Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Creationists' arguments against evolution, for intelligent design show dishonesty
(Jason Hoskin, Texas Tech University Newspaper, April 27, 2009)

The Young Earth Creationists spearheaded by the Discovery Institute have scored a victory in dictating public policy with regard to how science education is taught in public schools.

Fortunately, the pro-science advocates were successful in preventing the adoption of the "strengths and weaknesses" clause with respect to the theory of evolution. This clause falsely implies there is scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design creationism or against evolution.

However, the Discovery Institute successfully lobbied the Texas School Board to revise the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills to include a clause requiring students to "analyze and evaluate" evolution, including to "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims like natural selection, mutations and common ancestry according to Discovery Institute fellow Casey Luskin.

By casting unwarranted doubt on evolution, creationists have succeeded in leaving the door open to allowing the teaching of intelligent design creationism. This is a goal the Discovery Institute actively sought in its support of the teaching of intelligent design creationism in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Pennsylvania case. Nevertheless, conservative Judge John E. Jones III, a Bush appointee ruled, "(Intelligent design creationism) is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

This recent political lobbying is consistent with the institute's mission to seek "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." These legacies include "scientific materialism" which, according to the Institute's Wedge Document, has led to moral relativism and its consequent diminution of personal responsibility.

To justify this introduction of pseudoscience into the curriculum, creationists frequently use the refrain we should "teach the controversy" - that is to say give equal time to opposing points of view merely because there are people who hold them.

There are serious problems with a consistent application of this principle, as creationists are undoubtedly aware. There would in principle be no reason to bar the teaching of creation myths of Buddhism or Hinduism or any of the hundreds of minor myths, all during science education class.

This consequence is no doubt unpalatable to Christian creationists, as well as principled defenders of the Constitution.

Why not give a hearing to the Flat Earth Society who no doubt would love to require that students be made to evaluate "all sides of the scientific evidence" regarding the shape of the Earth? Why limit this relativism to the epistemic variety. Why not teach Nazism and communism as viable political systems or that cannibalism is just another preference.

Clearly, the "teach the controversy" refrain takes as its premise that all ideas and belief systems are equally valid in a sense, so long as there are people endorse them. We are thus faced with the startling prospect of a radical right-wing organization-endorsing relativism. It is ironic the same organization that claims to oppose the encroachment of relativism in culture depends on it to advance their agenda.

There are a number of criteria a given set of ideas must satisfy in order to be accepted as part of a scientific discipline.

First is a particular theory undergo examination by the peer review process. It is important to note there is not one peer reviewed article that has been published supporting intelligent design, either produced by the "scientists" at the Discovery Institute, or anyone else according.

By contrast, there is not one peer-reviewed article challenging evolution 150 years after Darwin published "The Origin of Species" according to philosopher Barbara Forrest.

As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Evolution has helped us understand genetics, microbiology, etc. It has led to the development of medical technology that has saved the lives of billions of people and extended the human life span from about 30 to 80 years in less than two centuries.

As Discovery Institute fellow Philip E. Johnson admits, the issue of intelligent design creationism "Isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

The historical record attests to this fact: Creationism, in any of its forms, has yet to produce one piece of empirical evidence that has increased the body of scientific knowledge, despite having an 1850-year head start on the theory of evolution.

More importantly, it has not led to a single instance of medical technology or saved a single human life from the ravages of disease. This is because evolutionary biology is a process of making inferences based on observations about the world, a process that intelligent design creationism proponents decry as "materialism."

By contrast, intelligent design creationism is little more than adherence to the arbitrary assertions of religious dogma, while ignoring the vast body of facts provided by observation.

This is the reason why evolution has earned its place in the curriculum in its undiluted form and why creationism has no place in education.

Why not give a hearing to the Flat Earth Society who no doubt would love to require that students be made to evaluate "all sides of the scientific evidence" regarding the shape of the Earth? Why limit this relativism to the epistemic variety. Why not teach Nazism and communism as viable political systems or that cannibalism is just another preference.

"More importantly, it has not led to a single instance of medical technology or saved a single human life from the ravages of disease. This is because evolutionary biology is a process of making inferences based on observations about the world, a process that intelligent design creationism proponents decry as "materialism."

Interesting that materialism is in quotation marks. That's because there is no Earthly way that label can be planted on just scientists or science advocate.

Brisbane creationist group settles US legal dispute
(Brisbane Times, April 29, 2009)

Two groups with Australian links that teach the literal truth of the Bible creation story have settled a lawsuit in the United States.

Kentucky-based ministry Answers in Genesis and Brisbane-based Creation Ministries International were in dispute over copyright, magazine subscription lists and rights to spread the creationist message.

The lead protagonists, Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, once shared leadership of the Creation Science Foundation in Australia.

In 1987 Mr Ham moved to the US and in 1994 he established Answers in Genesis (AiG), which soon outgrew Creation Ministries International (CMI), headed by Mr Wieland.

AiG's activities included the establishment of the Creation Museum, which disputes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in favour of a "scientific" interpretation of the book of Genesis.

In 2005, Mr Wieland proposed reforms to AiG, which brought the parties into dispute.

Attempts at reconciliation foundered, and in 2007 CMI launched action in the Supreme Court in Queensland against AiG and Mr Ham.

In response AiG sought enforcement in Kentucky of an agreement between the parties that any disputes go to "Christian arbitration".

The District Court ordered the arbitration and it has now been confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court action launched in Queensland by CMI was voluntarily suspended by the parties pending the appeal in the US.

"CMI and AiG are pleased to inform you that the dispute between the ministries has been settled to their mutual satisfaction," the parties said in a statement.

"Each ministry is now focused on its respective mission, having put this dispute behind them in April of 2009."

Mr Wieland said he would not pursue the action in the Queensland Supreme Court and the dispute was at an end.

He declined to comment further.

McLeroy confirmation blocked
(By Kate Alexander, Austin American-Statesman, April 30, 2009)

The confirmation of State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy is dead in the water, Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, said Thursday.

Jackson, chairman of the Senate Nominations Committee, said McLeroy will be left pending in committee because there is enough opposition on the floor of the Senate to block his confirmation, which requires approval of two-thirds of the senators.

There are too many other important issues to take up on the floor to waste time on a doomed confirmation, Jackson said.

After a contentious confirmation hearing last week, Jackson said he would take the temperature of his colleagues before determining whether to give McLeroy a committee vote.

McLeroy, R-Bryan, was first elected to the State Board of Education in 1998 and would retain his seat as a board member even if not confirmed as chairman by the end of the legislative session. Gov. Rick Perry would then pick a chairman from among the other board members who would not face Senate confirmation until 2011.