Former UWO physics professor challenges teaching of evolution
(Sara Kemps, UWO Advance Titan, September 21, 2006)
A former UW-Oshkosh physics professor is trying to change the way evolution is taught in the Oshkosh Area School District.
Sandra Gade says evolution is being taught incorrectly in Oshkosh North and West high schools.
"The (textbook) has downright errors that are significant... it cherry-picks topics," Gade said. "When it comes to teaching, they only use supportive material."
Gade started working to change the curriculum about a year ago. She submitted three papers to the teachers of the two high schools concerning a change in the curriculum that was being taught. All three were rejected.
"Until these teachers who are the curriculum experts tell us the curriculum should be taught another way, we will keep doing things the way we are now," said Karen Bowen, OASD Board of Education clerk and student academic affairs officer for the College of Letters and Science at UW-Oshkosh. "A school board should be looking at the big picture."
Gade said the board's response to her paper was that it was "a paper on intelligent design. They have been so effectively brainwashed by their college experience that they are unaware of the existence of contrary evidence."
Gade began to circulate a petition calling for a referendum on November's ballot. The referendum would read, "Be it resolved that when evolution is taught in the Oshkosh public schools, it shall not be taught as fact but rather with pro and con evidence and with an analysis of its testability."
"The Supreme Court has ruled that public schools shall neither proselytize for religion nor be antagonistic to it. The way evolution is being taught is antagonistic to students' religious beliefs," Gade said at one of her presentations to the school board.
"My expectation is that I won't hear from (the school board). As far as they are concerned, they are happy with the way it is being taught," Gade said.
"There is no evidence against evolution. What there is is we haven't filled in all the blanks yet," said biology professor Tom Lammers. "Fossilization is a billion to one chance, it happens only in limited areas of the earth's strata under very unusual circumstances. Only a fool would expect the fossil record to give us all the pieces."
Lammers said Gade "has demonstrated that she doesn't understand what science is and how it operates, and that is very, very embarrassing for someone that is a retired professor from this institution. It's an embarrassment to all of us."
Gade earned her doctorate in physics from the University of Pittsburgh. She taught physics at UW-Oshkosh from 1996-1999.
I never dispute the facts.
Human kind cannot bear very much reality.
I must learn to control my assertion reflex.
WISCONSIN UPDATE
Quote:Former UWO physics professor challenges teaching of evolution
(Sara Kemps, UWO Advance Titan, September 21, 2006)
A former UW-Oshkosh physics professor is trying to change the way evolution is taught in the Oshkosh Area School District.
Sandra Gade says evolution is being taught incorrectly in Oshkosh North and West high schools.
"The (textbook) has downright errors that are significant... it cherry-picks topics," Gade said. "When it comes to teaching, they only use supportive material."
Gade started working to change the curriculum about a year ago. She submitted three papers to the teachers of the two high schools concerning a change in the curriculum that was being taught. All three were rejected.
"Until these teachers who are the curriculum experts tell us the curriculum should be taught another way, we will keep doing things the way we are now," said Karen Bowen, OASD Board of Education clerk and student academic affairs officer for the College of Letters and Science at UW-Oshkosh. "A school board should be looking at the big picture."
Gade said the board's response to her paper was that it was "a paper on intelligent design. They have been so effectively brainwashed by their college experience that they are unaware of the existence of contrary evidence."
Gade began to circulate a petition calling for a referendum on November's ballot. The referendum would read, "Be it resolved that when evolution is taught in the Oshkosh public schools, it shall not be taught as fact but rather with pro and con evidence and with an analysis of its testability."
"The Supreme Court has ruled that public schools shall neither proselytize for religion nor be antagonistic to it. The way evolution is being taught is antagonistic to students' religious beliefs," Gade said at one of her presentations to the school board.
"My expectation is that I won't hear from (the school board). As far as they are concerned, they are happy with the way it is being taught," Gade said.
"There is no evidence against evolution. What there is is we haven't filled in all the blanks yet," said biology professor Tom Lammers. "Fossilization is a billion to one chance, it happens only in limited areas of the earth's strata under very unusual circumstances. Only a fool would expect the fossil record to give us all the pieces."
Lammers said Gade "has demonstrated that she doesn't understand what science is and how it operates, and that is very, very embarrassing for someone that is a retired professor from this institution. It's an embarrassment to all of us."
