Teach the Controversy
From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.
| Creationism |
|
|
. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Creationism2&action=edit) |
Teach the Controversy is a political-action movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for US public schools that presents arguments for and against evolution and then encourages students to evaluate the arguments themselves. Its advocates believe that there is scientific evidence against biological evolution that is systematically ignored and downplayed in current curricula. The movement, coined by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute, is claimed by its proponents to present an alternative to the "paradigmatic hegemony" in the teaching of evolutionary biology, without specifically invoking the creation-evolution controversy.
Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community and that there is a definitive lack of peer-reviewed debate on the so-called "issue". They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" worthy of teaching in a science class is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of its proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe in overthrowing the "evolutionary establishment" by means of taking them on in the culture wars (see Wedge strategy).
Proponents respond by insisting that they only want students to have the opportunity to critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community. They have mustered a small number of fringe scientists who support their views to make the disputed claim that there is scientific debate. They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference. Critics note that along with citing articles from mainstream scientific journals the lesson plan also refers to creationist literature and works by members of the Discovery Institute that are not representative of scientific literature, despite it being proposed as a part of a science curriculum [1] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf). Furthermore, in a recent book Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (ISBN 0-87-013675-5) members of the Discovery Institute argue that it is not only legal, but mandatory to teach intelligent design in public schools [2] (http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=126068) [3] (http://www.grisda.org/origins/57044.pdf).
| Contents |
Proposed policy
In an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute's CSC, laid out the heart of the Teach the Controversy policy he proposed to the Ohio Board of Education on March 12, 2002.[4] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134)
He proposed the following:
- First, that Ohio not require students to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet.
- Instead, 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.
- Finally, that the state board should permit, but not require, teachers to tell students about the arguments of the dozen or so scientists, like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing theory of intelligent design.
In the same article, he lays out his policy justifications for Teach the Controversy
- First, he argues, honest science education requires it, because there exists scientists from major universities question the "creative power" of neo-Darwinian evolution, and have published papers in peer-reviewed journals to that effect. By most mainstream accounts there has been only one paper about intelligent design ever peer reviewed and published -- a paper written by himself that is more expository than questioning. Nevertheless, he argues that students deserve a discussion of these ongoing "debates" on the topic.
- Second, he argues, the constitutional law holding of Edwards v. Aguillard permits “a variety of scientific theories about origins . . . with the clear secular intent of enhancing science education," and, it is argued, the proposed Teach the Controversy compromise adheres to those constitutional guidelines. This in spite of the stated positions of most scientific organizations who state that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
- Third, he argues, the federal education policy articulated in the Santorum Amendment calls for precisely this kind of approach, in stating that “where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist [and] why such topics may generate controversy.”
- Fourth, he argues, voters are overwhelmingly in favor of such an approach, as in a recent national Zogby poll he cites, 71% of those polled stated their support for teaching evidence both for and against Darwin's theory of evolution, while only 15% opposed this approach.
- Finally, he argues, the approach would be good pedagogy, as teaching the controversy would engage student interest, and motivate students to question and challenge paradigms.
Origins of Teach the Controversy
The term "teach the controversy" was coined in 2000 by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute in his book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0830823956/qid=1113327238/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-8781116-5960730?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), in a discussion the 1999-2000 Kansas State Board of Education controversy over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms. Johnson wrote [5] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830823956/104-8781116-5960730?v=search-inside&keywords=teach%20the%20controversy): "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the controversy."
Much of the Teach the Controversy agenda and success is directly attributable to the efforts of the Discovery Institute, and in particular, Johnson. As program advisor to the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Johnson is also one of the principal architects of the wedge strategy, a political action treatise and campaign promoted by the Discovery Institute meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, funding agencies, and the scientific community in order that they should effect an "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies". As such, the Teach the Controversy strategy as put forth by Johnson and the Discovery Institute is viewed as a cornerstone of the wedge strategy.
One of the initial successes for the movement was the inclusion of the favorable language known as the Santorum Amendment in the Conference Report of the No Child Left Behind education bill passed in 2001, though it was not the full victory proponents had hoped for because conference reports do not carry the weight of law and are merely explanatory in nature. Nonetheless, an email newsletter by the Discovery Institute contained the sentence "Undoubtedly this will change the face of the debate over the theories of evolution and intelligent design in America...It also seems that the Darwinian monopoly on public science education, and perhaps the biological sciences in general, is ending" and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas cited the amendment as vindicating the 1999 Kansas school board decision (since overturned) to eliminate evolution questions from State tests.
