DOCSLIB.ORG

Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 56 Issue 3 Article 2 4-2003 Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools Jay D. Wexler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Education Law Commons Recommended Citation Jay D. Wexler, Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools, 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 751 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol56/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools Jay D. Wexler* I. THE EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY IN CONGRESS AND OHIO ... 761 A. Congress ................................. 761 B . O h io .......................................................................... 76 7 1. Administrative Proposals ............................. 767 2. Legislative Proposal ..................................... 774 II. TEACHING ABOUT THE EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE CLASSROOM .............................................. 776 A. Why Teach About Religious Views on Origins?. ...... 776 B. How to Teach About Religious Views on O rigin s ..................................................................... 78 6 C. Constitutional Issues ............................................... 790 III. TEACHING ABOUT THE EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM .......................................................... 799 A. Why Teach Intelligent Design? ................................ 799 B. Why Not Teach Intelligent Design? ......................... 812 1. Introduction .................................................. 812 2. Constitutional Analysis ................................ 814 a. Intelligent Design as Religion ........... 814 b. Intelligent Design and Edwards v. A guillard ............................................ 825 3. Other Concerns ............................................. 829 C. An Alternative Proposal........................................... 831 IV. THE SANTORUM AMENDMENT AND THE OHIO PROPOSALS.. 834 A. The Santorum Amendment ...................................... 835 Associate Professor, Boston University School of Law. The author thanks Barbara Forrest, Kent Greenawalt, Chris Hazuka, Marty Lederman, Trevor Morrison, and the participants at a workshop at the Boston University School of Law for helpful comments on earlier drafts and Neal Minahan for superb research assistance. 751 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 56:751 B . Oh io .......................................................................... 8 40 1. Proposed Administrative Reforms ............... 840 2. Proposed Legislative Reform ........................ 851 V . C ON CLU SION ........................................................................ 854 The controversy over teaching evolution in public schools is once again hot news.1 Ever since the Supreme Court decided in 1987 that Louisiana could not constitutionally require teachers to give equal time to teaching creation science and evolution,2 critics of evolution have adopted a variety of new strategies to change the way in which public schools present the subject to their students. 3 These strategies have included teaching evolution as a "theory" rather than as a fact, 4 disclaiming the truth of evolutionary theory,5 teaching 1. See, e.g., Holly J. Morris, Life's Grand Design: A New Breed of Anti-Evolutionists Credits It to an Unnamed Intelligence, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, July 29, 2002, at 52 (describing the intelligent design movement in one of a series of stories on evolution in the issue), available at 2002 WL 8430902; see also infra Part I. 2. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 596-97 (1987): The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. 3. In addition to the sources cited below, see also Eugenie C. Scott, Antievolution and Creationism in the United States, 26 ANN. REV. ANTHROPOLOGY 263, 277-85 (1997) (describing various strategies attempted since Edwards). 4. See, e.g., H.R. 888, 2002 Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2002), available at http://index.ls.state.- ms.us/S:/Documents/2002pdfhb/0800-0899/hb0888in.pdf (A failed Mississippi House bill provided that all curricula presenting evolution "shall indicate that evolution is only a theory."); H.R. 2548, 83d Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2001), available at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/f- tproot/bills/2001/htm/hb2548.pdf (An Arkansas House bill, which was postponed indefinitely, required teachers to tell the class whenever a statement made by the teacher was one of theory rather than of fact, and the bill identified the age of the earth as an example of such a theory.); H.R. 391, 146th Gen. Assem. (Ga. 2001), available at http://www.legis.state.ga.us/- Legis/2001-02/fulltext/hb391.htm (A Georgia House bill, which died in the Georgia House Education Committee, called for teachers to distinguish between "philosophical materialism and authentic science" when presenting material on the origin of life.); H.R. 4382, 91st Leg., 2001 Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2001), available at http://www.michigan-legislature.org/documents/2001- 2002lbillintroduced/house/pdfI2001-HIB.4382.pdf (A Michigan House bill, which died in the Committee on Education, presented