DOCSLIB.ORG

Voices for Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Voices for Evolution Voices for Evolution Third edition edited by Carrie Sager The National Center for Science Education, Inc. Berkeley, CA Library of Congress 2007943779 Voices for evolution ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1 © 2008 The National Center for Science Education, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher. Cover design by Debra Turner. Cover photographs: American Toad, Red-legged Seriema, Sumatran Tiger, and Maned Wolf photos by Jon McRay, nikographer.blogspot.com. Red Deer, Asian Short Clawed Otter and Indian Peacock photos by Stuart Reynolds, [email protected]. Asian Elephant and California Sea Lion photos by suneko, flickr.com/photos/suneko/. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. Howler Monkey photo by dpfunsun, flickr.com/photos/dpfunsun/. All statements are copyright by their author organizations and are reprinted with permission. For reproduction rights, please contact the original organization. Published by The National Center for Science Education, Inc. P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, California 94709. Printed and bound in the United States. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ……………………………………………………………………………………………v Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………………………… vii PART ONE: LEGAL BACKGROUND 10 Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creationism …………………………… 2 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) ……………………………………………………………………… 4 State of Tennessee, Office of the Attorney General (1988) …………………………………… 5 Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990) ………………………………………………… 7 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1994) …………………………………………… 8 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) ……………………………………………… 9 PART TWO: SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS Brief of Amici Curiae by 56 Scientific Organizations in Selman v. Cobb County ……………… 12 Alabama Academy of Science (1981) …………………………………………………………… 16 Alabama Academy of Science (1994) …………………………………………………………… 16 American Anthropological Association (1980) ………………………………………………… 16 American Anthropological Association (2000) ………………………………………………… 17 American Association for the Advancement of Science (1923) ………………………………… 20 American Association for the Advancement of Science (1972) ………………………………… 20 American Association for the Advancement of Science (1982) ………………………………… 21 American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002) ………………………………… 22 American Association for the Advancement of Science Commission on Science Education … 23 American Association of Physical Anthropologists ……………………………………………… 23 American Astronomical Society (1982) ………………………………………………………… 24 American Astronomical Society (2000) ………………………………………………………… 25 American Astronomical Society (2005) ………………………………………………………… 25 American Chemical Society (1981) ……………………………………………………………… 26 American Chemical Society (2005) ……………………………………………………………… 27 American Geological Institute …………………………………………………………………… 27 American Geophysical Union …………………………………………………………………… 28 American Institute of Biological Sciences ……………………………………………………… 28 American Physical Society ……………………………………………………………………… 29 American Psychological Association (1982) …………………………………………………… 30 American Psychological Association (2007) …………………………………………………… 30 American Society of Biological Chemists ……………………………………………………… 32 American Society for Microbiology ……………………………………………………………… 32 American Society of Parasitologists ……………………………………………………………… 33 American Sociological Association ……………………………………………………………… 35 Association of Southeastern Biologists ………………………………………………………… 36 Association for Women Geoscientists …………………………………………………………… 37 Australian Academy of Science …………………………………………………………………… 37 Biophysical Society ……………………………………………………………………………… 38 Botanical Society of America …………………………………………………………………… 39 California Academy of Sciences ………………………………………………………………… 42 Committee for the Anthropology of Science, Technology, and Computing …………………… 43 Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal ………………………… 44 Ecological Society of America …………………………………………………………………… 44 Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology …………………………………… 45 Genetics Society of America ……………………………………………………………………… 46 Geological Society of America (1983) …………………………………………………………… 47 Geological Society of America (2001) …………………………………………………………… 48 Geological Society of Australia …………………………………………………………………… 49 Georgia Academy of Science (1980) …………………………………………………………… 50 Georgia Academy of Science (1982) …………………………………………………………… 51 Georgia Academy of Science (2003) …………………………………………………………… 51 History of Science Society ……………………………………………………………………… 52 Idaho Scientists for Quality Science Education ………………………………………………… 53 InterAcademy Panel ……………………………………………………………………………… 54 Iowa Academy of Science (1986) ………………………………………………………………… 56 Iowa Academy of Science (2000) ………………………………………………………………… 57 Kansas Academy of Science ……………………………………………………………………… 58 Kentucky Academy of Science …………………………………………………………………… 62 Kentucky Paleontological Society ……………………………………………………………… 64 Louisiana Academy of Sciences ………………………………………………………………… 65 National Academy of Sciences (1972) …………………………………………………………… 65 National Academy of Sciences (1984) …………………………………………………………… 66 National Academy of Sciences (1999) …………………………………………………………… 71 New Mexico Academy of Science ……………………………………………………………… 72 New Orleans Geological Society ………………………………………………………………… 73 New York Academy of Sciences ………………………………………………………………… 75 North American Benthological Society ………………………………………………………… 76 North Carolina Academy of Science……………………………………………………………… 76 Ohio Academy of Science ………………………………………………………………………… 77 Ohio Math and Science Coalition ………………………………………………………………… 78 The Paleontological Society ……………………………………………………………………… 79 Pennsylvania Academy of Science ……………………………………………………………… 79 Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists ……………………………………………… 80 Philosophy of Science Association ……………………………………………………………… 81 Research!America ………………………………………………………………………………… 82 Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre ………………………………………… 82 Royal Society ……………………………………………………………………………………… 83 Royal Society of Canada ………………………………………………………………………… 84 Royal Society of Canada, Academy of Science ………………………………………………… 85 Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter …………………………………………………… 86 Society for Amateur Scientists …………………………………………………………………… 86 Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology ……………………………………………… 87 Society for Neuroscience ………………………………………………………………………… 88 Society of Physics Students ……………………………………………………………………… 89 Society for the Study of Evolution ……………………………………………………………… 89 Society of Systematic Biologists ………………………………………………………………… 90 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1986) ……………………………………………………… 91 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1994) ……………………………………………………… 91 Southern Anthropological Society ……………………………………………………………… 92 Tallahassee Scientific Society …………………………………………………………………… 93 Tennessee Darwin Coalition ……………………………………………………………………… 94 Virginia Academy of Science ……………………………………………………………………… 95 West Virginia Academy of Science ……………………………………………………………… 95 PART THREE: RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS African Americans for Humanism ………………………………………………………………… 98 American Humanist Association ………………………………………………………………… 98 American Jewish Committee …………………………………………………………………… 99 American Jewish Congress …………………………………………………………………… 100 American Scientific Affiliation ………………………………………………………………… 101 Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences ……………………………………………… 102 Central Conference of American Rabbis ……………………………………………………… 102 Clergy Letter Project …………………………………………………………………………… 103 Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism ……………………………………………… 103 Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter …………………………………………………… 104 Episcopal Church, General Convention (1982) ……………………………………………… 106 Episcopal Church, General Convention (2006) ……………………………………………… 106 Humanist Association of Canada ……………………………………………………………… 107 Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders ……………………………………………………… 108 The Lutheran World Federation ……………………………………………………………… 109 National Council of Jewish Women …………………………………………………………… 111 Presbyterian Church (USA), General Assembly ……………………………………………… 111 Rabbinical Council of America ………………………………………………………………… 112 Roman Catholic Church (1981) ……………………………………………………………… 113 Roman Catholic Church (1996) ……………………………………………………………… 113 Unitarian Universalist Association (1977) …………………………………………………… 116 Unitarian Universalist Association (1982) …………………………………………………… 116 United Church Board for Homeland Ministries ……………………………………………… 117 United Methodist Church ……………………………………………………………………… 120 United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1982) …………………………………………… 121 United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (1983) …………………………………………… 122 PART FOUR: EDUC ATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS American Association of Physics Teachers …………………………………………………… 128 American Association of University Professors ……………………………………………… 128 American Association of University Women ………………………………………………… 129 Arkansas Science Teachers Association ……………………………………………………… 129 Association of College and University Biology Educators …………………………………… 130 Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Biologists ……………………… 130 Auburn University Faculty Senate (1981) …………………………………………………… 131 Auburn University Faculty Senate (1983) …………………………………………………… 132 Authors of Biology Textbooks ………………………………………………………………… 133 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1971) ………………………………………………… 134 Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1995)
Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals

