The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, Judge Jones said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he added.  The full report >>

Also on TruthOut

[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.

Last week we posted an essay on the debate over the teaching of science - and specifically evolution - in our schools. We invited comments, and we've received a very helpful note arguing against the use of the term "theory" in relation to evolution, and pointing to resources for those who want more information.

To the webmaster-

The best book I have found on evolution from a Christian perspective is Finding Darwin's God, A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller (Cliff Street Books, 1999), professor of Biology at Brown University. Other excellent books are The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough (Oxford University Press, 1998), professor of Biology at Washington University, and for an historical perspective, The Creationists, the Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ronald Numbers (Univ. California Press, 1993), professor of Science History at the University of Wisconsin.    [Scroll down to order any of these books through Amazon.com]

An excellent web site is www.talkorigins.org - The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.

I take strong exception to the term "theory of evolution." There are actually three issues here.

First, there is the FACT of evolution: organisms are related by common descent with modifications. This is established with the utmost certainty and is beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, many conclusions of evolutionary history are well established; e.g., chimpanzees and gorillas are more closely related to humans than to baboons or other monkeys. Other conclusions are less certain. Still others remain largely unresolved; e.g., precisely when did life originate on earth.

Lastly, current understanding is limited on the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary changes occur. The generally accepted theory is that mutations occur in genetic material (DNA) at essentially a constant rate, and "useful" mutations are then perpetuated by natural selection.

-- Patrick Magee, Elder, Stone Church of Willow Glen (PCUSA), San Jose CA