|
« April 2005 |
Main
| June 2005 »
Public high school biology teacher and Seattle area resident Doug Cowan has a fine piece in today's Christian Science Monitor discussing how he encourages his students to think critically by exposing them to both the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. He begins:
I am a public high school biology teacher, and I do an unusual thing. I teach my students more than they have to know about evolution. I push them to behave like competent jurors - not just to swallow what some authority figure tells them to believe - not even me - but rather to critically analyze, with an open mind, the evidence set before them.
The full essay is here. And there's more on how to legally and effectively teach the controversy over Neo-Darwinism in the public science classroom here.
Rob Crowther blogged earlier about the New York Times article on the upcoming screening of "Privileged Planet" at the Smithsonian. The Times article is pretty fair and balanced, but it starts off with a big blooper in the headline and first sentence:
Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution
Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution.
In fact, Privileged Planet is not about biological evolution. It makes the case for intelligent design in the universe based on astronomy and cosmology. It doesn't deal at all with the Darwinian account of how life developed. So it's flat wrong to state that the movie "makes a case against evolution." A much more accurate headline would be: "Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case for Intelligent Design."
Although much of the public controversy over intelligent design has focused on the application of design to biology, it's important to remember that design theory itself reaches well beyond biology, and that some of the strongest evidence for design comes from such fields as physics, astronomy, and cosmology.
Some bloggers (here, here, and here to start) and media are taking notice of the forthcoming premiere of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian (June 23).
A story in the New York Times today by John Schwartz has some bloggers seething, imagining that the film is a propaganda piece that should be banned from right-minded science institutions.
Obviously, the Smithsonian staff that actually screened the film thought differently, and they happen to be right. Randall Kremer, a Smithsonian spokesperson was quoted in the Times' piece saying that that the film was vetted by the Smithsonian: "He added that staff members viewed the film before approving the event ..."
It might help if the complainers actually bothered to see the film themselves, filled as it is with scientists and history that is difficult to refute.
Some scientists in the film are supporters of intelligent design, some are not; some speak of “purpose.” It is interesting. It is provocative. In a free society, where science itself is free of cant, attempts to censor such programs (or the books they are based on) are inappropriate and usually futile.
The Smithsonian staff thought the film was worthy to show and worthy for the institution to co-sponsor, (co-sponsorship is apparently how all events at the museum are handled). They did not endorse or advocate the film’s content, nor has anyone at Discovery suggested otherwise. Schwartz makes that clear in his quote from Discovery’s president, Bruce Chapman: "We are not implying in any sense that they endorsed the content, but they are co-sponsoring it, and we are delighted."
In the new issue of The American Spectator, Dan Peterson provides this sober analysis of the media's handling of intelligent design:
Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it is an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes, mostly from the South, or places no better than the South, who voted for Bush.
So, many of the news stories refer to intelligent design theory as "creationism" and ignore the science behind it. They imply that ID is just religion in disguise: "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo," as one headline put it. Let's look at the science, then, because the truth about the intelligent design school could not be more different from those stereotypes. The proponents of ID base their arguments on biological and physical data generally accepted in science. They use the same kinds of analytical methods and mathematical tools as other scientists. The ID theorists do not reason from religious premises. Neither do they attempt to prove the truth of Scripture, or of any particular religious views.
As a rule, they do not contest that life on Earth is billions of years old, or that evolution has occurred in the sense of "change over time" in biological forms.
Supporters of intellectual engagement in academia and a public marketplace of ideas would do well to check out the latest edition of Academe, which features letters from philosopher and legal scholar Francis J. Beckwith and distinguished Mechanical Engineer Walter Bradley. (See the bottom quarter of the page, here).
The two Baylor University professors set the facts straight and defend the continuing debate over intelligent design theory in the academy. The letters come in response to earlier ad hominem attacks and wild-eyed conspiracy theories thrown their way by Barbara Forrest and Glen Branch—previously blogged about here.
It would be one thing if Forrest and Branch chose to vigorously argue for neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory based upon the scientific merits. That would be laudable. Unfortunately, they sidestepped serious discussion of scientific evidence or philosophy of science issues. It’s as if Forrest and Branch hope to establish their views as the politically correct of science by destroying the debate rather than trying to win it on the merits.
Beckwith and Bradley bluntly identify the witch-hunt tactics of their detractors and proceeded to take the high ground of academic freedom. If Forrest and Branch plan to continue carrying water for neo-Darwinian theory they might want to re-think their emphasis upon intimidation and science censorship. (But don't get your hopes up on that one.)
Leading Darwin defender Richard Dawkins had a piece in The Times of London recently, reassuring readers, "The eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called 'The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment' in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom."
Only someone who does not know, or does not care to know, the myriad problems with eye evolution could make such a claim with a straight face. Leading Darwin doubter David Berlinski shows just how feeble the Darwinists' account of eye evolution is in this excerpt from Commentary. And here Berlinski's critics criticize his critique and he responds.
Dawkins' claim is also rebutted in this cogent Times letter from Andy McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, University of Leeds:
By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.
Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.
The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.
The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong.
A new poll of medical doctors suggests that a significant minority (34%) support intelligent design over evolution. This alone is enough to show that there is a lively debate over the adequacy of Neo-Darwinism to explain intricate structures like the human body.
However, if one looks past the press release at the details of the poll itself, one finds that actually a majority of doctors favor intelligent design over Neo-Darwinism. Questioned about the origin and development of human beings, only 38% agreed with the Darwinian story that "humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement--no divinity played any role." In contrast, 42% said that "God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings." That scenario involves intelligent design and, thus, contradicts the Neo-Darwinian account. Another 18% of doctors said "God created humans exactly as they appear now." Thus, 60% of doctors take an ID position.
