around 2 million years ago to witness evolution at work.

“It just amazes me some of those responses, how venomous they have been,” said Fanti, who sparked the debate by proposing at the board’s Sept. 16 meeting that the teaching of creationism share classroom time with evolution. “I don’t even know what their definition of religion is. I can argue their views on evolution are a religion, too, because it can’t be proven.”

The Rev. Brad Ferguson, Fanti’s pastor at New Beginnings Community Church in Shallotte, said he supports Fanti’s views.

“There is some scientific evidence supporting creationism,” the Southern Baptist minister said. “Kids should be presented both sides. … You can’t isolate disciplines. Science and faith " they go together.”

Not all Christians find that appropriate for the classroom.

Father Hector La Chapelle, of Shallotte’s St. Brendan the Navigator Roman Catholic Church, said he’s concerned about a literal, one-sided interpretation of the Bible being presented in schools.

La Chapelle, who e-mailed the school board opposing the idea of teaching creationism, said the belief has no place in a school curriculum and he’s against even having a Bible class, because it’s not up to public schools to teach religion.

“The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go,” La Chapelle said, echoing the words of his e-mail to the board. “We don’t take the Bible literally, or as a history or science book. It’s a faith document. Evolution is not a religious question. It’s a scientific question. It doesn’t go against my belief that God created the world.”

The school system has enough lawsuits to deal with and is misdirecting its energies discussing adding a subject that is not even allowed by the state, the church’s e-mail to the board says.

St. Brendan’s has a following of 1,680 families and 411 children, many of them involved in the Brunswick County school system, said Mary Hart, the church’s faith formation director and co-signer in its e-mail to the board. Hart said that she, like Fanti, has a child who attends West Brunswick High School.

“I think the board members are trying to inject their belief in the school system, and that troubles me,” Hart said. “As a Christian, I don’t think they represent all Christians.”

At the Wat Carolina Buddhist monastery near the county schools’ central office in Bolivia, head monk Phra Vidhuradhamma has an inclusive approach to the question. Although Vidhuradhamma knows the law restricts the teaching of religion in schools and it must be followed, he’d like every religion to be taught equally in schools, he said.

But he said that would be difficult to achieve because most of the community’s residents are Christian.

“I think it would be good for human beings to learn everything,” Vidhuradhamma said. “We need to learn more and more, to be open-minded, to understand.”

When asked about his view on how things began, Buddhist monk Vidhuradhamma took a lid off a mug and ran his finger around it, smiling.

A circle, he pointed out " with an infinite number of beginnings.

Brunswick County school board Chairwoman Shirley Babson has received e-mails on the creationism issue from the Catholic church, a biologist and people from as far as the state of Washington. Out of the seven obtained by the Star-News, one e-mail " from an Ocean Isle Beach resident " favored the teaching of creationism in the classroom.

School board member Scott Milligan, absent from the Sept. 16 meeting where the discussion on teaching creationism began, said he came back into town and walked into a controversy he doesn’t want to respond to without having all the facts.

In a matter of hours, the story spread from the Star-News forums to sites all over the Internet, including the popular science blog Pharyngula, which has registered more than 200 comments on the topic.

Comments there were overwhelmingly unsympathetic toward Fanti’s request and the board’s response, many wondering if they hadn’t heard of the Dover, Pa., case of 2005, in which a federal judge ruled the teaching of “intelligent design” in the classroom unconstitutional.

As local and state school districts tried to insert creationism into the science curriculum, a string of Supreme Court and other court decisions have ruled its teaching, or that of variations like “intelligent design,” a violation of the separation of church and state.

The state school system says that, although creationism cannot be taught in science class or as a standard course of study, it can be taught as part of an elective. It can also be included in history class, as long as it’s presented as a cultural perspective along with all other religions and not promoted over any religions or secularism, said Tracey Greggs, social studies chief with the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.

“Because our society is so pluralistic, it would not be beneficial to teach one religion over another,” Greggs said.

After reading e-mails by people disgruntled about the idea of teaching creationism, hearing about the state’s point of view and consulting with attorney Kathleen Tanner, Babson said she thinks the board will not try to go against the law to teach creationism, although she would like to see it in the classroom one day.

Fanti said he learned about the court cases after addressing the board and now thinks the idea of teaching creationism as part of the curriculum will be crushed. But he plans to ask the school board to encourage “evolutionists” in the schools to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of their theory.