evolution as an "unproven theory."); H.R. 511, 1997 Sess. (N.C. 1997), available at http://www.ncga.state.nc.usthtml1997fbills/Current- Versionfhousefhbil0511.full.html (A North Carolina House bill, which died in the Committee on Education/Higher Education, called for a revised science curriculum to ensure that evolution be taught as theory, rather than as proven fact.); Carrie Smith, Woman Takes Aim at Textbooks Mother Objects to Information on Evolution, CHARLESTON GAZETTE (W. Va.), Dec. 2, 2000, at 9A, available at 2000 WL 2640103 (describing a complaint filed by a West Virginia parent with the county board of education claiming that science textbooks presented "false and fraudulent" information about evolution in violation of state laws, which require that all classroom material be accurate); Updates, REP. NAT'L CTR. FOR SC. EDUC., Mar.-Apr. 1999, at 5 (describing how the Nebraska state Board of Education changed science content standards when the Deputy 2003] DARWIN, DESIGN,AND DISESTABLISHMENT 753 arguments against evolution, 6 teaching the allegedly nontheistic Attorney General informed it that teaching evolution as fact may violate a student's constitutional rights); Updates, REP. NAT'L CTR. FOR Sci. EDUC., Nov.-Dec. 1998, at 5 (describing the rejection by the Idaho School Boards Association of a resolution that would have prohibited evolution from being taught as fact). Defenders of evolution concede that evolution is technically a "theory," but they consistently point out that calling evolution a "theory," as that term is used in scientific discourse, does not cast any doubt on evolution's explanatory power or viability. See, e.g., Scott, supra note 3, at 278- 79 (noting the difference between the meaning of the word "theory" as used in science and among the public); see also infra notes 234-35. 5. See, e.g., Frieler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1999) (finding a school board resolution, which required a disclaimer of endorsement before evolution could be taught, unconstitutional), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1251 (2001); S. 6058, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2001) (A failed Washington Senate bill called for a textbook insert describing macroevolution as an unobserved and unproven theory.), available at http://search.- leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearchNiewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=O&X=106144514&p=l; H.R. 1876, 47th Leg., 2d Sess. (Okla. 2000) (An Oklahoma House bill, which died in the Education Committee, would have given the Textbook Committee authority to insert one-page notices into any textbook.); S. 1139, 47th Leg., 2d. Sess. (Okla. 2000) (A bill that passed the Oklahoma Senate would have required all textbooks to "include acknowledgement that human life was created by one God of the Universe."), available at http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/- measures/1999%2D00%20hb/sbl139%5Fhasb.rtf; 30 Okla. Op. Att'y. Gen. 26, 2000 WL 156576, at *6 (2000) (opining that the Textbook Committee lacked authority to require disclaimer); Okla. Textbooks to Carry Disclaimer, ASSOCIATED PRESS ONLINE, Nov. 11, 1999 (reporting on the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee order that required all relevant textbooks to carry a disclaimer stating that evolution is "a controversial theory"), available at 1999 WL 28138400; Mary McDonald, A Textbook Case in Cobb County, ATL. J. & CONST., Apr. 12, 2002, at iF (describing a Georgia county school board's order that each new biology textbook include an insert describing evolution as theory), available at 2002 WL 3718616; Eric Miekle, Alabama Upgrades Disclaimer, REP. NAT'L CTR. FOR SCI. EDUC., May-Aug. 2001, at 4 (describing revised Alabama disclaimer inserted into biology textbooks); Updates, REP. NAT'L CTR. FOR SCI. EDUC., Sep.-Oct.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fruit of the Poison Tree: a First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education Todd R
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2006 Fruit of the Poison Tree: A First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education Todd R. Olin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Olin, Todd R., "Fruit of the Poison Tree: A First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education" (2006). Minnesota Law Review. 22. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OLIN_3FMT 04/24/2006 10:41:43 AM Note Fruit of the Poison Tree: A First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education Todd R. Olin∗ During a press conference on August 1, 2005, a reporter asked President George W. Bush his opinion as to whether the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolu- tion in public schools.1 “Bush avoided a direct answer, constru- ing the question instead as a fairness issue: ‘you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.’”2 That simple exchange has refueled a national debate in the popular media, the academic world, and the courts over the propriety of teaching evolution and other theories of human origin in public schools.3 But the question remains: does teaching the theory of Intelligent Design in pub- lic school science classrooms violate the separation of church ∗ J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did We Come From?