A more significant success for the Teach the Controversy movement can be attributed to Stephen Meyer, the program director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), who, in March, 2002, proposed to the Ohio Board of Education a model lesson plan [6] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf) that was adopted in part by the state for Ohio science teachers in October, 2002 [7] (http://www.sciohio.org/sbe1015.htm).
The Teach the Controversy movement has since built on its past successes and is planning and organizing new actions in the political and social arenas to further its goals of expanding into the US public school system [8] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/).
The movement has been widely criticized by the scientific establishment and groups concerned with First Amendment issues. The most significant organization in the American scientific establishment, the National_Academy_of_Sciences has been a vocal gainsayer of both intelligent design and the Teach the Controversy movement. Much of the criticism from both camps centers on the connections of the Intelligent Design movement to fundamentalist Christian creationists and that teaching intelligent design alongside science represents the thin edge of Johnson's wedge, giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design [9] (http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/NaturalHistory_200204_Forrest.html). They note that in press releases sent to members and in mission statements the CSC states that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies." [10] (http://web.archive.org/web/19970514072337/www.discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html)
The wedge strategy
The stated goal of the wedge strategy, [11] (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) is to conduct research toward the goal of developing coherent theories of origins that are superior to evolution and its materialistic understandings and consistent with theistic understanding, toward the ultimate goals of:
- 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.
The Wedge document discusses at length the means of achieving these goals, which are scientific research, writing, publishing, conferences, seminars, speaking appearances, debates, media appearances and other public sphere activities. The Wedge document does not discuss explicitly either the Teach the Controversy policy or any other educational policy for teaching in public schools. The document does refer to an intention to "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula", but only after "our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory".
Proponents distinguish their goals for advocacy in the public sphere through books, articles, and public speaking from their goals for public education, which must comply with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. They have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. [12] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutScienceEducationPolicy)
Critics have responded by pointing out that the goals of the wedge and Teach the Controversy for each forum are one and the same, and that Johnson has spoken publicly many times in favor of "the truth of the Bible" over that of secular science and materialism. Critics also allege that the proponent's compliance with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution has the net effect of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that this is parallel to and consistent with the creationist agenda of creationist fundamentalist Christians, which comprise much of the support for intelligent design.
Thus the wedge strategy is largely criticized by the scientific establishment, including the most significant organization in the American scientific establishment, the National Academy of Science and by the National Center for Science Education. Much of the criticism centers on the connections with the teach the controversy movement to the intelligent design movement to evangelical Christian creationists, and alleges that "teach the controversy" advocacy is a ploy to return the teaching of creationism into public school science class rooms under the guise of intelligent design.
Political action
According to published reports, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls, lobbying and media pieces that support intelligent design and their Teach the Controversy strategy [13] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html).
In 2001, as a result of lobbying by the Discovery Institute, Phillip E. Johnson, and others, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution in support of curricula intended to help students understand the full range of scientific views. [14] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=112) The United States Congress then passed legislation that included the language below, known as the Santorum Amendment in the Conference Report, which which serves as an explanatory text about the legislative history and purposes of the bill.
- "The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare 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 Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference is not part of the law as enacted and does not require educators to change the way they teach evolution [15] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ID-activists-guide-v1.pdf). The final language reflects a revised version of the language originally proposed by Rick Santorum. Some have asserted that the final language watered down the original language, but this has been disputed.
On March 11 2002 during a panel discussion on evolution, the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer publicly told the Ohio Board of Education that the "Santorum Amendment" was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was obligated to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. A Brown University Professor of Biology, Kenneth R. Miller, using the actual text of the law, showed that Stephen Meyer's statement was false and that the Santorum Amendment is not in the Education Bill. [16] (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/santorum.html) Meyer and others pointed out that the language is in the Conference Report to the bill, and have pointed out what they believe are numerous misrepresentations by Miller.[17] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1149) Since Conference Reports do not carry the weight of law, Meyer factually mistated the nature and gravitas of the Santorum Amendment. [18] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ID-activists-guide-v1.pdf)
The response of mainstream scientists to the efforts to promote "teaching the controversy" has been unequivocal. The leaders of eighty scientific and educational organizations responded to the Conference Report, which cites biological evolution as an example of a topic that may generate controversy:
- "As written, the apparently innocuous statements in this resolution mask an anti-evolution agenda that repeatedly has been rejected by the courts. The resolution singles out biological evolution as a controversial subject but is deliberately ambiguous about the nature of the controversy. Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy. If the point of the resolution is to encourage teaching about political controversy surrounding scientific topics, then evolution is just one of a legion of issues that are the subject of political debate. It should not be singled out. Confusing political with scientific controversy on the topic of biological evolution will weaken science education". [19] (http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/evolutionletter_update0801.html)
Some proponents have argued that the response seems directed not at the actual pedagogical policy, but rather the belief the it "masks an anti-evolution agenda" despite the "apparently innocuous statements".