The original question pitting "evolution" against "intelligent design" was confused. The two aren't necessarily in opposition. Most design theorists in biology, for instance, agree that microevolution has played a significant role in the history of life. Others consider common descent a strong possibility. They merely argue that an intelligent cause is the best explanation for various things like the bacterial flagellum, the mammalian eye, or the Cambrian explosion of animal forms some 530 million years ago.
Darwinists are making hay out of a mistake in a press release I wrote recently about National Academy of Sciences member Dr. Philip Skell and his open letter to the Kansas SBOE endorsing the teaching of scientific criticisms of Darwinian evolution.
My apologies to Dr. Skell. I mistakenly listed him as a biochemist in the very lead of the release, even though he is clearly a chemist and listed as such everywhere else, including the original letter on our website.
This is doubly unfortunate, because many Darwinists will seize on any error in an effort to avoid discussing the scientific issues that really matter.
That great bastion of journalist integrity (no not the Washington Post) L.A. Beat has a laughable story about the recent Kansas SBOE hearings on evolution.
Andrew Gumbel, Darwin's pitbull in this instance, reports in breathless tones of the evolution of creationism and warns left-coasters that it could happen there too. “They no longer talk about creationism or biblical literalism but rather about Intelligent Design – a much more sophisticated argument that merely seeks to leave open the possibility that science, on its own, cannot account for the full story of life on Earth and that therefore some designing consciousness (for the sake of argument, God) must have been involved.” CSC senior fellow Jonathan Wells has already well clarified how to define science -- and it doesn't include calling it evolution. But, let me straighten out Gumbel’s gobbledygook attempt to redefine science as evolution. The theory of intelligent design does not claim that “science” on on its own, cannot account for the full story of life on Earth” but rather that Darwinian evolution cannot. Science, is not the same as evolution, Darwinian or otherwise. Cleverly trying to accuse critics of neo-Darwinism –falsely-- of attacking all of science, as opposed to its most dismal failure, is a common Darwinist tactic.
Moving right along Gumbel chafes over the fact that many skeptics of Darwinism are actual scientists. Imagine! According to Darwinists these folks aren't supposed to exist, and yet as the New York Times reported, the hearings were a veritable "parade of PhD's" criticizing Darwinian evolution. Gumbel is aghast. “The most public proponents of Intelligent Design have Ph.D.s from universities, often quite prestigious universities, [gasp!] and some are even scientists [gulp!] with direct experience in genetics and other evolution-related fields. [choke!]”
But wait! For Gumbel it gets even worse. Imagine, even New York Times reporters were “enthused by at least some of their arguments against scientific orthodoxy.” After a day of listening to their arguments at the Kansas state hearings, in which they chipped away at the less easily provable assertions of the neo-Darwinist mainstream, the correspondent for The New York Times acknowledged that she found them pretty convincing. (This even though three of the more prominent witnesses that day said they didn’t accept the idea that humans are descended from ape-like prehominids.) A second correspondent, for the Times’ Sunday magazine, was equally enthused by at least some of their arguments against scientific orthodoxy, and was certainly a very long way from dismissing them out of hand.
And it isn’t just the New York Times’ reporters who are too stupid to understand that evolution is a proven fact. High school students are also this stupid, as CSC senior fellow William Dembski noted. It's expected that a tenth grader is expected to learn about, and understand, the evidence that supports Darwinian evolution. Why then should we believe they're too stupid to learn and understand the evidence that challenges Darwin's theory?
Gumbel's article rambles along --predictably following the well-worn path so often used for these sorts of thumb-suckers-- throwing in some tired old arguments against irreducible complexity that have been refuted elsewhere.
He then closes with what I call the red-state rampage that I'm sure avowed agnostic --and avid critic of Darwinian evolution-- David Berlinski would get a good laugh out of: It is, much more seriously, an attack on rational thought itself, an insane attempt to promote the political ambitions of biblical literalists and their sympathizers over and above the advance of world civilization.
CSC fellow Jonathan Wells wrote a short response taking a Nature letter writer to task for spreading the old flat-earth BS knee deep. The spherical shape of the Earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some pretty good estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the Earth was a sphere. The only two Christian writers who seem to have advocated a flat Earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century eccentric, Cosmas Indicopleustes.
And he makes a couple of suggestions of how to keep your feet clean in those Darwinian pastures. For an objective and very readable account of the Flat Earth Myth, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth (Praeger, 1991).
There's no doubt that Nature got an earful for publishing an article in which writer Geoff Brumfiel didn't adaquately skewer the theory of intelligent design. Nor do the letter writers think he delivered a satisfactorily vicious enough savaging to the theory's proponents. One letter writer proclaimed: ID creationism is not science, despite the editors' suggestion that ID "tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature". Rather, advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions.
Another was aghast that Nature published a short sidebar that actually verified some of the persecution scientists suffer for criticizing Darwinian evolution or even mentioning ID. I was disturbed by your News Feature "Who has designs on your students' minds?", in which the proponents of ID are mostly portrayed as a persecuted minority. They are said to be afraid to reveal their identity and to be frequently censured into silence by anti-democratic scientists and administrators.
No one thinks for a second that the overwhelming majority of letters that Nature likely receivedd were pro-ID. So, it was no surprise that this week Nature has published this whole slew of anti-ID letters. Interestingly, they did not publish a letter by CSC Director Stephen Meyer --who was interviewed for their ID article at length-- that corrects some of the misconceptions in the piece. Contrary to Brumfiels’ report, the inference to design in biology is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon standard uniformitarian methods of reasoning and biological evidence. Cells contain miniature machines, complex circuits and sophisticated information processing systems‹exquisite nanotechnology that in any other realm of experience would immediately, and properly, trigger recognition of prior intelligent activity. You'd think they would have published at least one letter representing the minority viewpoint though.
