Evolution vs. creationism -
resources for the continuing debate[4-23-04]
The evolution-versus-creationism battle
has been going on for decades, especially in struggles in countless local
school boards around the country. We've been asked for material that would
help people deal with the arguments in their own communities.
For starters, we offer a short "op ed"
piece written recently for the St. Paul Pioneer Press by Jamie
Crannell, a science teacher in a Twin Cities high school. He has also been
serving as a member of the Minnesota Academic Standards Committee, which was
created to deal with the designing of new standards in both the natural and
social sciences. The current Secretary of Education in Minnesota, Sharon
Yecke, has been pressing very hard to introduce a conservative slant into
both the social and the natural sciences. With the backing of some
conservative lobbying groups, this has become a battle over such issues as
the demand that "creationism" be taught as a legitimate alternative to the "theory
of evolution."
Crannell, who is an elder in St. Luke
Presbyterian Church, Wayzata, MN, writes as a science teacher and a
Christian, but not as a theological scholar. He also points to a very
helpful and extensive
article in Scientific American that deals with what the author
calls, in cool academic prose, "creationist nonsense."
If you
can suggest (or write!) other resources,
please send a note
and we'll share them all here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Science Education Under Siege
The ongoing effort to portray evolution as a controversial theory in science
is unfortunate for Minnesotans, for scientific literacy, and for the
education of our children. The Minnesota House recently amended the Science
Standards to insinuate that evolution is not firmly established as science.
This amendment challenges the validity of evolution by
redirecting the intent of the standards. The "History and Nature of Science"
strand, as it was written, contains language that addresses the dynamic
aspect of theories in science.
"The student will be able to explain how scientific and
technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of
or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to the cell
theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ
theory of disease and big bang theory."
The committee placed the language where it fits best. The
wording should not be altered or moved. This standard was carefully designed
to contribute to scientific literacy and a life-long understanding of
science.
This amendment is an attempt to undermine science
education in our state. Throughout the process of developing the standards
there was ongoing pressure from special interest groups and public input to
have non-scientific "theories" added to the science standards. One "theory"
was "intelligent design"/creationism which argues that science is incapable
of explaining something as complex as human life; therefore an "intelligent
designer" must be responsible. While there may be an "intelligent designer"
- that is religion and is beyond the scope of science. This amendment is a
way to allow nonscientific "theories" to be part of what is taught as
science.
The arguments in favor of the amendment include
rationalizations that it will lead to a better science education by
fostering critical thinking, academic freedom, and fairness. These arguments
are disingenuous: they do not honestly characterize the science standards.
The history of the development of these standards suggests that the purpose
of amending the standards was really to address the validity of evolution.
Science is about a critical analysis of data and critical
thinking. To insinuate that critical thinking is not a goal because
nonscientific "theories" are not included as science is nonsense. Nothing in
the science standards precludes or limits academic freedom. Nothing limits a
teacher from discussing students' concerns about evolution or any other
topic.
Science is both glorious and humble. It helps us make
sense of the amazing and wonderful world around us, but requires us to
understand the world in a humble way - with verifiable facts. Science starts
with observations then identifies patterns to help us understand how the
natural world works. Religion also deals with reality, but adds another
dimension - belief or faith - to our understanding of reality.
Belief is simply not part of the discipline of science;
however, science is founded upon finding a rationale and logical explanation
for what is observed. The theory of biological evolution is the most
plausible current explanation for the diversity of organisms seen today and
throughout the fossil record - from the point of view of science. This is
not a fairness issue; this is how science works.
At a Senate Education subcommittee hearing on March 18,
Senator Bachmann listed many of the common misconceptions about evolution as
reasons why this theory is "controversial." Bachmann mentioned the second
law of thermodynamics, irreducible complexity, and a lack of transitional
fossils. These misconceptions are clarified and explained in
an article published in
Scientific American in July 2002.
The science standards were developed
according to a process that included a diverse committee of teachers and
non-teachers, scientists and lay people. Public input was gathered and
considered. The final draft was submitted to the legislature after being
recommended for adoption by the Commissioner of Education. Both scientists
and science educators support the standards. The science standards need to
be passed as written, without amendment.
Jamie Crannell
Minnesota Academic Standards Committee member
Science Teacher at Chaska High School
If you can
suggest (or write!) other resources,
please send a note
and we'll share them all here.