“Instead of making it a religious issue, let’s make it a scientific issue,” said Fanti, who identifies himself as a chemical engineer.

I also noted that, in the previously reported news on the BBC about Michael Reiss, the BBC got it all wrong. Reiss was not advocating the teaching of creationism

Shame on the BBC
By Nick Matzke on September 16, 2008 3:19 PM | 26 Comments (new) | 1 TrackBack
I think sometimes reporters and news organizations don’t realize that alarmist reporting, while it gets viewers and comment, can have real negative impacts. Here is a recent example. Last week the BBC put up a story, “Call for creationism in science” which suggested that Michael Reiss, the director of education for the Royal Society in the UK, actually supported putting creationism in science classes. Now, if you read the story carefully you would realize that he wasn’t saying that at all " his remarks are pretty much standard teachers-should-be-ready-to-address-this-if-it-comes up stuff, which I believe is the considered position of the NAS, NCSE, Brian Alters and all other serious people who work to improve evolution education and block creationist attempts to subvert it.

But, the headline and some incensed remarks from another professor (who was probably just called up and asked by the reporter, “Hey, this guy supports putting creationism in science classes, what do you think?”) were enough to create a brouhaha.

Now, according to this story today, “‘Creationism’ biologist quits job” What moron writes these headlines!?! (it’s usually not the reporter) Reiss is a biologist and education expert, he was advocating a mainstream (and correct) position, and he loses a position because of it?

I guess this isn’t the hugest deal in the world, the position was probably volunteer/add-on to his main job at the Institution of Education (which he is returning to). But still, nothing was gained and a fair bit was lost from this. As a result of the BBC’s alarmist reporting, some people think the Royal Society supports creationism (which is ludicrous); others think that scientists and the Royal Society are so intolerant so as to want to impose a ban on any discussion of creationism, even a teacher explaining the mainstream scientific view on the issue in response to a student question; Michael Reiss is at the very least feeling alienated from a portion of the scientific community, after being bashed for just doing his job and trying to help them out; and the creationists are crowing. Not a good show.

My 2 cents: as with everything, you’ve got to be skeptical. As we like to say, if a creationist says the sky is blue, go outside and check. But similarly, if a news story headline confirms your worst fears, don’t just believe it, read the actual story and see if the headline was warranted or just incendiary and attention-grabbing.

Comment on “Shame on the BB

Group urges no politics, religion in science curriculum
(By GARY SCHARRER, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 30, 2008)

AUSTIN " A coalition of Texas scientists warned the State Board of Education Tuesday not to inject politics or religion into new science guidelines for public schools.

The group worries that social conservatives on the 15-member board will insist that public schools teach the "weaknesses of evolution." The board plans to adopt new science curriculum standards next year.

"We are here to support and promote strong, clear, modern science education in Texas schools," said David Hillis, professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin. "Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science education."

But it's important for Texas biology teachers to explain the strengths and weaknesses of various theories, including biology, said the board's chairman, Dr. Don McLeroy, R-Bryan.

A panel of experts recently recommended the "strengths and weaknesses" provision remain in astronomy and chemistry but be removed from the updated science curriculum.

"We will probably put it back in," McLeroy said. "If it's viable for astronomy and chemistry, it's good enough for biology."

Disputing the scientists, McLeroy, a dentist, said there are a number of weaknesses in the theory of evolution, citing fossil records as an example.

"It's strong evidence for (evolution), but I also think it's some of the strongest evidence against it," he said.

Scientists contend the "strengths and weaknesses" provision is simply an excuse to expose students to "supernatural and fringe explanations" instead of sticking to traditional scientific principles.

"We should teach students 21st-century science, not some watered-down version with phony arguments that nonscientists disingenuously call 'weaknesses,' " said Sahotra Sarkar, a professor of integrative biology at UT. "Calling 'intelligent design' arguments a weakness of evolution is like calling alchemy a weakness of chemistry, or astrology a weakness of astronomy."

Local profs back evolution curriculum
(By Brian Bethel, Abilene Reporter, October 1, 2008)

A group of Texas scientists, including professors at all three of Abilene's Christian colleges, have banded together to take a stand on the need to teach evolution in the state's K-12 classrooms.

More than 800 people have signed the 21st Century Science Coalition's online petition, which states that a strong science curriculum is essential and should acknowledge "that instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences."

Those who endorsed the statement also agreed that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond reasonable doubt.