Instead you get the same threadbare complaints that Darwinist can't seem to get over. Intelligent design isn't science because we said so. Intelligent design shouldn't ever be discussed on college campuses, let alone publicly. Whoa, hold the presses. Here's a new one, intelligent design is an argument from laziness. (Since when is it lazy to postulate a new theory? Or, criticize an inadaquate one?)
When they're not whining the Darwinists make some pretty mighty claims. But after a century of close scrutiny, evolutionary theory has passed so many litmus tests of validation that evolution is as much a fact as respiration and digestion. Let me catch my breath! I almost choked on my lunch when I read that one.
At least one letter writer agress with us one thing, natural selection's complete inability to explain biological diversity. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity. Building a straw man based on natural selection alone makes it easy for opponents to poke holes in evolution. But features of the genome, such as genomic parasites or non-coding introns, which aren't so evolutionarily favourable (nor obviously 'intelligent' innovations), can be more readily explained by models that include random genetic drift and mutation as substantial evolutionary forces.
World has a good news story on the Kansas science hearings, one that goes well beyond the MSM's rusty boilerplate about scientists clashing with Bible thumpers:
In Kansas, Darwinists won back control of the State Board of Education in 2000 and restored the older standards. But conservatives have now retaken the board, and they are expected to vote this summer to adopt the revisions debated in Topeka.
The Darwinist response to such a challenge is no secret. "My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999," wrote Liz Craig of Kansas Citizens For Science on the group's discussion board in February. "Notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray them in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc. . . . we can sure make them look like asses as they do what they do."
Then there are these facts, widely misreported by several major newspapers and magazines:
Lost in the propaganda and facial expressions is just how modest the proposed revisions are. For all the comparisons to the Scopes trial, the roles in that trial have been reversed 80 years later. Today, it's the critics of Darwinism who want to introduce what they see as important scientific evidence into science classrooms and it's the Darwinists who are fighting to keep out what they see as heresy.
And yet, the revisions would not require the teaching of ID, which is fine with ID advocates who admit that their theory is too new to be the focus of classroom instruction. The revisions would merely have teachers teach Darwinism and the scientific evidence that supports it, but not treat Darwinism as revealed religion that must not be questioned.
A reading of the revisions turns up no mention of God, no mention of a young Earth, no mention of the Bible. What they do call for is more information in classrooms—a requirement that science teachers present both the scientific evidence for Darwinism and the scientific evidence against it.
Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute testified that there is a "tremendous amount of criticism of the theory that students should be permitted to know about." For example, nearly 400 scientists, including professors at MIT, Rice, and Yale, have signed a Discovery Institute statement that questions "the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."
Other Darwinian skeptics may be flying under the radar. For instance, the April 28 issue of the science journal Nature reported approaching a skeptical researcher who declined to be interviewed because he did not want to hurt his chances for tenure.
Biologist and Icons of Evolution author Jonathan Wells takes The New York Times and physicist Lawrence Krauss to task here and here for persistent misreporting of the science curricula battles in the state of Kansas.
Associated Press reporter John Hanna's story about the definition of science currently used in Kansas appeared in papers all across the country over the weekend, and other reporters have touched on this issue as well.
And rightly so. This is one of the most important issues before the Kansas state board of education, namely, what is the proper definition of science. Some Kansas scientists see the fight over a proposed definition of science - which will appear in the introduction to the standards - as setting the tone for the standards themselves. They're frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for what they observe in the natural world.
"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist." This is just simply not true. According to CSC biologist Jonatha Wells: "No one is proposing that supernatural explanations should be included in science.
The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S. By defining science first and foremost as "seeking natural explanations," the current standards subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result. This shift is out of step with modern science education, which gives priority to the activity of formulating and testing hypotheses." Wells submitted to the KSBOE an exhaustive (and probably exhausting) study of all 50 states' definition of science when he testified. You can read a summary of it here, as well as download the entire report.
The minority report proposes a traditional definition of science which is nearly identical to the definition of science adhered to in 40 states across the country. Kansas is the only state that does not have a traditional definition of science. The usual definition of science recommended is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." This not changing the definition of science as the Darwinists have charged. Indeed, this would get Kansas back into step with the way science is defined nationwide.
Hanna also reports: In a recent letter to the board, Philip Skell, a professor emeritus of chemistry at Pennsylvania State University, said intellectual freedom is vital to science.
"Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive," he wrote.
Science writer Denyse O'Leary is bringing her incisive humor to the blogosphere. Post-Darwinist is a must read. An excerpt from her discussion of the Nightline debate between Michael Ruse and William Dembski epitomizes her style:
I predicted a few weeks ago that the Darwinists would fundamentally change their strategy and go for the emotional appeal. That is essentially what Ruse was doing on ABC's Nightline.
One particularly clever ploy was for Ruse to say that Dembski would himself be swept away by the rising tide of right-wing Christian hate.
This worked visually because Bill looks like a nice young fellow who has no idea which direction a Nazi swastika should face or whether one should pile into Ku Klux Klan robes from the top or the bottom.
I suspect that many people will buy Ruse's approach. "Bill may be okay, but look what comes after him," they will say.
The beauty of Ruse's approach is that it is truly content-free. Ruse does not need to offer any evidence that there is a rising tide of right-wing Christian hate or even that students who are allowed to know that some scientists question Darwinism will be changed in any way as a result. (It's been legal in Ontario for years and nothing much has happened, except a complete absence of Kansas-style controversy, which suits us Ontarians fine.)
All Ruse needs to do is create fear of the Rising Tide. Many people are chronically afraid of that kind of thing, and the less they know, the more afraid they are. So the fewer details Ruse gives, the more effective his strategy is. He just has to sound portentous and convincing. Neat.
Here's the transcript of the CNN debate that included Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, prominent evolutionist Michael Ruse, and the ICR's John Morris. Use the search word "Tucker" to scroll down to the evolution segment.
