DOCSLIB.ORG

Darwins-Corrosive-Idea.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Darwins-Corrosive-Idea.Pdf This report was prepared and published by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, a non-profit, non-partisan educational and research organization. The Center’s mission is to advance the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design rather than a blind and undirected process. We seek long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and scholarship; education and training of young leaders; communication to the general public; and advocacy of academic freedom and free speech for scientists, teachers, and students. For more information about the Center, visit www.discovery.org/id. FOR FREE RESOURCES ABOUT SCIENCE AND FAITH, VISIT WWW.SCIENCEANDGOD.ORG/RESOURCES. PUBLISHED NOVEMBER, 2016. © 2016 BY DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA The Impact of Evolution on Attitudes about Faith, Ethics, and Human Uniqueness John G. West, PhD* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In his influential book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, have asked about the impact of science on a person’s philosopher Daniel Dennett praised Darwinian religious faith typically have not explored the evolution for being a “universal acid” that dissolves impact of specific scientific ideas such as Darwinian traditional religious and moral beliefs.1 Evolution- evolution.5 ary biologist Richard Dawkins has similarly praised In order to gain insights into the impact of Darwin for making “it possible to be an intellect- specific scientific ideas on popular beliefs about ually fulfilled atheist.”2 Although numerous studies God and ethics, Discovery Institute conducted a have documented the influence of Darwinian nationwide survey of a representative sample of theory and other scientific ideas on the views of 3,664 American adults. The survey asked questions cultural elites,3 the impact of Darwin’s theory on about various scientific ideas and their impact on a the attitudes of the general public has been less person’s personal beliefs about God, human clear. While prominent atheists like Dawkins and uniqueness, and ethics. Because one of the main Dennett have claimed Darwin’s ideas (and science survey goals was to ascertain the impact of more generally) as a support for atheism and the evolutionary ideas on those who have lost their rejection of traditional ethics, others—such as religious faith, the survey sample included 1,146 Christian geneticist Francis Collins—have maintained that Darwinian biology is compatible with both religious faith and religious-based ethics.4 Until now, there has been little empirical data to quantify the impact of evolutionary ideas on the religious and ethical beliefs of the general population. While previous surveys have asked about people’s belief in evolution or their beliefs about other scientific ideas, most have not asked questions about how science has shaped a person’s religious beliefs or worldview. Those surveys that DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA self-identified atheists and agnostics. Key findings of the survey include: • 67% of atheists and 35% of agnostics believe “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable.” • Nearly 7 in 10 atheists and more than 4 in 10 agnostics say that for them personally, unguided chemical evolution and Darwin’s mutation/natural selection mechanism have made the existence of God “less likely.” • More than 7 in 10 atheists and nearly 4 in “evolution shows that moral beliefs evolve 10 agnostics agree with evolutionary over time based on their survival value in biologist Richard Dawkins that “the various times and places.” universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at Data for this nationwide survey was collected bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and from March 17-20, 2016 using SurveyMonkey no good, nothing but blind, pitiless Audience, a nationally representative panel of more indifference.” than 6 million people recruited from the 30+ million people who take SurveyMonkey surveys • By contrast, 6 in 10 theists and more than 2 each month. The SurveyMonkey platform has been in 10 agnostics say the existence in nature of utilized for public opinion surveys by NBC News, “many things that are exquisitely designed the Los Angeles Times, and other media and highly complex” has made the existence organizations. Survey respondents were randomly of God “more likely” for them personally. sampled from members of SurveyMonkey • 45% of Americans as a whole, 69% of Audience in the United States who are 18 years of atheists, and 60% of agnostics agree that age or older. More detailed information about the “evolution shows that human beings are not survey’s methodology is presented in Section 3. fundamentally different from other animals.” • 55% of Americans as a whole, 71% of atheists, and 68% of agnostics agree that 2 DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA 1. THE IMPACT OF EVOLUTION AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC IDEAS ON BELIEF IN GOD “I don’t [believe in God] but I really want religious beliefs. However, Pew provided no to... I’m constantly struggling. But looking quantitative breakdown of the percentage of those right at the facts—evolution and science— abandoning their religious beliefs who cited either they’re saying, no there is none.” science in general or evolution in particular as 6 Kyle Simpson, age 27, interviewed by NPR. influencing their loss of faith. According to the new survey reported here, an The Pew Research Center reported earlier in overwhelming 67% of self-identified atheists and 2016 that “science” was frequently cited by respond- 35% of self-identified agnostics say “the findings of ents in one of its recent surveys as a reason they lost science make the existence of God less probable,” their religious beliefs: while 30% of atheists and 60% of agnostics say “the findings of science are neutral with regard to the About half of current religious “nones” who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention “science” as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said “I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.”7 Another respondent to the same Pew survey identified “learning about evolution when I went away to college” as the reason for losing his or her DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA existence of God.” Self-identified theists are evenly SCIENCE-RELATED IDEAS WITH THE MOST split between those who think “the findings of IMPACT ON THE LOSS OF BELIEF IN GOD science make the existence of God more probable” (48%) and those who think “the findings of science Which science-related ideas have had the biggest are neutral with regard to the existence of God” impact on the erosion of religious faith? Two ideas (48%).8 influenced the most people by far in their loss of In order to determine which specific ideas from faith: unguided chemical evolution and unguided science have influenced a person’s beliefs about the Darwinian evolution in biology. existence of God, respondents were given an inventory of eight science-related ideas often raised • 66% of atheists and 44% of agnostics said that in popular discussions of science and faith. They for them personally, the idea that “life began were then asked “for you personally, which of the from non-life through an unguided process following ideas have made the existence of God less of chemical evolution” has made the likely, more likely, or have had no impact on your existence of God “less likely.” belief in the existence of God.” Inventory items • 65% of atheists and 43% of agnostics said that included: for them personally, the idea that “all life • The universe began with the Big Bang nearly forms on Earth (including humans) were 14 billion years ago. produced by an unguided process of mutation and natural selection” has made the • Life began from non-life through an existence of God “less likely.” unguided process of chemical evolution. • All life forms on Earth (including humans) For atheists, the next most influential idea in making are descended from a single common the existence of God “less likely” is the evolutionary ancestor. claim that “all life forms on Earth (including humans) are descended from a single common All life forms on Earth (including humans) • ancestor.” Some 55% of atheists indicate that this were produced by an unguided process of idea has made the existence of God less likely for mutation and natural selection. them personally. • Nature is filled with disease and death. However, the survey shows that the Darwinian mechanism of unguided mutations and natural • Nature is filled with many things that are selection is far more influential when it comes to useless or poorly designed. questions about the existence of God than common • The laws of physics are fine-tuned to allow ancestry. Even 44% of atheists and 70% of agnostics life to develop in the universe. If they were say that the idea of common ancestry either has no the slightest bit different, life could not exist. impact on their belief in God or it makes the exist- ence of God more likely. • Nature is filled with many things that are Among self-identified theists, meanwhile, 39% exquisitely designed and highly complex. think universal common ancestry makes God more likely and another 65% say the claim has no impact 4 DARWIN’S CORROSIVE IDEA on their belief in God’s existence. the existence of God less likely for two-thirds of This does not mean that views about common atheists and more than 40% of agnostics. ancestry are unimportant. For example, they may play a role in shaping views about human unique- SCIENCE-RELATED IDEAS WITH THE MOST ness and the status of human morality (see Section POSITIVE IMPACT ON BELIEF IN GOD 2 of this report).
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]
  • HUMANISM Religious Practices
    HUMANISM Religious Practices . Required Daily Observances . Required Weekly Observances . Required Occasional Observances/Holy Days Religious Items . Personal Religious Items . Congregate Religious Items . Searches Requirements for Membership . Requirements (Includes Rites of Conversion) . Total Membership Medical Prohibitions Dietary Standards Burial Rituals . Death . Autopsies . Mourning Practices Sacred Writings Organizational Structure . Headquarters Location . Contact Office/Person History Theology 1 Religious Practices Required Daily Observance No required daily observances. Required Weekly Observance No required weekly observances, but many Humanists find fulfillment in congregating with other Humanists on a weekly basis (especially those who characterize themselves as Religious Humanists) or other regular basis for social and intellectual engagement, discussions, book talks, lectures, and similar activities. Required Occasional Observances No required occasional observances, but some Humanists (especially those who characterize themselves as Religious Humanists) celebrate life-cycle events with baby naming, coming of age, and marriage ceremonies as well as memorial services. Even though there are no required observances, there are several days throughout the calendar year that many Humanists consider holidays. They include (but are not limited to) the following: February 12. Darwin Day: This marks the birthday of Charles Darwin, whose research and findings in the field of biology, particularly his theory of evolution by natural selection, represent a breakthrough in human knowledge that Humanists celebrate. First Thursday in May. National Day of Reason: This day acknowledges the importance of reason, as opposed to blind faith, as the best method for determining valid conclusions. June 21 - Summer Solstice. This day is also known as World Humanist Day and is a celebration of the longest day of the year.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Book Review the God Delusion Richard Dawkins New
    Book review The God delusion Richard Dawkins New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006 Renato Zamora Flores* * PhD. Professor, Department of Genetics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. “The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?” (Richard Dawkins)1 On September 15, 2001, only 4 days after the terrorist attack to the World Trade Center in New York, Richard Dawkins – evolutionary biologist, 65 years, professor of public understanding of science at the University of Oxford – published an incisive article on the renowned English newspaper The Guardian, with the impressive title “Religion’s misguided missiles,” where he stated: “Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from. It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East... To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used”.2 1 Without losing the courage and creativity that have characterized Dawkins since his first book, The selfish gene,3 launched 30 years ago, the British scientist now launches a dense and solid critical work on the logical and scientific bases of religious thinking: The God delusion. The title is a bit more sarcastic than it looks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Survival and Apparent Resurgence of Sociobiology