In December 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted science standards that require Ohio students to study why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory". [20] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1368) Earlier polls showed widespread popular support in Ohio for such a policy. [21] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1197) In 2004, Ohio published a model lesson plan for the "Critical Analysis of Evolution". [22] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf) The plan has been opposed by the National Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Academy of Sciences [23] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/OH/832_critical_analysis_of_evolutio_3_10_2004.asp).
The Board also advised that the science standards do "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design" [24] (http://www.sciohio.org/sbe1015.htm).
Although the advocates of "teach the controversy" often claim popular support one recent opinion poll showed that about 70% of Americans do not see the theories of evolution and creation as in conflict [25] (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1903).
Philosophical basis
In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Phillip E. Johnson set forth part of the philosophical basis for the teaching policy. He made the following observations about public education, the definition of science, and the scientific establishment:
- "The root of the problem is that 'science' has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, "science" refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. 'Science' also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. . . . Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith...." [26] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=7)
He notes that science and science education are not always driven by a priori philosophical and religious neutrality:
- "All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for those who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door...." [27] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=7)
In the same article he went on to explain how this relates to public education. He notes how science education might be improved by adopting a teach the controversy policy and methodology:
- "If the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But skepticism of that kind might spread and threaten the whole system of naturalistic belief. Why is the fossil record overall so difficult to reconcile with the steady process of gradual transformation predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory? How would the theory fare if we did not assume at the start that nature had to do its own creating, so a naturalistic creation mechanism simply has to exist regardless of the evidence? These are the kinds of questions the Darwinists don't want to encourage students to ask...."
- "This doesn't mean that students in Kansas or elsewhere shouldn't be taught about evolution. In context, the Kansas action was a protest against enshrining a particular worldview as a scientific fact and against making "evolution" an exception to the usual American tradition that the people have a right to disagree with the experts. Take evolution away from the worldview promoters and return it to the real scientific investigators, and a chronic social conflict will become an exciting intellectual adventure."[28] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=7)
A clear example of the religious roots of Johnson's philosophical bias is apparent when Johnson told an assembly at a fundamentalist Christian conference entitled, Reclaiming America For Christ:
- "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus." [29] (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/eskeptic05-04-05.html)
In speaking to the audience of the Christian media group and church, Coral Ridge Ministries, [30] (http://www.coralridge.org), Johnson expanded on his goal and method of expanding religion's role in public education:
- "In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth - the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America." [31] (http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/evolutiondebate.asp)
When speaking to the same audience on a different occasion, Johnson said the following:
- "What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it."
- "You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence." [32] (http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#666)
Criticisms
"Teach the Controversy"
The theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community and such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution.
For example the National Association of Biology Teachers made this statement on teaching evolution:
- "As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.
- While modern biologists constantly study and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms, and pace of evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory. Explanations are constantly modified and refined as warranted by new scientific evidence that accumulates over time, which demonstrates the integrity and validity of the field.
- Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.
- The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences." [33] (http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp)
Examples of the conflicting claims of the two sides are present in the following example. Proponents of Teach the Controversy assert in Ohio's model lesson plan [34] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf) that one of the relevant controversies to be taught was voiced by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, in Chapters IV and IX, where he stated regarding the Cambrian explosion, "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."[35] (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin09.html)[36] (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin06.html)[37] (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin1859/origin_fm.html) They note that more recent fossil discoveries permit a more detailed assessment of the animal life in that period. [38] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119) They assert that recent scientific literature has noted that the evidence points to a Cambrian explosion that "was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned." [39] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119) Opponents of Teach the Controversy point out that in the over one hundred fifty years since Darwin's reservations about the Cambrian explosion, modern paleontologists have gained new understandings of the Cambrian explosion which largely resolve those doubts. [40] (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457) [41] (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5430/1025) Opponents note that the proponent's portrayal of the Cambrian explosion as a single event in which complex life forms appear suddenly with no ancestral fossils is not a common position found in modern paleontology and so is a conflation of past issues.[42] (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/13/6947) As such they claim that it raises and teaches a straw man argument, a tactic they note that can be traced back to Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism (1985) and appears most recently in Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. They also note that the controversies that are proposed to be taught found in Ohio's model lesson plan present as evidence numerous references to creationist literature and works by members of the Discovery Institute, despite it being proposed as a part of science curriculum. [43] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf).