Lou Dobbs' tackles the evolution education debate with Jonathan Wells (whom they correctly identify as a scientist, a molecular biologist no less), John Morris of ICR and Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse. Poor Michael, this is the second time this week he's lost this debate.
"Lou Dobbs Tonight" airs 6-7pm EST, but is regularly rebroadcast throughout the evening, so be sure to check your local listings (For instance, it is rerun again in Seattle from 8-9pm).
The opening runup to the live debate segment gave a poor definition of intelligent design theory, and used the worn out scenes from Inherit the Wind. However, they actually did a good job in showing that all that is being considered in Kansas is criticism of Darwinian evolution and even said that intelligent design, creationism and so on are not in the proposed standards. And, they let one of the Kansas board members explain what the board is doing rather than letting someone else put words in the board's mouth.
Both Wells and Morris made good points, especially about what is actually being considered by the Kansas State Board of Education. Ruse of course wanted to redefine science as "the fact of evolution" and kept trying to make the point that creationism was being considered in Kansas. He also indicated that he has no problem with critically analysing anything in science, so one wonders why he was arguing about this at all. Ruse and Morris went at each other a bit, while Wells was mostly measured in his points, and Ruse by contrast looked a little desperate.
In the end Lou Dobbs said that evolution is a theory that does not provide all the answers, and a theory that can't be tested experimentally, so what's wrong with allowing criticism of it in the classroom? Good question Lou.
National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell has written an open letter to Kansas urging the state to teach the scientific controversy over Neo-Darwinism. As the letter makes clear, he believes the weaknesses in the theory are substantial and relevant.
NAS members are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors accorded a scientist.
Bryan Leonard, a PhD candidate and biology teacher at Hilliard Davidson High School outside of Columbus, OH, gave one of the most compelling presentations of the entire Kansas Board of Education hearings on teaching evolution.
Leonard was the primary author of Ohio state’s Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan, certain to be a model for Kansas or any other state that adopts a science standard allowing for the inclusion of scientific criticism of Darwinian evolution.
Currently a doctoral candidate for a degree in science education, his approach is to look at how students learn, react and behave when presented with both sides of the evidence for and against evolution.
One of the most refreshing aspects of Leonard’s presentation was the focus on students. After all, it is what students learn, what’s good for them and their education, that is the reason that this debate is even taking place. This is something that is often forgotten, or receives just lip service, in the overall debate over evolution. Students are the ultimate recipients of all this information. Leonard’s presentation helped to refocus everything back on what goes on in the classroom. For him, students are the focus, and it would be good if everyone on both sides of the issue remembered that.
Lenoard is obviously a teacher and comfortable speaking in front of an audience. “As a teacher I need to walk around.” So he did, and was the only witness who ever got out from behind the podium over the entire three days.
“I teach the Critical Analysis of Evolution,” Leonard told the board. “I was the original drafter. Leonard explained the process the lesson went through and that it was extensively peer-reviewed, I teach the scientific interperetation both supporting and challenging molecular evolution. I’ve been doing that for 5-6 six years”
Leonard explained that his lesson is a product of a lot of steps, there are a lot of finger prints on this lesson plan. He presented it in front of Ohio’s 10th grade writing committee – including research scientists, high school biology teachers and veterinarians -- then it was “tweaked and molded it into the best possible plan.” The lesson also had input from the advisory team, Ohio department of education officials and it was field tested. The field testing consisted of it being read by other biology teachers, university professors and finally scientists. Some teachers actually used it in the classroom as a field test and delivered feedback. According to Leonard the entire writing committee worked very hard to design the lesson to best serve Ohio’s students. The result is a very good product that can benefit students and teachers, and increase student knowledge on evolution,
One thing that Leonard did in researching and developing the lesson plan was to find out what students are most interested in and teach toward their interest.
So, he queried students: Which of the following would be more interest for you to learn?
Scientific information supporting evolution only
Scientific information which supports and challenges evolution
Out of 350 students, 312 (89%) wanted to learn both the evidence which supports evolution as well as that which challenges it. This is basic, clear data that shows a majority of students want both sides from a scientific perspective. Leonard said it appears that the Kansas minority report is definitely heading in the right direction. Many of the same things in the Kansas minority report, Ohio already has embedded in its lesson plan.
“We used this in Ohio and it works. Parents love it. Kids love it. I have not had any negative reports.”
Recent events in Kansas have given Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture an occasion to repeat its policy position concerning the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. Now a proposed piece of legislation in New York requires another reiteration.
To restate the CSC’s policy on teaching evolutionary theory in public schools: we OPPOSE the MANDATING of intelligent design theory in public schools. Intelligent design is a promising scientific theory, but it is nonetheless an emerging theory.
A better policy would be for students to learn some of the scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and chemical origin-of-life theories, along with the best scientific arguments favoring those respective theories. Drs. John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer lay out such a policy in a recent op-ed with The San Jose Mercury News (available here).
Back to New York…
Recent chatter on the blogosphere has focused on a proposed piece of legislation in the Empire State, which would purportedly REQUIRE all K-12 public school students to learn both intelligent design and “evolution.” The bill, which has one sponsor, states:
ALL PUPILS IN GRADES KINDERGARTEN THROUGH TWELVE IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE STATE SHALL RECEIVE INSTRUCTION IN BOTH THEORIES OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND EVOLUTION.
The bill appears similar to a few other bills over the years and in recent times that have called for the mandating of intelligent design alongside neo-Darwinian evolution. Unusual is the fact that the bill does call for ALL children in grades K through 12 to receive instruction in both theories. This sweeping provision is odd, and unlike anything we’ve yet witnessed.