    Reading 10.2 Where Did We Come From? Lottie L. Joiner or a year, Martha Wise listened to presentations, vis- investigate and critically analyze all aspects of evolutionary ited constituents’ homes, took phone call after long theory.” The statement made Ohio the first state to require F phone call, and spent hours answering e-mail. She districts to let criticisms of evolution be examine din class- was often up until the wee hours of the morning, trying to rooms. However, a disclaimer insists that the board did not understand the latest issue dividing her state: the teaching support “the teaching or testing of intelligent design,”a the- of “intelligent design,” one of the alternative theories of the ory that the complex features of life are the result of intelli- origin of species. gent planning and activity. “I’m not a scientist. I don’t know much about science,” For many, it was a compromise that satisfied both sides. says Wise, a member of the Ohio State Board of Education. Some felt that it was not enough. Others believed that the “There’s nothing the intelligent design people showed me Ohio board had caved to the pressure of Darwin’s critics. that the science people couldn’t say,‘That’s not evidence,’or “Science education has not convinced a lot of ‘That’s not a fact.’ I can’t refute them because I don’t know Americans that Darwin was right,”says Charles Haynes, se- that much about it. I can’t believe either side.” nior scholar at the Freedom Forum’s first amendment The question of which side you believe is central to the Center, based at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenie Scott
    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
    [Show full text]
  • How State Legislation Is Seeking to Redefine Academic Freedom to Permit Intelligent Design in the Classroom, 112 W
    Volume 112 Issue 2 Article 10 January 2010 Opportunistic Evolution: How State Legislation is Seeking to Redefine Academic rF eedom to Permit Intelligent Design in the Classroom Crystal Canterbury West Virginia University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Education Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Crystal Canterbury, Opportunistic Evolution: How State Legislation is Seeking to Redefine Academic Freedom to Permit Intelligent Design in the Classroom, 112 W. Va. L. Rev. (2010). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol112/iss2/10 This Student Work is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Canterbury: Opportunistic Evolution: How State Legislation is Seeking to Rede OPPORTUNISTIC EVOLUTION: HOW STATE LEGISLATION IS SEEKING TO REDEFINE "ACADEMIC FREEDOM" TO PERMIT "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" IN THE CLASSROOM 1. IN TROD U CTION .................................................................................... 546 II. ACADEMIC FREEDOM: PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL IN TERPRETA TION ................................................................................. 549 A. The Adoption and Interpretation of Academic Freedom by A m erican A cadem ics .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Teach the Controversy” Slogan?
    What’s Wrong with the “Teach the Controversy” Slogan? WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN? EUGENIE C. SCOTT National Center for Science Education ABSTRACT. Teachers are often exhorted by creationists to “teach the contro- versy.” Although such encouragement sounds on the surface like a proposal for critical thinking instruction, the history of the creationist movement in North America belies this claim. Rather than teach students to analyze and evaluate actual scientific controversies, the intent of “teach the controversy” exhortations is to have teachers instruct students that evolution is weak or unsubstantiated science that students should not take seriously. Such instruc- tion in alleged “evidence against evolution,” or “critical analysis of evolution” would seriously mis-educate students, and should be resisted by teachers and administrators. EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ? RÉSUMÉ. Les créationnistes encouragent souvent les professeurs à « enseigner la controverse ». Même si au premier abord de tels encouragements peuvent ressembler à la proposition d’une méthode de pensée critique, l’histoire du mouvement créationniste en Amérique du Nord dément cette affirmation. Plutôt que d’enseigner aux étudiants comment analyser et évaluer des con- troverses actuelles scientifiques, la finalité des exhortations à « enseigner la controverse » consiste à faire en sorte que les professeurs enseignent aux étudiants que l’évolution est une science faible ou non corroborée et que les étudiants ne devraient donc pas la prendre au sérieux. De telles directives quant à la présumée « preuve contre l’évolution » ou l’« analyse critique de l’évolution » contribueraient à sérieusement inculquer aux étudiants des con- naissances erronées, et les professeurs et les administrateurs doivent résister à ces directives.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Evolution Versus the People
    No. 161 “. the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (II Corinthians 4:4). May 2002 EVOLUTION VERSUS THE PEOPLE by Henry M. Morris* President Bush’s important Elementary strongly endorsed by such key Democrats and Secondary Education Bill, H.R. 1, as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, and was signed into law (P. L. 107–110) on passed the Senate by a vote of 91–8. The January 8, 2002. It contained the follow- bill itself passed by 87–10. It had previ- ing statement, representing the “sense” ously passed the House. The Senate/ of the Congress.1 House Conference Committee then was The Conferees recognize that a qual- subjected to much negative pressure by ity science education should prepare the evolutionary establishment and finally students to distinguish the data and moved the amendment in the Conference testable theories of science from re- Report to a place in the “Joint Explana- ligious or philosophical claims that tory Statement.” However, it left its lan- are made in the name of science. guage essentially unchanged. Where topics are taught that may Eugenie Scott, representing the evo- guarantee controversy (such as bio- lutionary establishment, put an evolution- logical evolution) the curriculum ary “spin” on this statement, interpreting should help students to understand it to say that “teachers do not have to al- the full range of scientific views that ter how they teach evolution as a result exist, why such topics may gener- of the Education Bill.”2 ate controversy, and how scientific Most others, however, including Sena- discoveries can profoundly affect tor Santorum himself, understand it dif- society.