    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” .....................................................................................
  • Integrative and Comparative Biology Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 58, Number 4, Pp

    Integrative and Comparative Biology Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 58, Number 4, Pp

    Integrative and Comparative Biology Integrative and Comparative Biology, volume 58, number 4, pp. 605–622 doi:10.1093/icb/icy088 Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCTION The Temporal and Environmental Context of Early Animal Evolution: Considering All the Ingredients of an “Explosion” Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/58/4/605/5056706 by Stanford Medical Center user on 15 October 2018 Erik A. Sperling1 and Richard G. Stockey Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 320, Stanford, CA 94305, USA From the symposium “From Small and Squishy to Big and Armored: Genomic, Ecological and Paleontological Insights into the Early Evolution of Animals” presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 3–7, 2018 at San Francisco, California. 1E-mail: [email protected] Synopsis Animals originated and evolved during a unique time in Earth history—the Neoproterozoic Era. This paper aims to discuss (1) when landmark events in early animal evolution occurred, and (2) the environmental context of these evolutionary milestones, and how such factors may have affected ecosystems and body plans. With respect to timing, molecular clock studies—utilizing a diversity of methodologies—agree that animal multicellularity had arisen by 800 million years ago (Ma) (Tonian period), the bilaterian body plan by 650 Ma (Cryogenian), and divergences between sister phyla occurred 560–540 Ma (late Ediacaran). Most purported Tonian and Cryogenian animal body fossils are unlikely to be correctly identified, but independent support for the presence of pre-Ediacaran animals is recorded by organic geochemical biomarkers produced by demosponges.
  • Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy

    Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy

    Roles for Socially-Engaged Philosophy of Science in Environmental Policy Kevin C. Elliott Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University Introduction The philosophy of science has much to contribute to the formulation of public policy. Contemporary policy making draws heavily on scientific information, whether it be about the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments, the pros and cons of different economic policies, the severity of environmental problems, or the best strategies for alleviating inequality and other social problems. When science becomes relevant to public policy, however, it often becomes highly politicized, and figures on opposing sides of the political spectrum draw on opposing bodies of scientific information to support their preferred conclusions.1 One has only to look at contemporary debates over climate change, vaccines, and genetically modified foods to see how these debates over science can complicate policy making.2 When science becomes embroiled in policy debates, questions arise about who to trust and how to evaluate the quality of the available scientific evidence. For example, historians have identified a number of cases where special interest groups sought to influence policy by amplifying highly questionable scientific claims about public-health and environmental issues like tobacco smoking, climate change, and industrial pollution.3 Determining how best to respond to these efforts is a very important question that cuts across multiple
  • Breaking the Siege: Guidelines for Struggle in Science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 Bmartin@Uow.Edu.Au

    Breaking the Siege: Guidelines for Struggle in Science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 [email protected]

    Breaking the siege: guidelines for struggle in science Brian Martin Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522 http://www.bmartin.cc/ [email protected] When scientists come under attack, it is predictable that the attackers will use methods to minimise public outrage over the attack, including covering up the action, devaluing the target, reinterpreting what is happening, using official processes to give an appearance of justice, and intimidating people involved. To be effective in countering attacks, it is valuable to challenge each of these methods, namely by exposing actions, validating targets, interpreting actions as unfair, mobilising support and not relying on official channels, and standing up to intimidation. On a wider scale, science is constantly under siege from vested interests, especially governments and corporations wanting to use scientists and their findings to serve their agendas at the expense of the public interest. To challenge this system of institutionalised bias, the same sorts of methods can be used. ABSTRACT Key words: science; dissent; methods of attack; methods of resistance; vested interests Scientists and science under siege In 1969, Clyde Manwell was appointed to the second chair environmental issues?” (Wilson and Barnes 1995) — and of zoology at the University of Adelaide. By present-day less than one in five said no. Numerous environmental terminology he was an environmentalist, but at the time scientists have come under attack because of their this term was little known and taking an environmental research or speaking out about it (Kuehn 2004). On stand was uncommon for a scientist. Many senior figures some topics, such as nuclear power and fluoridation, it in government, business and universities saw such stands can be very risky for scientists to take a view contrary as highly threatening.
  • Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: a User's Guide for Paleontologists

    Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: a User's Guide for Paleontologists

    Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: A User’s Guide for Paleontologists Laura C. Soul - Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA David F. Wright - Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA and Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Abstract. Recent advances in statistical approaches called Phylogenetic Comparative Methods (PCMs) have provided paleontologists with a powerful set of analytical tools for investigating evolutionary tempo and mode in fossil lineages. However, attempts to integrate PCMs with fossil data often present workers with practical challenges or unfamiliar literature. In this paper, we present guides to the theory behind, and application of, PCMs with fossil taxa. Based on an empirical dataset of Paleozoic crinoids, we present example analyses to illustrate common applications of PCMs to fossil data, including investigating patterns of correlated trait evolution, and macroevolutionary models of morphological change. We emphasize the importance of accounting for sources of uncertainty, and discuss how to evaluate model fit and adequacy. Finally, we discuss several promising methods for modelling heterogenous evolutionary dynamics with fossil phylogenies. Integrating phylogeny-based approaches with the fossil record provides a rigorous, quantitative perspective to understanding key patterns in the history of life. 1. Introduction A fundamental prediction of biological evolution is that a species will most commonly share many characteristics with lineages from which it has recently diverged, and fewer characteristics with lineages from which it diverged further in the past. This principle, which results from descent with modification, is one of the most basic in biology (Darwin 1859).
  • The Controversy Over Climate Change in the Public Sphere

    The Controversy Over Climate Change in the Public Sphere

    THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT The scientific consensus on climate change is not recognized by the public. This is due to many related factors, including the Bush administration’s science policy, the reporting of the controversy by the media, the public’s understanding of science as dissent, and the differing standards of argumentation in science and the public sphere. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was produced in part as a response to the acceptance of climate dissent by the Bush administration and achieved a rupture of the public sphere by bringing the technical issue forward for public deliberation. The rupture has been sustained by dissenters through the use of argument strategies designed to foster controversy at the expense of deliberation. This makes it incumbent upon rhetorical scholars to theorize the closure of controversy and policymakers to recognize that science will not always have the answers. INDEX WORDS: Al Gore, Argument fields, Argumentation, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate change, Climategate, Controversy, Public sphere, Technical sphere THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN B.A., The University of Wyoming, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 William Mosley-Jensen All Rights Reserved THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Thomas Lessl Roger Stahl Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that made this project possible through their unwavering support and love.
  • Cognition, Biology and Evolution of Musicality Rstb.Royalsocietypublishing.Org Henkjan Honing1, Carel Ten Cate2, Isabelle Peretz3 and Sandra E

    Cognition, Biology and Evolution of Musicality Rstb.Royalsocietypublishing.Org Henkjan Honing1, Carel Ten Cate2, Isabelle Peretz3 and Sandra E

    Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on February 2, 2015 Without it no music: cognition, biology and evolution of musicality rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Henkjan Honing1, Carel ten Cate2, Isabelle Peretz3 and Sandra E. Trehub4 1Amsterdam Brain and Cognition (ABC), Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94242, 1090 CE Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2Institute of Biology Leiden (IBL), Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University, Introduction PO Box 9505, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 3Center for Research on Brain, Language and Music and BRAMS, Department of Psychology, University of Cite this article: Honing H, ten Cate C, Peretz Montreal, 1420 Mount Royal Boulevard, Montreal, Canada H3C 3J7 4 I, Trehub SE. 2015 Without it no music: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Canada L5L 1C6 cognition, biology and evolution of musicality. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140088. Musicality can be defined as a natural, spontaneously developing trait based http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0088 on and constrained by biology and cognition. Music, by contrast, can be defined as a social and cultural construct based on that very musicality. One contribution of 12 to a theme issue One critical challenge is to delineate the constituent elements of musicality. What biological and cognitive mechanisms are essential for perceiving, appre- ‘Biology, cognition and origins of musicality’. ciating and making music? Progress in understanding the evolution of music cognition depends upon adequate characterization of the constituent mechan- Subject Areas: isms of musicality and the extent to which they are present in non-human behaviour, evolution, cognition, neuroscience, species.
  • Where Did We Come From?