The 21st Century Science Coalition's statement comes as the State Board of Education is considering new science curriculum standards -- something it votes on next spring.

An academic work group proposed Texas' standards for biology courses eliminate the long-held language of teaching "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, according to a recent Associated Press article.

The 21st Century Science Coalition supports the language change because, it says, discussions of "weaknesses" allow for religion-based concepts such as creationism and intelligent design to be introduced.

Joel Brant, assistant professor of biology at McMurry University, signed the initiative and said that it was good "for us as a state to go through and review what our standards are and what we are teaching our students."

If one is going to discuss science standards, one needs to keep such standards "within the realm of science."

"What are the patterns I'm seeing, and how can I explain these patterns using natural explanations," he said. "That's exactly what science is."

Well-meaning people who want to introduce a "faith vein -- or at least the option to explore a faith argument -- into our science standards," he said, risk introducing nonscientific arguments into a science classroom.

"Science deals with natural phenomena and uses measurable standards," he said, whereas statements of faith apply a supernatural explanation for natural phenomenon.

The weaknesses of a theory can be examined as long as such an examination is done from a scientific standpoint, he said.

Tom Lee, a biology professor at Abilene Christian University, said it is "important to teach science in a science class."

"I think it's important we stand up for that," he said of the decision to sign the 21st Century statement.

Lee sees allowing creationism into the classroom as tantamount to opening up a "Pandora's box" that could lead to a morass such as determining which creation stories should be highlighted and which should be excluded.

"I think we should just stick with the science," he said.

Dr. Mark Ouimette, a Hardin-Simmons University geology professor who also signed the statement, said he supported the "teaching of science, not philosophy in the place of science."

Ouimette said he realized his statement is a "broad, very general, maybe even argumentative approach," but that concepts such as intelligent design do not have sufficient evidence.

"There's no evidence for it," he said. "The use of the scientific method has not been applied to those types of studies, and what few there are is just more of a rationalization bridging the gap between one very opposite extreme, the creationism way of looking at the origin of the earth and the universe, versus what scientists think."

Science is based on evidence, scientific fact, reporting results, arguing results, more testing and following protocols that have "worked very successfully for hundreds of years," he said.

Ouimette said that to not take a scientific approach risks creating generations of students ignorant about how the natural, physical and chemical world operates.

State Board of Education chairman and creationist Don McLeroy said in a recent AP story that he was "sick and tired of people saying we're interjecting religion" into the classroom, though he supports restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language and working some form of it into the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy.

McLeroy said he looks at "evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses."

Gaile Thompson, executive director of secondary education with the Abilene Independent School District, said she had heard of the 21st Century initiative but didn't think it would make much difference at the ground level.

"Teaching the processes of evolution is in the science (section) of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills" test, she said.

TEKS' requirements are law, so teachers in Texas must teach the processes of evolution, Thompson said.

"Creationism and/or intelligent design are not mentioned or supported by the TEKS," she said. "And so we're going to follow the law."

Whether wording concerning the "weaknesses" of prevailing theories is retained isn't much of a concern to her, she said.

"I don't think it's going to make any difference to my teachers at all, really," she said. "I am glad that the scientific community is supporting that stance on the TEKS, but I really don't think my teachers have a problem teaching the processes of evolution anyway."

ACU's Lee said some people threatened by the concepts that underpin evolution will "never interpret the data the way a scientist does, no matter what we come up with."

All three professors interviewed said that their Christian faith is not threatened by their scientific knowledge.

Lee said that the biblical narrative was "not designed to be a science book" and that the gaps in our understanding about evolution are simply further "frontiers" to be explored and explained.

McMurry's Brant said that as a scientist and a man of faith, "I don't see conflict between my religious understanding and my evolutionary understanding.

"When I read the Bible, I do not hear a how, I hear a why. And when I look at my science textbooks, I don't see a why, I see a how."

HSU's Ouimette said he also has no problem living in both worlds.

"I am both," he said, referring to his faith and his vocation. "There's a decision people have to make -- is the Bible literal, or is it a collection of metaphors used to make a point? Somewhere along that line, you have to make a decision about where you're going to stand."

"What are the patterns I'm seeing, and how can I explain these patterns using natural explanations," he said. "That's exactly what science is."

Well-meaning people who want to introduce a "faith vein -- or at least the option to explore a faith argument -- into our science standards," he said, risk introducing nonscientific arguments into a science classroom

Will your vote for president be influenced by the vice presidential candidates?