    [Show full text]
  • Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science Richard B
    FIRST AMENDMENT LAW REVIEW Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 6 9-1-2006 Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science Richard B. Katskee Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Richard B. Katskee, Why It Mattered to Dover That Intelligent Design Isn't Science, 5 First Amend. L. Rev. 112 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr/vol5/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in First Amendment Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHY IT MATTERED TO DOVER THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN ISN'T- SCIENCE RIcHARD B. KATSKEE * INTRODUCTION What if you were a consumer concerned about the wholesomeness of a product you were contemplating buying, and, in the highest profile consumer-fraud case in two decades, a court hearing claims against the product's manufacturer issued a decision without looking at the item being sold or the marketing strategy being used? Would you conclude that the court was adequately enforcing the law to protect the public interest? Or what if you were that manufacturer, and the court held you liable for fraud without even considering your proffered defenses? Would you feel that the court had treated you justly? In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,' the Dover school board and the intelligent-design movement as a whole stood trial on the claim that they were trying to pass off a religious view as though it were a scientific theory, so that they could market it to students in public- school science classrooms.
    [Show full text]
  • Does ID Want to Sneak Creationism Through the "Back Door" (Into Science and Schools)?
    FAQ: Does ID want to Sneak Creationism through the "Back Door" (into science and schools)? The Short Answer: Of course our answer to this question is "no." ID proponents are very clear about what they want: (1) for legitimate scientific critiques of evolution to be taught and (2) for teachers to be free to teach the evidence supporting intelligent design, if they want to do so. This is the sort of question where no matter how you answer it, some people will never be convinced. That's because this is the sort of issue where its proof is hidden--it has to do with covert motives which are often unseen--not with what people actually say or do. Intelligent design theory cannot make reference to the supernatural, and thus it does not advocate teaching religion or creationism in the classroom. The Long Answer: ID proponents are very clear about what they want to do. Consider these quotes from ID proponents about how to teach origins science: "Teach Darwin's elegant theory. But also discuss where it has real problems accounting for the data, where data are severely limited, where scientists might be engaged in wishful thinking and where alternative even "heretical" explanations are possible." (Michael Behe, "Teach Evolution and Ask Hard Questions;"New York Times, August 13, 1999, Friday, Page A21, Editorial Desk) "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the controversy." Of course students should learn the orthodox Darwinian theory and the evidence that supports it, but they should also learn why so many are skeptical, and they should hear the skeptical arguments in their strongest form rather than in a caricature intended to make them look as silly as possible." (Phillip Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, pg.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Class Is No Place for Intelligent Design
    Science Class is No Place for Intelligent Design At a time when the United States is in danger of falling behind in innovation, it is critically important to preserve the integrity of science education. It is critical that we prevent school boards from singling out evolution for criticism and introducing non-scientific concepts such as intelligent design into science classes. As a scientist and physician, I applaud Judge Jones’ strong and clear message that intelligent design is not science and therefore has no place in science class. Proponents for non-scientific accounts of the development of life, including creationism and intelligent design, contend that evolution alone should not be taught in science classes. Arguing that evolution is "just a theory," rather than a fact, they insist that intelligent design should be offered as an alternative to evolution or given "equal time", and that schools should "teach the controversy" surrounding evolution. Such positions are anathema to the majority of the scientific community, and seriously undermine science education. In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are established scientific facts. Evolution is among the most thoroughly tested concepts in the biological sciences. It is supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields, including genetics, biochemistry, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, immunology, geology, and paleontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide -- in Christ All Things Hold Together
    In Christ All Things Hold Together: The Intersection of Science and Christian Theology A Bible Study and Discussion Guide This study guide may be used alone or as a companion to In Christ All Things Hold Together: The Intersection of Science and Christian Theology, a 2015 report of the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations. The headings for the introduction and six sessions of this discussion guide provide the corresponding page numbers from the CTCR report. Introduction: The Challenge of Scientism Session 1: Theological Foundations I Session 2: Theological Foundations II Session 3: Historical Context Session 4: Philosophical Issues Session 5: Biblical Knowledge and Scientific Knowledge Session 6: Practical Applications Introduction: The Challenge of Scientism (pages 5-15) Bill Nye, the “Science Guy,” said in an interview, “The scientific method … is certainly, I believe, the best idea that anybody’s ever had. So, if you choose not to accept what you discover using that method, what else are you not going to discover? I guess it threatens everything: Our ability to generate energy, to build cars, to fight diseases, to regulate traffic. So not accepting the method by which we discovered evolution, you really are combating all sorts of things you may not have intended to combat or ignore.”1 The author of an article in National Geographic writes that “evolution actually happened. Biology is incomprehensible without it. There aren’t really two sides to all these issues. Climate change is happening. Vaccines really do save lives. Being right does matter—and the science tribe has a long track record of getting things right in the end.
    [Show full text]