Evolution

Evolution

Creationism Intelligent Design

ScienceRELIGION

What the heck is going on with biology education in the USA???

In South Carolina:- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution.


Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.



The EOC recommended the following change:

EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.

In South Carolina:- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution. The EOC recommended the following change:



On March 3, 2006, the BOE rejected the EOC recommendation and reaffirmed their commitment to the original approved standards.

In South Carolina:- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution. The EOC recommended the following change:



On March 3, 2006, the BOE rejected the EOC recommendation and reaffirmed their commitment to the original approved standards.

Many scientists and educators suggested that "critical analysis" was 'code' for the introduction of bogus challenges to evolution and non-scientific alternatives like ID...why only specify evolution for 'critical analysis'?

In South Carolina:

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE???

HOW CAN SCIENTISTS OPPOSE CRITICAL ANALYSIS??

ISN'T THAT WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT??

YES, BUT....

historical context

matters...

The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that:

• individuals will have freedom of religious expression;



• individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism;



• individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; • the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa.




1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH.





2) with Sputnik launch in 1957, there was an emphasis on science ed. in the USA... which meant more evolution in biology class...





2) with Sputnik launch in 1957, there was an emphasis on science ed. in the USA... which meant more evolution in biology class...

3) 1962 - Supreme Court - can't have officially sponsored prayer in school


Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH.



1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least, evolution can be REMOVED.




***** Reveals an important false dichotomy******

Only those believing that the Bible is literally and historically inerrant see evolution as necessarily inconsistent with their religion.




***** Reveals an important false dichotomy******

Only those believing that the Bible is literally and historically inerrant see evolution is necessarily inconsistent with their religion.

So, they attempted to get evolution out of schools by making it illegal to teach evolution (sensu Skopes trial of 1925!)

1968 - Epperson vs. Arkansas - Supreme Court rules that teaching evolution can't be prohibited.


1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious truth.

2) But in science, evolution can't be prohibited as scientific truth...


1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious truth.

2) But in science, evolution can't be prohibited as scientific truth...

3) If Christian conservatives could get creationism defined as a science, it could be taught as scientific truth...


- and so "scientific creationism" was introduced...called the "equal time" argument or the "two model" approach.


In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.


The decision recognizes the false dichotomy of "God" OR "evolution"

1) NOT in opposition


The decision recognizes the false dichotomy of "God" OR "evolution"

And it affirms that supernatural causality is untestable and not science.

(not "false" in a metaphysical sense, but not "science").

1) NOT in opposition

2) It's NOT science


In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.



so..... where did literalists go from here? They want to say the earth was created by God, but they can't say 'God' did it or it is promoting religion over secularism... so they attribute creation to an unnamed 'intelligent designer'...



so..... where did literalists go from here? They want to say the earth was created by God, but they can't say 'God' did it... so they attribute creation to an unnamed 'intelligent designer'...

and thus, in 1990, the Intelligent Design movement was born.


The fundamental premise of ID:

There are structures which are composed of multiple, interdependent parts that could not be acquired sequentially (through evolution). ID proponents call these structures "irreducibly complex"... suggesting they were designed de novo by an 'intelligent designer'.



This is NOT a new idea... the complexity of nature was used by Aquinas as a "Proof of God", and was used by Paley (1802) in his 'Natural Theology'...



Darwin used the comparative method to reveal the logical and empirical fallacy of this perspective.

1) Just because we can't envision how it might occur does not mean that IT CAN'T occur.... this is also called the "argument of personal incredulity." (This is the logical fallacy of 'irreducible complexity')

2) If intermediates exist now, then they could exist as a transitional sequence. (This is the empirical disproof of 'irreducible complexity')



There are structures which are composed of multiple, interdependent parts that could not be acquired sequentially (through evolution). ID proponents call these structures "irreducibly complex"... suggesting they were designed de novo by an intelligent designer.

But now the ID proponents use molecular structures as examples... such as the flagellum. Or blood clotting proteins.

Miller's response:

His examples for "irreducible complexity" are wrong.... they are reducible in principle.

Flagellum:

- 40 of 42 flagellar proteins have homologs that are used in other things

- some flagella don't have the inner core proteins and cross-link (picture)

- type III secretory vesicles have subunits but not "tail" and function

Miller's response:

His examples for "irreducible complexity" are wrong.... they are reducible in principle.

Clotting Proteins:

- Fish lack 2-3 clotting proteins found in mammals, but blood clots...

A Little History....