Blogging and discussion of this legislation in other venues will undoubtedly continue. But it is important to keep in mind that the nation’s leading think-tank promoting intelligent design and scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian evolution opposes the mandating of intelligent design.
Further information about CSC's policy recommendations concerning scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be found here.
Discovery Institute isn't calling for states to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in the science classes of our public education system, but neither should a biology teacher be forbidden to discuss it if she so chooses. One blogger's intellectual journey through the writings of Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer offers an engaging explanation of why:
Until about two months ago, I hadn't read much material put out by the Discovery Institute. Their Center for Science and Culture is one of the main forces behind Intelligent Design. What little knowledge I had of them was based on what I would occasionally read in news articles and perhaps Panda's Thumb. Then after reading one of my posts where I said that I don't think ID is currently science, Jonathan Witt sent me a link to a Stephen C. Meyer article called "The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories." To tell you the truth, when he sent it to me, I didn't really plan on reading it because my brief skim of the article made me think that it was arguing for something that I already believed - that there isn't anything inherently unscientific about the idea of an intelligent designer (supernatural or not). What ended up happening was that I read a different article by Meyer and Michael Newton Keas called The Meanings of Evolution. From there I went on to read most of the articles by Meyer on the CSC website, including the one that Witt had originally sent me. What I came to realize was that the ID position is deeply misunderstood by a lot of people.
The full post is here.
A transcript of the Fox News interchange on May 6 between Eugenie Scott and Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer has been posted on the Fox News website. During the segment Eugenie Scott continues her recent effort to defend "evolution" by virtually disowning Darwin in public.
"Evolution is the inference that living things had common ancestors," she claims at one point. To hear Scott talk, you would think natural selection acting on random mutations has nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory. Ditto for the traditional neo-Darwinian idea of universal common ancestry--the claim that every living thing ultimately can be traced back to one universal common ancestor.
Scott also declines to defend theories of chemical evolution about the origin of the first life. "The origin of life is a completely separate problem, much less well investigated," she concedes.
If Scott really believes that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution (and that the science behind chemical evolution is slim), then why does her group devote so much time and effort to defending the long-discredited "Icon of Evolution" contained in biology textbooks, the Miller-Urey orgin of life experiment? (See Jonathan Wells' rebuttal to the NCSE's continued defense of this icon, here.) And if Dr. Scott really doesn't want to defend theories of chemical evolution, why doesn't she endorse the proposed addition to the Kansas science standards that would require students to know about the various theories of the origin of the first life, as well as the scientific critiques of those theories?
More generally, if the only thing Eugenie Scott is really concerned about is the claim that "living things had common ancestors," why does her group immediately try to shut down any critical discussion in the classroom of the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mutation-selection mechanism and any coverage of scientific criticisms of universal common ancestry?
Considering that Scott and her group typically claim the evidence for evolutionary theory is well-nigh overwhelming, it's intriguing to see her defend less and less of the theory when speaking in the mass media.
If you don't think a civilized discussion of the evolution controversy is possible, watch the May 7 edition of C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," which held a low-key and eminently reasonable discussion of the Kansas hearings and the controversy over how best to teach evolution. The program featured Mark Ryland, director of Discovery Institute's Washington, D.C. office, and Peter Folger of the American Geophysical Union. If only the Darwinists in Kansas were as respectful and dignified as Mr. Folger! You can watch the program on the web by going here and clicking on the program for May 7. The discussion of evolution starts about an hour and twenty-two minutes into the show.
The only jarring part of the program was a phone interview with Kansas assistant commissioner of education Alexa Posny, who frankly didn't seem to know what she was talking about. Ms. Posny stated that the purpose of the hearings in Kansas was to consider including alternatives to evolution in the Kansas science standards. She made a similar claim about the recommendations of the minority report of the Kansas science standards committee. Ms. Posny was wrong on both counts. If she had actually read the minority report, she would know that it does NOT advocate including alternatives to evolution in the Kansas science standards. All it does is call for the inclusion of scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory along with the evidence that supports the theory. Someone on the Kansas Board of Education might want to talk with Ms. Posny before she has further opportunities to spread confusion and misinformation about what is happening in Kansas.
An essay of mine ran in today's Kansas City Star. It begins:
It seems the Darwinists in Kansas are living in the past. Not the past of, say, the fossil record. The history written there tells of the abrupt appearance of major animal forms, nothing like the gradually branching tree of life that Darwin envisioned. The past that some evolutionists are living in, rather, is the Kansas science curriculum battle of 1999.
It's sturdy creation vs. evolution boilerplate and media outlets around the country have run with it. But the boilerplate in this case was showing rust. That is, it was false. The Associated Press was the first to issue the correction, reporting that the scientists that testified at the Kansas science hearings were “expected to advocate exposing students to more criticism of evolution, not teaching alternatives to it.”
In fact, alternatives aren't even on the table in the proposed science standards. And some of the scientists who testified, like Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, aren't even design theorists. They're simply calling for students to learn the strengths and weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution, rather than the air-brushed presentation they receive now.
If every design theorist dropped off the planet tomorrow, current textbook presentations of evolutionary theory would still be riddled with error and spin — Ernst Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, four-winged fruit flies, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks, the incredible expanding beak of the Galapagos finch.
These common textbook icons of Darwinian evolution in action have all been discredited. Haeckel faked his embryo drawings. Mutant fruit flies are dysfunctional. And peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks; the photographs were staged.
As for finch beaks, high school biology textbooks neglect to mention that the beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net evolution occurred. Like many species, the finch has an average beak size that fluctuates within a given range.
This is microevolution, the noncontroversial and age-old observation of change within species. Biology textbooks diligently paper over the fact that biologists have never observed or even described in credible, theoretical terms a continually functional, macroevolutionary pathway leading to fundamentally new anatomical forms like the bat, the eye and the wing.