On the Ohio model lesson plan specifically as proposed by the Discovery Institute, the NCSE has leveled the following allegations: "(1) that the Discovery Institute misrepresents the significance of the publications in the Bibliography, (2) that the Discovery Institute's descriptions of the publications in the Bibliography are frequently inaccurate and tendentious, and (3) that the Discovery Institute fails to present any principled basis for the selection of the publications or any pedagogical rationale for their use in the classroom. NCSE concludes that the only purpose of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography is to mislead members of the Board and of the public about the status of evolution." [44] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp)
Critics of the Teach the Controversy movement and strategy can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described the approach of the movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry."
"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God." [45] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html)
The Discovery Institute
A "teach the controversy" strategy was announced by the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer [46] (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Meyer.cfm) following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002. That presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as “Darwinian evolution” [47] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CSC&command=view&id=1134). In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organization that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools [48] (http://www.natcenscied.org/about.asp), contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution [49] (http://www.ncseweb.org/media/Analysis-of-the-Discovery-Institute.pdf).
Critics have alleged that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) has a hidden agenda: that of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that in press releases intended for the general public, the CSC describes itself as "the nation's leading think-tank researching scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution." But in press releases for members only, the CSC assures them that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."
As part of the strategy proponents refer to popular misconceptions on the evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection and alleged factual errors and misrepresentations in current textbooks. The NCSE's extensive review of the main publication to support this claim, Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution, found that grave flaws made it "useful at most for those with a certain political and religious agenda, but of little value to educators" [50] (http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/). Other analyses have found "that the traditional, mainstream-science-supporting interpretations of these "icons" are correct" [51] (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/). Writing in Nature biologist Jerry Coyne remarked that
- "Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: hence, textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. The second premise is not generally true, and even if it were, the conclusion would not follow. To compound the absurdity, Wells concludes that a cabal of evil scientists, "the Darwinian establishment", uses fraud and distortion to buttress the crumbling edifice of evolution. Wells' final chapter urges his readers to lobby the US government to eliminate research funding for evolutionary biology." [52] (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Coyne-IconsReview.htm)
Wells thoroughly disagrees with this evaluation and believes that his views and the merits of his assertions have been seriously misrepresented by some who have reviewed his book. He has published a lengthy defense of his book, as well as a defense to the many personal attacks on him. [53] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180) A few scientists have acknowledged minor errors in textbooks. However, they believe that these are not a serious problem in the sense that they have no consequences for the validity of the theory of evolution as taught in public schools.[54] (http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf) One textbook publisher has recently revised a textbook to change the presentation of some scientific studies. [55] (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=115) The response of that single publisher named by Wells has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, who has explained that to eliminate from textbooks the powerful evidence for evolution supplied by research on peppered moths and on the similarity of human embryos to those of other vertebrates "is irresponsible and not worthy of a distinguished publisher of science textbooks" [56] (http://texscience.org/files/fowler.htm) [57] (http://texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/).
Conclusion
Given the history of the Discovery Institute as an organization committed to opposing any scientific theory inconsistent with "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God", [58] (http://www.pubtheo.com/savedpages/discovery-institute-wedge-document.pdf) many scientists regard the movement purely as a ploy to insert creationism into the science curriculum rather than as a serious attempt to discuss scientific evidence. In the words of Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Education:
- "'Teach the controversy' is a deliberately ambiguous phrase. It means 'pretend to students that scientists are arguing over whether evolution took place.' This is not happening. I mean you go to the scientific journals, you go to universities... and you ask the professors, is there an argument going on about whether living things had common ancestors? They'll look at you blankly. This is not a controversy." [59] (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/US/418_creation_conflict_in_schools_3_29_2005.asp)
Proponents point to the public policy of the Discovery Institute and the specific implementation of the standards and model teaching plan by the state of Ohio, which they assert belies the claim that the policy is a ploy. [60] (http://www.discovery.org/csc/ohio/docs/modellesson.pdf) They note that critics seem unwilling to recognize that an organization may have certain overarching goals, but adopt an educational policy that does not including requiring that those goals be required of public schools. What is appropriate for publication in books and OpEd articles may not be appropriate for mandatory teaching in public schools.