    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.
  • Clearing the Highest Hurdle: Human-Based Case Studies Broaden Students’ Knowledge of Core Evolutionary Concepts

    Clearing the Highest Hurdle: Human-Based Case Studies Broaden Students’ Knowledge of Core Evolutionary Concepts

    The Journal of Effective Teaching an online journal devoted to teaching excellence Clearing the highest hurdle: Human-based case studies broaden students’ knowledge of core evolutionary concepts Alexander J. Werth1 Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943 Abstract An anonymous survey instrument was used for a ten year study to gauge college student attitudes toward evolution. Results indicate that students are most likely to accept evolu- tion as a historical process for change in physical features of non-human organisms. They are less likely to accept evolution as an ongoing process that shapes all traits (including biochemical, physiological, and behavioral) in humans. Students who fail to accept the factual nature of human evolution do not gain an accurate view of evolution, let alone modern biology. Fortunately, because of students’ natural curiosity about their bodies and related topics (e.g., medicine, vestigial features, human prehistory), a pedagogical focus on human evolution provides a fun and effective way to teach core evolutionary concepts, as quantified by the survey. Results of the study are presented along with useful case studies involving human evolution. Keywords: Survey, pedagogy, biology, evolution, Darwin. All science educators face pedagogical difficulties, but when considering the social rami- fications of scientific ideas, few face as great a challenge as biology teachers. Studies consistently show more than half of Americans reject any concept of biological evolution (Harris Poll, 2005, Miller et al., 2006). Students embody just such a cross-section of soci- ety. Much ink has been spilled explaining how best to teach evolution, particularly to unwilling students (Cavallo and McCall, 2008, Nelson, 2008).
  • Dissent and Heresy in Medicine: Models, Methods, and Strategies Brian Martin*

    Dissent and Heresy in Medicine: Models, Methods, and Strategies Brian Martin*

    ARTICLE IN PRESS Social Science & Medicine 58 (2004) 713–725 Dissent and heresy in medicine: models, methods, and strategies Brian Martin* Science, Technology and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia Abstract Understandingthe dynamics of dissent and heresy in medicine can be aided by the use of suitable frameworks. The dynamics of the search for truth vary considerably dependingon whether the search is competitive or cooperative and on whether truth is assumed to be unitary or plural. Insights about dissent and heresy in medicine can be gained by making comparisons to politics and religion. To explain adherence to either orthodoxy or a challenging view, partisans use a standard set of explanations; social scientists use these plus others, especially symmetrical analyses. There is a wide array of methods by which orthodoxy maintains its domination and marginalises challengers. Finally, challengers can adopt various strategies in order to gain a hearing. r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Dissent; Heresy; Orthodoxy; Medical knowledge; Medical research; Strategies Introduction challenges to it, there is a tremendous variation in ideas, support, visibility and outcome. The conventional view is that the human immunode- What is the best term for referringto a challengeto ficiency virus, HIV, is responsible for AIDS. But for orthodoxy? Wolpe (1994) offers an illuminating many years, a few scientists have espoused the incom- typology of internal challenges. One type of challenge patible view that HIV is harmless and is not responsible is to ‘‘knowledge products’’ such as disease for AIDS (Duesberg, 1996; Maggiore, 1999). The issue prognoses that question current knowledge—namely, came to world attention in 2001 when South African what are considered to be facts—while operating President Thabo Mbeki invited a number of the so- within conventional assumptions about scientific meth- called HIV/AIDS dissidents to join an advisory panel.
  • Eugenie Scott

    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.
  • Evolution Education Around the Globe Evolution Education Around the Globe

    Evolution Education Around the Globe Evolution Education Around the Globe

    Hasan Deniz · Lisa A. Borgerding Editors Evolution Education Around the Globe Evolution Education Around the Globe [email protected] Hasan Deniz • Lisa A. Borgerding Editors Evolution Education Around the Globe 123 [email protected] Editors Hasan Deniz Lisa A. Borgerding College of Education College of Education, Health, University of Nevada Las Vegas and Human Services Las Vegas, NV Kent State University USA Kent, OH USA ISBN 978-3-319-90938-7 ISBN 978-3-319-90939-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018940410 © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.