Well, icons like the finch beak and the fruit fly are just used over and over to make a point, the Darwinists reassure us. Instead, look at a really central icon, the gradually branching tree of life.
You see, neo-Darwinism works by natural selection seizing small, beneficial mutations and passing them along, bit by bit. If all living things are gradually modified descendants of a common ancestor, then the history of life should resemble a slowly branching tree. Unfortunately, while we can find the tree lovingly illustrated in our kids' biology textbooks, we can't ever seem to reach it out in the wide world. The fossil record stands like a flashing sword barring our way.
More than 140 years of assiduous fossil collecting has only aggravated the problem. Instead of slight differences appearing first, then greater differences emerging later, the greatest differences appear right at the start — numerous and radically disparate anatomies leaping together onto the Cambrian stage. These aren't just distinct species but distinct phyla, categories so large that man and bat occupy not only the same phylum but the same subphylum. Later geological periods show similar patterns of sudden appearance, stasis and persistent chasms of difference between major groups.
Could it be that the millions of missing transitional forms predicted by Darwin's theory just happen to be among the forms that weren't fossilized and preserved? After a detailed statistical analysis to test this idea, University of Chicago paleontologist Michael Foote concluded, “We have a representative sample and therefore we can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.”
He didn't mean that we will find no more species. He does mean that we have enough fossil data to see the basic pattern before us.
In other words, some evolutionists see the fossil record as a real problem. Will high school students learn this in class? In the past they haven't. The proposed science standards would merely correct this problem, directing public schools to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory.
Meanwhile, the Darwinian scarecrow about the creationists coming to take us away has begun to show its straw.
by John West, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
Knight-Ridder Newspapers is circulating a false news report after apparently being bamboozled by the Darwinist spin-machine in Kansas. The article claims that the expert witnesses in the Kansas evolution hearings have not read the science standards they are seeking to change. But the charge is false, and the fact that a major news organization would promote such a bogus story makes one wonder about how many reporters have actually read the science standards in question. The article begins: Those seeking change on evolution haven't read science standards TOPEKA, Kan. - (KRT) - None of the eight intelligent design proponents who testified at the Kansas State Board of Education's evolution hearings Friday have read the science standards they want changed.
Under cross-examination, all eight admitted they simply read the 28-page minority report and not the full 107-page draft of proposed science standards, most of which is not controversial.
What this story fails to disclose is that the minority report of the science standards committee reprints verbatim the relevant science standards relating to evolution from the majority draft. In other words, anyone who has read the minority report has read the majority draft of the science standards relating to evolution!
Thus, the headline and the first sentence of this article are absolutely false. It is false to claim that "None of the eight intelligent design proponents... have read the science standards they want changed." In fact, it's precisely the standards they want changed that they DID read! Again, the minority report reprints verbatim the proposed standards from the majority draft and notes the insertions and changes wanted by the minority.
Any reporter who has read both the majority draft and the minority report ought to know this, which raises an interesting question: Did the reporter and editors who handled this story actually read both of these documents?
In the future, journalists might want to be a little more skeptical before repackaging Darwinist spin as a news story without first verifying the facts.
Topeka, KS – As I'm writing it's 8:30am of day two of the three most contentious days for science in Kansas, ever. After yesterday’s three-ring circus, complete with highwire acts like William Harris and the antics of sideshow barker Pedro Irigonegaray, today is downright decaffeinated, starting out as if Starbucks had run out of coffee. (Of course if I could find a Starbucks here, I’d know for sure.)
The hearing room is about 1/3 full, a decided difference from yesterday. Amateur videographers are all that remain to tape the proceedings. Several of the key local reporters are in attendance but the national media are largely absent now.
First up is an oceanographer, Dr. Edward Peltzer. Pelzer (http://www.mbari.org/staff/etp3/) is a Senior Research Specialist at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.
His testimony is slow, but interesting. He spends his first 30 minutes on straight science, and less than two minutes on religion or philosophy. Naturally Irigonegaray’s questions are about anything but the science he testified about, such as the age of the earth which Pelzer said was probably 4.569 billion years.
Throughout Pelzer’s testimony people trickle in, but not out thanks to the metal detectors installed at the front doors to the auditorium.
It seems that Irigonegaray’s questions are just smoke and mirrors. He grandstands with the best of them. A recent profile reported: "I had a delicious fantasy," the Cuban-born Irigonegaray said with a smile, recalling the offer to defend evolutionary theory. "I saw myself in a large courtroom, the fan moving slowly over my head, perhaps a skull in my hand, while I'm cross-examining a key witness." If anything has turned this into a kangaroo court it is Irigonegaray’s insistence on talking about things that don’t matter. ID isn’t in the standards, no one is proposing to teach it. It's an interesting and robust scientific theory, but it isn't the subject of the hearings, nor does it have anything to do with the science standards. The Darwinists think that by bringing it up they can somehow make this about ID. It’s not. Did Mr. Igrigonegaray read the standards? One wonders.
The parade of PhDs is continuing. Up next is Russ Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Executive Technical Director - Plant and Microbial Complex Carbohydrates at University of Georgia. I wish that John Calvert would expand on the research and credentials of the scientists. They mention them, but often just skim over that, and much of that is what is really interesting. After all, scientists skeptical of Darwin aren’t supposed to exist, so you’d think it would be a good idea to note who they are. Carlson for instance does work on anthrax and other bioterrorism viruses, and wants to find therapeutic treatments for things that might be used against us in a bioterrorism attack. Now that’s interesting stuff, and totally scientific. Why is it that it doesn’t ever get mentioned in the media in regards to Carlson's appearance here?