Gade earned her doctorate in physics from the University of Pittsburgh. She taught physics at UW-Oshkosh from 1996-1999.
Lammers said Gade "has demonstrated that she doesn't understand what science is and how it operates, and that is very, very embarrassing for someone that is a retired professor from this institution. It's an embarrassment to all of us."
Estimates of the size of the science and engineering (S&E) workforce can vary significantly depending on how one chooses to classify a scientist or engineer. For example, if only those persons with a bachelor's degree or higher who are employed in an S&E occupation are considered to be part of the S&E workforce, there were approximately 3.5 million scientists and engineers working in the United States in 1999. On the other hand, if any employed individual with a science or engineering degree is counted as part of the S&E workforce, then there were more than 10 million scientists and engineers working in the U.S. in 1999.
Lammers said Gade "has demonstrated that she doesn't understand what science is and how it operates, and that is very, very embarrassing for someone that is a retired professor from this institution. It's an embarrassment to all of us."
Spurious, what you know of history, and of common people, wouln't fill a gnat's @sshole . . .
More idiotic strawman nonsense from rl - who misspoke when he bleated "... No real scientist doubts evolution, do they?". The proper observation is "No qualified scientist doubts evolution ...". Of course, accuracy and honesty aren't factors when it comes to ID-iocy.
Worth noting with a requote is this from the article on that Gade ID-iot:
Quote:Lammers said Gade "has demonstrated that she doesn't understand what science is and how it operates, and that is very, very embarrassing for someone that is a retired professor from this institution. It's an embarrassment to all of us."
Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ...
Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified; i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist ...
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.
Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
American Astronomical Society Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
20 September 2005
The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation's K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe, cited below), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.
In recent years, advocates of "Intelligent Design" have proposed teaching "Intelligent Design" as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, "Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation's primary and secondary schools.
The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.
(A)ccording to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science
55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.
Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years."
The survey ... asked ... the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God "guided" evolution to create humans.
While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.
Because only a quarter to a third of Americans are Protestant evangelicals or fundamentalists, the 1991 Gallup Poll showed that many mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews believe in a "last 10,000 years human creation." The 1991 poll also showed that college-educated Americans were far more likely to accept evolution, underscoring their closer affinity to the views of scientists.2
The standard view in science is that modern-day Homo sapiens emerged 40,000 years ago and began to organize societies 10,000 years ago. The oldest humanlike ape is called Australopithecus, or "southern ape." It was found in Africa and is believed to date back 4 million years. Homo erectus developed 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia beginning 100,000 years ago.
The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality. Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics.
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time ...
Bad grade: DeVos should extricate himself from intelligent design mess
(A Lansing State Journal editorial, September 22, 2006)
Dick DeVos isn't grading too well on education policy this week.
He started off well enough, telling the LSJ Editorial Board Tuesday he was pleased with recent efforts to increase state standards for high schools.
Yet, on the very same day, he told the Associated Press of two disturbing beliefs:
"Intelligent design" should be included in science guidelines.
He supports leaving local school boards to make decisions on intelligent design.
These are sadly contradictory views; ones that appear to have more of a political basis than an educational one.
First, "intelligent design" is not science. It is an attempt to forge the trappings of scientific inquiry around a fundamental structure of beliefs. It has no business in any science classroom.
Second, by associating a controversial issue such as intelligent design with the issue of local control, DeVos is speaking against his own position in improving state educational standards.
The state Board of Education recently delayed a decision on science curriculum guidelines, apparently over disputes fueled by some Republican legislators on how to teach evolutionary theory.
Now comes DeVos to add to the controversy; a controversy that does not serve Michigan students.
The state has slowly begun to impose stricter standards on what its high school graduates should learn. Decades of local control left some students getting an advanced curricula and some getting curricula that don't prepare them for the 21st century.
Are we going to derail momentum on state standards over the politicization of science?
DeVos said he wouldn't require intelligent design in science classes. He should emphasize that view by arguing design could be included in comparative religion or philosophy classes, where all sorts of creation beliefs could be studied.
But let's keep it out of the science classes.
First, "intelligent design" is not science. It is an attempt to forge the trappings of scientific inquiry around a fundamental structure of beliefs. It has no business in any science classroom.