2003 - The South Carolina Senate was considering S153, a bill dealing with instructional materials and textbooks. On April 9 an amendment was offered by State Sen. Mike Fair (R- Greenville) with the following key provision:

The following must be placed in all science books published for kindergarten through twelfth grade: 'The cause or causes of life are not scientifically verifiable. Therefore, empirical science cannot provide data about the beginning of life.'


When another Senator objected, because of the cost involved, the bill and amendment were postponed.

"Sen. Fair, irritated that a study done for the Fordham Foundation gave South Carolina an "A" for how well it teaches evolution, is challenging the premise of Darwin's widely accepted theory. He bases his argument on the fact that no one was there when life began to make a scientific observation about it."

- Greenville News, April 15, 2003


"Fair, a Republican from Greenville, said he's disappointed the measure didn't go through this year but he's prepared to give it another push in 2004.

"I'll just have to be patient," he said."

- Greenville News, June 14, 2003

I'll just have to be patient


"Fair said Darwinism isn't supported by scientific evidence. He points to a theory called intelligent design, which argues that the complexity of life on Earth doesn't seem likely to develop through natural selection and random mutation, as Darwinism holds. He believes Darwin's theory is "foolish" and is a religious belief in itself. "

Fair said."

- Greenville News, June 14, 2003

"Evolution as change within a species has been observable in the fossil record, but change from one species to another species hasn't been observable,"


In January 2004, Senator Fair introduced Senate Bill S114, which would establish The South Carolina Science Standards Committee. this committee would: (1) study science standards regarding the teaching of the origin of species; (2) determine whether there is a consensus on the definition of science; (3) determine whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools."

- Senate Bill s.114 "science"??..... hmmmm...


"The bill calls for creating a 19-member committee that would hear testimony from top scientists and report to the General Assembly on "whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools."

"I think it would be a great opportunity to hear from national experts on both sides of the issue," said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, who put forward the

idea. "I think it would be a great exercise."


"The bill calls for creating a 19-member committee that would hear testimony from top scientists and report to the General Assembly on "whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools."

He said his intention is to show that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative that should be taught in the public schools. Scientists who espouse Intelligent Design question whether random mutation and natural selection — the cornerstone's of Darwin's theory of evolution — can account for the complexity of life.

- Greenville News, May 1, 2004

"I think it would be a great opportunity to hear from national experts on both sides of the issue," said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, who put forward the

idea. "I think it would be a great exercise."


On June 1, 2005, Senator Fair introduced Senate Bill S. 909 which would:

"require students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The State - August 6, 2005


"Fair said the bill he has proposed wouldn’t prevent teachers from discussing evolution, but would require them to present other theories — like intelligent design — to students.Fair acknowledged that his Christian beliefs play a part in his desire for other theories besides evolution to have a chance in the classroom."

The State - August 6, 2005

Back to the Story....

so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do scientists oppose this language?



Because history shows the true intent of this language and its promoters... not to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent design into the classroom.



Because history shows the true intent of this language... not to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent design into the classroom.

Amazingly, Senator Fair continues to suggest:

"critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design, the Discovery Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)



Because history shows the true intent of this language... not to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent design into the classroom.

Amazingly, Senator Fair continues to suggest:

hmmm... where did he get this idea about 'critical analysis'?


A Curious Connection....

The Discovery Institute is a conservative 'think-tank' that runs the Center for Science and Culture. The CSC lobbies aggressively to policymakers for wider acceptance of intelligent design and against the theory of evolution and what it terms "scientific materialism." To that end the CSC works to advance a policy it terms the Wedge Strategy, of which the "Teach the Controversy" campaign is a major component, dedicated to portraying evolution as a "theory in crisis". - condensed from Wikkepedia (Mar 16, 2006)


Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI, wrote the book on this strategy.



In convincing Ohio to include "critical analysis" language, he made the following suggestions before the Ohio BOE:




"(1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the theory of intelligent design--that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet."

"Teach the Controversy" - Meyer




"(2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution. Teachers should teach students about the main scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory. And Ohio should test students for their understanding of those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view."





"(3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design."




As a consequence of his arguments, Ohio adopted the 'critical analysis' language in their standards in 2005:

"Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design)."

- Ohio State Science Standards - Grade 10 - Biology



As a consequence of his arguments, Ohio adopted the 'critical analysis' language in their standards in 2005:

"Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design)."

- Ohio State Science Standards - Grade 10 - Biology

- On Feb 14, 2006, after seeing lesson plans that include intelligent design, the Ohio BOE vote to delete the 'critical analysis of evolution' language from the standards.


So, the critical analysis language is pulled directly from the "teach the controversy" strategy of Discovery Institute; a strategy that was successful for a short time in Ohio.