It's unfortunate too that many of the media left before hearing some of the best testimony -- namely Dr. Daniel Ely of University of Akron, and Bryan Leonard from Ohio -- and so lack the information that would be interesting to so many in the general public. “But as the day proceeded, a number of people left as the testimony focused on DNA, nucleotides, primordial soup and the pre-Cambrian explosion.” Writes Scott Rothschild in the Lawrence Journal World. It’s going to be a long day and my laptop batteries are already lagging. If only I had the resources of several university biology departments I could probably keep a running commentary of the entire hearings. But, alas, non-profits are what they are, and I have limited resources.
Stay tuned for more on the other speakers of the day.
This morning's New York Times article on Kansas has a much improved title, and despite its failure to report on the substance of the science testimony that took place yesterday, the article does drop good hints about what went on, such as:
a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design.
The Times also makes clear--sort of--that the proposed changes to the Kansas science standards do not call for the teaching of intelligent design. Finally, the article ends with the following splendid quote from doctoral chemist Charles Thaxton, a Discovery Institute Fellow:
"There is no science without criticism," said Charles Thaxton, a chemist and co-author of the 1984 book "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories."
"Any science that weathers the criticism and survives is a better theory for it," Mr. Thaxton said.
TOPEKA, KS -- The first of three consecutive days of hearings before Kansas Science Committee concluded today. A number of scientists who are skeptical of chemical evolutionary explanations for the origin of the first life and/or neo-Darwinian evolution testified before the Committee that good science education demands that students learn the scientific weaknesses of these respective theories, in addition to the theories’ strengths.
Yet, after leaving the hearings, I came across a few news stories that read more like science fiction alternate histories than science news stories. The scope of the day’s hearings spanned numerous issues—but NO ONE advocated removing or “diluting” evolution. (For a good discussion of this and a good start on the Kansas Science Subcommittee hearings, see Rob Crowther’s post below.)
Here’s a brief rundown of the day’s testimony…
William Harris, Ph.D., a local biochemist and medical researcher, was the leadoff speaker. Harris introduced the minority report and discussed scientific criticisms of origin of life scenarios, among other things. At the outset, he stated that he was not advocating the mandating of intelligent design (ID) in the Kansas Science Standards. This point deserves repeating: Harris stated that he was not advocating the mandating of ID in the Kansas Science Standards.
Much discussion did touch upon ID throughout the day. Some of the questions and the answers they elicited from certain speakers did stray beyond the confines of scientific criticisms of chemical origin of life scenarios and neo-Darwinian evolution. But while extraneous issues such as ID did become part of the exchange, no scientist testifying on Thursday advocated the inclusion of ID in the science standards. And most certainly, no scientists testifying Thursday advocated that evolution be removed or “diluted” in Kansas science standards. The Kansas science writing team’s minority report overwhelmingly involved supplementing and adding to classroom instruction in evolution.
Charles Thaxton, Ph.D., author and CSC Fellow (who is pictured in Rob Crowther’s post below), followed Harris and spoke at length about various problems that scientists have raised with chemical origin-of-life scenarios—i.e., scientific problems with recent explanations for the origin of the first life on earth from non-living chemicals.
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and CSC Senior Fellow, provided perhaps the most thorough testimony, which Rob Crowther aptly discusses below. During cross-examination, Darwin-only lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray spent little time on science matters, instead firing personal attacks in the guise of questions at Wells. When he did focus on science, Irigonegaray strangely charged that testifying scientists were using the term “neo-Darwinian” as part of a plot to undermine evolution. Wells deftly handled the strange accusation, by listing various definitions of the vague term “evolution”—change over time, change in gene frequencies, universal common ancestry, Darwin’s theory of decent with modification, neo-Darwinian theory, etc.—reiterating the importance of precision in science and science education.
Giuseppe Sermonti, Ph.D., a distinguished Italian geneticist and editor of a well-respected biology journal, provided the Kansas Science Committee with brief testimony. Sermonti introduced himself as a member of the Osaka Group—a group of international scientists subscribing to a structuralist view of life. He described the group’s members as scientists who were dissatisfied with neo-Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the life we see in the natural world. Good science, noted Dr. Sermonti, requires that scientists acknowledge “we don’t know” when confronted with scientific problems that they do not have the answer to. He reiterated that students should learn about Darwin’s theory as well as some of the scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory that have been raised.
Ralph Seelke, Ph.D., a microbiologist and university professor and researcher, was the final speaker for the day. He focused upon microevolution and his own work in the laboratory concerning bacteria and the abilities and limitations of microevolution. Seelke gave a quick overview of studies in microevolution and voiced his skepticism of the extrapolation of small microevolutionary changes that have been observed to establish the sufficiency of macroevolution as an explanation for novel, complex body parts, body plans and organs.
Side issues occasionally sprang up during the day’s testimony. With complicated questions of science, complex metaphysical implications and a multi-faceted education policy process all involved, this should surprise no one. Yet, one who watched the hearings could clearly take stock of the following: none of the scientists advocated removing evolution or diluting it. All of the scientists advocated teaching evolution and allowing students to critically analyze it.
Keep in mind that these testifying scientsts are the precisely the scientists that certain hyper-Darwinists and their lobby claim do not exist. Go figure.
Count day one of the hearings in the books. Days two and three to come…
UPDATE, May 6: The New York Times has published this artilce under the new, and vastly improved and accurate headline: "In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More"
Topeka, KS -- Indeed, Jodi Wilgoren's lead from her story in The New York Times sums up what the scene was today in Memorial Hall in Topeka, the first day of hearings on how evolution should be taught in Kansas public schools. In the first of three daylong hearings characterized here as the direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified today about the flaws they find in Darwin's theory of evolution, transforming a small auditorium into a forum on one of the most controversial questions in education and politics: How to teach about the origin of life? 
The Times' headline writers however totally missed the mark by proclaiming that the hearings are about "diluting evolution." Outside the Times, and probably the me-too wannabees at the Post, no one really thinks that the standards dilute evolution. It was clear all throughout the day that evolution was not being eliminated or watered down, as much as it was being challenged and criticized. 