    This is a repository copy of The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/118157/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Dennis, A. orcid.org/0000-0003-4625-1123 (2018) The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences, 31 (1). pp. 19-35. ISSN 0952- 6951 https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966 Dennis A. The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology. History of the Human Sciences. 2018;31(1):19-35. Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695117735966. Article available under the terms of the CC- BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The strange survival and apparent resurgence of sociobiology Abstract A recent dispute between Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson concerning fundamental concepts in sociobiology is examined.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. a Dangerous Idea
    About This Guide This guide is intended to assist in the use of the DVD Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The following pages provide an organizational schema for the DVD along with general notes for each section, key quotes from the DVD,and suggested discussion questions relevant to the section. The program is divided into seven parts, each clearly distinguished by a section title during the program. Contents Seven-Part DVD A Dangerous Idea. 3 Darwin’s Inversion . 4 Cranes: Getting Here from There . 8 Fruits of the Tree of Life . 11 Humans without Skyhooks . 13 Gradualism . 17 Memetic Revolution . 20 Articles by Daniel Dennett Could There Be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?. 25 From Typo to Thinko: When Evolution Graduated to Semantic Norms. 33 In Darwin’s Wake, Where Am I?. 41 2 Darwin's Dangerous Idea 1. A Dangerous Idea Dennett considers Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection the best single idea that anyone ever had.But it has also turned out to be a dangerous one. Science has accepted the theory as the most accurate explanation of the intricate design of living beings,but when it was first proposed,and again in recent times,the theory has met with a backlash from many people.What makes evolution so threatening,when theories in physics and chemistry seem so harmless? One problem with the introduction of Darwin’s great idea is that almost no one was prepared for such a revolutionary view of creation. Dennett gives an analogy between this inversion and Sweden’s change in driving direction: I’m going to imagine, would it be dangerous if tomorrow the people in Great Britain started driving on the right? It would be a really dangerous place to be because they’ve been driving on the left all these years….
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Dawkins
    RICHARD DAWKINS HOW A SCIENTIST CHANGED THE WAY WE THINK Reflections by scientists, writers, and philosophers Edited by ALAN GRAFEN AND MARK RIDLEY 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2006 with the exception of To Rise Above © Marek Kohn 2006 and Every Indication of Inadvertent Solicitude © Philip Pullman 2006 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should
    [Show full text]
  • What, If Anything, Is a Darwinian Anthropology?
    JONATHAN MARKS What, if anything, is a Darwinian anthropology? Not too many years ago, I was scanning the job advertisements in anthropology and stumbled upon one for a faculty post in a fairly distinguished department in California. The ad specified that they were looking for someone who ‘studied culture from an evolutionary perspective’. I was struck by that, because it seemed to me that the alternative would be a creationist perspective, and I had never heard of anyone in this century who did that. Obviously my initial reading was incorrect. That department specifically wanted someone with a particular methodological and ideo- logical orientation; ‘evolutionary perspective’ was there as a code for something else. It has fascinated me for a number of years that Darwin stands as a very powerful symbol in biology. On the one hand, he represents the progressive aspect of science in its perpetual struggle against the perceived oppressive forces of Christianity (Larson 1997); and on the other, he represents as well the prevailing stodgy and stultified scientific orthodoxy against which any new bold and original theory must cast itself (Gould 1980). Proponents of the neutral theory (King and Jukes 1969) or of punctuated equilibria (Eldredge 1985) represented themselves as Darwinists to the outside worlds, and as anti-Darwinists to the inside world. Thus, Darwinism can be both the new and improved ideology you should bring home today, and is also the superseded Brand X ideology. That is indeed a powerful metaphor, to represent something as well as its opposite. Curiously, nobody ever told me in my scientific training that scientific progress was somehow predicated on the development of powerful metaphors.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin Day in Deep Time: Promoting Evolutionary Science Through Paleontology Sarah L
    Shefeld and Bauer Evo Edu Outreach (2017) 10:10 DOI 10.1186/s12052-017-0073-3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Darwin Day in deep time: promoting evolutionary science through paleontology Sarah L. Shefeld1,2* and Jennifer E. Bauer2 Abstract Charles Darwin’s birthday, February 12th, is an international celebration coined Darwin Day. During the week of his birthday, universities, museums, and science-oriented organizations worldwide host events that celebrate Darwin’s scientifc achievements in evolutionary biology. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UT) has one of the longest running celebrations in the nation, with 2016 marking the 19th year. For 2016, the theme for our weeklong series of events was paleontology, chosen to celebrate new research in the feld and to highlight the specifc misconceptions of evolution within the context of geologic time. We provide insight into the workings of one of our largest and most successful Darwin Day celebration to date, so that other institutions might also be able to host their own rewarding Darwin Day events in the future. Keywords: Charles Darwin, Paleontology, Tennessee, Community, Evolutionary biology, Fossils Introduction event, was given by Dr. Neil Shubin, paleontologist and February 12th is an annual international celebration of author of popular science book Your Inner Fish, was the life and work of Charles Darwin, collectively termed attended by over 600 university and community members. “Darwin Day”. Tese global events have similar objec- Celebrating Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural tives: to educate and excite the public about evolutionary selection is particularly important in the United States, science. Although Darwin’s work is most often discussed where a nearly one-third of the adult population does not in terms of its incredible impact on evolutionary biol- accept the evidence for evolution (Miller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovering ID.Indd
    DISCOVERING INTELLIGENT DESIGN A JOURNEY INTO THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Gary Kemper Hallie Kemper Casey Luskin DISCOVERY INSTITUTE PRESS, SEATTLE, WA Description The Discovering Intelligent Design textbook is part of a comprehensive curriculum that presents both the biological and cosmological evidence in support of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Developed for middle-school-age students to adults, the curriculum also includes a workbook with learning activities and a DVD with video clips keyed to the content of the textbook. Produced by Discovery Institute in conjunction with Illustra Media, the curriculum is intended for use by homeschools and private schools. The curriculum is divided into six modules that explore topics such as the origin and development of the universe, the origin of biological complexity, the fossil record’s evidence (or lack thereof) for universal common descent, and the broader cultural debate over intelligent design. More information can be obtained by visiting the curriculum’s website, http://discoveringid.org. Copyright Notice Copyright © 2013 by Gary Kemper, Hallie Kemper, and Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. Library Cataloging Data Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey into the Scientific Evidence by Gary Kemper, Hallie Kemper, and Casey Luskin 286 pages, 8.5 x 11x 0.6 inches or 280 x 216 x 15 mm, 1.5 lbs or 680 g. Library of Congress Control Number: 2013934288 BISAC: SCI015000 SCIENCE/Cosmology BISAC: SCI027000 SCIENCE/Life Sciences/Evolution BISAC: SCI034000 SCIENCE/History BISAC: SCI075000 SCIENCE/Philosophy & Social Aspects ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-08-0 ISBN-10: 1936599082 Publisher Information Discovery Institute Press, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 http://www.discoveryinstitutepress.com Published in the United States of America on acid-free paper.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JEFFREY MICHAEL SELMAN, et al., ) No. 1:02-CV-2325-CC ) Plaintiffs, ) BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ) OF COLORADO CITIZENS v. ) FOR SCIENCE, KANSAS ) CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE, COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR ) SCIENCE, NEBRASKA Defendants. ) RELIGIOUS COALITION ) FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION, NEW MEXICO ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, NEW MEXICANS FOR SCIENCE AND REASON, NEW MEXICO COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND MATH EDUCATION, AND TEXAS CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS LYNN FANT 254963 Counsel of Record P.O. Box 668 Marietta, GA 30061-0668 Tel: (770) 590-7294 Attorney for Amici Curiae Colorado Citizens for Science, et al. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ii INTRODUCTION ...............................................1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ....................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................2 ARGUMENT ...................................................2 I. INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES MISREPRESENT EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE ..................................2 II. THERE IS NO GENUINE SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY OVER THE VALIDITY OF EVOLUTION ..............................6 CONCLUSION .................................................10 - i - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1251 (2000)) ....................................6 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .........6 Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947). .................9 Other Texts Gary L Bennett, A Review of Of Pandas and People as a Textbook Supplement, NCSE Reports, Nov. 2000 .......................................7 Marshall Berman, Intelligent Design Creationism: A Threat to Society--Not Just Biology, The American Biology Teacher, Nov. 2003 ......................5 Wesley R. Elsberry, et al., The “Meyer 2004" Medley, Panda’s Thumb .......9 Douglas J.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: the First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 15 1982 Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief J. Greg Whitehair University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation J. G. Whitehair, Teaching the Theories of Evolution and Scientific Creationism in the Public Schools: The First Amendment Religion Clauses and Permissible Relief, 15 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 421 (1982). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol15/iss2/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEACHING THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION AND SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: THE FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION CLAUSES AND PERMISSIBLE RELIEF Traditional methods of religious training and transmission of moral values have been irreversibly altered by the changing role of the family, the church, and the public school.1 The expanding role of the public school in this training triggers concern that these traditional moral and religious values are being displaced.1 As a result, the appropriate role of religion in the public schools has become the subject of ongoing, heated debate.
    [Show full text]