And yet, Senator Fair says:




And yet, Senator Fair says:

hmmm.... well how ABOUT religion?



The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their "Wedge Strategy":

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences....


The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their "Wedge Strategy":

"...Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art"...


The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their 'Wedge Strategy":

"...Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.


The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their 'Wedge Strategy":

"GOALS•To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. •To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. •To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. •To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. •To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. "


and Senator Fair would have us believe that his suggestion to 'critically analyze' evolution has nothing to do with intelligent design, the discovery institute, or religion....it's all about improving the quality of science education!!!


Major Cases in 2005:

- On Nov. 8, the Kansas board adopted state science standards containing the harshest criticism of evolution in the nation. The standards pointedly cast doubt on Darwin's theory that all life on Earth shares common ancestry and developed through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. In an even bolder step that drew international derision, the board redefined science as a discipline not limited to observations in the natural world and opened the door to supernatural explanations.


- On Nov. 8, the Kansas board adopted state science standards containing the harshest criticism of evolution in the nation. The standards pointedly cast doubt on Darwin's theory that all life on Earth shares common ancestry and developed through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. In an even bolder step that drew international derision, the board redefined science as a discipline not limited to observations in the natural world and opened the door to supernatural explanations.

- In October 2004, the Dover Area School Board voted to add a mention of intelligent design to its ninth-grade biology curriculum. Also required that teachers read the following disclaimer in class:


- "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part."

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."

"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves."

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."


Several parents than sued the School Board on the grounds that this violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Tammy Kitzmiller



Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion. A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.



The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

From Dr. Barbara Forrest’s testimony, suggesting that “intelligent design” is just “scientific creationism” in a new guise…

“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion ingeneral. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientificpropositions.The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate ordisparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” - conclusion of Jones’s decision.

Newswatch Host David Stanton: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin's Theory of Evolution in public schools, for instance Intelligent Design?

Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.

Stanton: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?

Gov. Sanford: Well I think that it's just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real "chinks" in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being... is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of ... in essence, destruction.

Further embarrassments to out lovely state….

Recent Developments in SC:

Republican candidate for Superintendent of Ed - 2006

Karen Floyd, Republican

"Clearly, the theory of the politically-correct minority has been allowed to dominate our classrooms to the point where not only is evolution being taught as a scientific truth, but the public address system cannot be used to say a prayer for the safety of athletes before a football game - this is wrong.

We must bring our children into the 21st century, where the existence of intelligence behind the creation is not only the belief of the vast majority of our citizens, and always has been, but is quickly becoming the viewpoint of many prominent scientists. We should openly discuss the theory of Intelligent Design with our children as well. Public schools have an obligation to present these competing theories without bias or prejudice or favor."

- from her article on the SC PIE website.

Recent Developments in SC:

Republican candidate for Lt. Gov - 2006

Lieutenant governor candidate Dr. Henry Jordan says science does not support Darwin's theory that man evolved from monkeys and that public school students should learn intelligent design along with evolution."I think everything ought to be taught ... and let people decide for themselves. There is no science to support trans-species changes, in other words, a monkey becoming a man," the Republican said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press."A bunch of amoebas didn't get together and design all this," Jordan said, referring to the human body. "We'd be operating on people ... looking at their hearts, their liver and their lungs, I'd tell the techs, 'Can you believe those little amoebas figured all this out?'"I mean you've got to be stupid to believe in evolution, I mean really," he said.

The Post and Courier, May 2, 2006

2008:

Fair introduced Senate Bill 1386 "The State Board of Education, superintendents of public school districts, and public school administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a public school of this State from helping his students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner. This act does not condone the promotion of religious or nonreligious doctrine, the promotion of discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonreligious beliefs, or the promotion of discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.“ – died in committee

2009:

Fair introduced Senate Bill 873: “The State Board of Education shall examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism. Related to non-religion, the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs. The duty to review curriculum imposed by this section is continuing and must reoccur periodically after the initial review in order to assure compliance with this section.” – will be considered in 2010.

2009:

Fair introduced Senate Bill 875: “Teachers must be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course. ... School governing authorities including, but not limited to, school and district superintendents, principals, and administrators, may not prohibit a teacher in a public school in this State from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course” – will be considered in 2010… referred to as the “academic freedom approach”, modeled (nearly verbatim) after bills in Louisiana and Kentucky.

South Carolinians for Science Educationhttp://www.sc-scied.org

National Center for Science Education

http://ncse.com/

Evolution

Documents

Transcript of Evolution