Amidst this political and religious controversy the clear, categorical and oft-repeated advice of established national and international scientific organizations remains that there is no scientific controversy over evolution to teach in public schools.
See also
- Discovery Institute
- Center for Science and Culture
- Intelligent design
- Phillip E. Johnson
- Darwin on Trial
- Bruce Chapman
- Wedge strategy
- Howard Ahmanson, Jr
- Santorum Amendment
External links
Pro and con
- David Morris, Alternet, 23 May 2005, "Having Fun With Intelligent Design" (http://www.alternet.org/story/22039/)
- Peter Slevin, Washington Post, March 14, 2005, "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html)
- Evan Ratliff, Wired, October 2004, "The Crusade Against Evolution" (http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html)
- Discovery Institute, October 13, 2004, "Wired magazine reporter criticized for agenda driven reporting (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2251) - critique of Wired article and list of alleged misrepresentations
- Gregg Easterbrook, Wired, December 2002, "The New Convergence" (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/convergence.html)
- Faith and Reason (http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/) an overview of the Fall 1998 television documentary presented by PBS dealing with religion and science.
Pro
- Reprint of Washington Post OpEd piece approving of teaching the controversy (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2473)
- The Church of Darwin, by Phillip E. Johnson, from The Wall Street Journal (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=7)
- Students Should Learn the Weak Points of Evolutionary Theory, Too from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5364560.html)
- Discovery Institute's educational position and links (http://www.discovery.org/csc/scienceEducation/)
- Discovery Institute's general FAQ about its mission and details on the intelligent design theory (http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php)
- Discovery Institutes's fact sheet discussing the controversy regarding the Cambrian Explosion (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119)
- Discovery Institute's fact sheet discussing the controversy regarding whether microevolution can explain macroevolution (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118)
- The "Wedge Document": "So What?" (An explanation by the Discovery Institute) (http://www.pubtheo.com/savedpages/discovery-institute-wedge-document.pdf)
- The "Wedge" Archives (http://www.arn.org/wedge.htm) at the Access Research Network website.
Con
- Intelligent Design and that Vast Right-wing Conspiracy (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/SI_Resp.cfm)
- What's wrong with 'teaching the controversy'? (http://www.anthro.utah.edu/journalclub/JCArticles/TeachingControversy.pdf)
- The Wedge Strategy Three Years Later (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=200)
- The Discovery Institute (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_)
- Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html)
- Resolution disparaging ID and ID politics, by the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml)
- National Center for Science Education resources on ID (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=8)
- "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp)
- Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/) by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, addressing the issue of intelligent design in the guise of creationism.
- The "Intelligent Design" of a Monkey Trial: A Case of Hidden Agendas (http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=90&num=15426) by Bob Weitzel. At the axisoflogic.com website.
- Teach the controversy (Creationism thru the back door) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1360637/posts) Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. originally published at the baltimoresun.com 11 March 2005
- Should We “Teach the Controversy”? (http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/controversy.html) Jason Rosenhouse csicop.org (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
- State Your Case (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/anti-evolution/) Chris Mooney. csicop.org (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) 25 October 2004
- Evolution Controversy in Our Schools (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf/urllinks/NAS-6AQJS4?OpenDocument) A letter sent to Academy members by President of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts 4 March 2005.
- The Newest Evolution of Creationism, Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science. (http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/NaturalHistory_200204_Forrest.html) Barbara Forrest. Natural History magazine, April, 2002, page 80
- Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp) NCSE staff, National Center for Science Education website
Audio and video
- The BBC's Robert Pigott: Changes to teaching evolution in Ohio (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/38111000/rm/_38111794_creation_pigott_vi.ram)
- "Intelligent Design" Rivals Evolution in Ohio High Schools (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1845900)
- Kansas Schools Struggle with Evolution and Creationism (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4490224)
- Ohio State Board of Education proposed new standards for teaching science (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=836932)
- Textbook Battles (http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/11/20041110_a_main.asp)
- Why the debate over creationism is dividing the USA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4248679.stm)