It was standing room only for the opening of the hearings -- more from the media attendance than from the room being crowded by citizens anxious to sit through science hearings.  I counted 138 people in the room at what appeared to be the morning's highwater mark, and a third or more were media. There is obviously a great deal of attention to this issue all across the country.
Among the first day's speakers were CSC Fellows Cr. Charles Thaxton, and Dr. Jonathan Wells. I'd like to reiterate some of Wells' testimony, with the caveat that he speaks faster than I write, and I have no transcript to work from so this is all from memory.
After outlining his credentials and relationship to Discovery Institute, Wells said that in his view as a scientist if a piece of evidence for a theory turns out to be exagerated or faked students should know about it. He also reiterated several times that students need to learn more about evolution, and that he does not seek to deemphasize the teaching of evolution, nor does anyone seek to include intelligent design theory in science classes.
Wells addressed the issue of the definition of science, pointing out that Kansas has an "absolutely unique definition" of science, completely out of step with the entire rest of the country. The definition of science proposed in the Minority Report is fully consistent with definitions used by all other states in the U.S. By contrast, the definition of science currently used in the Kansas standards and defended by the Majority is idiosyncratic and out of step with current educational practice. He studied the definition of science used in all 50 states and found that there is a traditional definition in 40 states and no definition in 8 states. Then there's Kansas. According to Wells, Kansas gives priority to the explanation over the process. It's not science if at the outset "we are told what sort of explanation we should find." Science should follow the evidence where it leads, not just follow the evidence if it leads in one particular direction.
Here are a few samples of how other states define science: Ohio: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
Connecticut: "Scientific inquiry is a thoughtful and coordinated attempt to search out, describe, explain and predict natural phenomena."
West Virginia: "Science is a process of discovery. Students will engage in active inquiry through investigations,… These investigations explore the natural world, require critical thinking and develop process skills."
South Dakota: "Science is a process of gathering and evaluating information, looking for patterns, and then devising and testing possible explanations."
Arizona: "Science is a process of gathering and evaluating information, looking for patterns, and then devising and testing possible explanations."
Wells went on to talk about the discrepancies in the evidence purported to support Darwinian evolution. He spoke at length about Phyla and the inability of the molecular evidence to uphold the tenets of Darwinian evolution and the problems posed for Darwinian evolution from the Cambrian explosion.
One of the questions that came up was about the claim that the term macroevolution is not a legitimate scientific term. Wells referred to the origination of the word by evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937 and that the word has been used in the scientific literature ever since.
The most interesting part of Wells' testimony, for me at least, was his interaction with the Darwinist defense attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who cross examined the witnesses. Wells: I'm in the minority. That's why I'm here supporting the minority report.
Irigonegaray: You like being in the minority more than being right?
Wells: "I prefer to be right, if that puts me in the minority so be it." Later Irigonegaray said: The insignificant minority.
Wells responded: I don't find myself insignificant at all, I've already admitted to being in the minority. Frankly, Irigonegaray's cross didn't seem all that inspired. He raised his voice a few times, but he didn't ask very difficult questions. In fact, he almost never asked a question that had anything to do with science. His main question for each person was on their opinion of the age of the earth. All said it was billions of years old, except for William Harris who quipped he thought it was "really old."
Interestingly, at the end of the day, Dr. Ralph Seelke, biologist from University of Wisconsin (whose stated goal is "to put evolutionary theory on a firmer experimental footing.") gave the most thoroughly scientific presentation of the day. No one is surprised that discussion of bacteria and trillions of generations of mutations don't get written up in the Kansas City Star. But, it is surprising that Irigonegaray had NO questions for Seelke at all. Maybe that's because Seelke derailed his questioning by answering Irigonegaray's standard question before it could even be asked. "I think the world is four and a half billion years old."
It was a long day to be sure, but a very informative one. I think that at times, truthfully, the Darwinists were sucessful in diverting some to talk more about intelligent design, philosophy and/or religion than about the scientific challenges faced by Darwin's theory.
Discovery President summed up the first day this way: It was made clear early in the Kansas hearings that Intelligent Design is
not slated for inclusion in the proposed state science standards, but much of the initial hearing nonetheless was taken up with a discussion of Intelligent Design. As an alternative theory, design is promising and robust, and therefore of great media interest, but there is a danger that much of the national media will disappear before the state board gets down to hearing about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory--the real issue in Kansas science standards.
Topeka, KS -- One wonders if Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin was even in the same room with the AP's John Hanna, Wichita Eagle's Josh Funk or Barbara Hollingsworth from the Topeka Capital Journal, or any of the other dozen journalists attending.
For some inexplicable reason, the Washington Post's reporting on the Kansas debate over evolution is completely out of step with most other major media covering the story (here, here, and here).
Funk reports today that: The debate centers on proposed changes to Kansas school science standards, designed to encourage a more critical approach to evolution, that the state board will vote on later this summer. The AP, the Kansas City Star, and the Topeka Capital Journal all basically agree in their reports that this is the issue.
Not Slevin at the Post. He's still hung up with creationism -- something no one in Kansas is even talking about anymore. And, he still mistakenly thinks this is about intelligent design. This week's battle is focused on Kansas, where State Board of Education hearings begin Thursday on evolution and intelligent design, a carefully marketed theory that challenges accepted understandings of Earth's origins in favor of the idea that a creator played a guiding role.
Will the Washington Post ever get around to accurately and fairly covering this issue? I'm not holding my breath.
The hearings start here in Kansas momentarily and I hope that Slevin, and other media in attendance, will report what is actually said, rather than resorting to tired stereotypes that now seem sadly out of step.
The Washington Times has an excellent editorial this morning outlining the real issue in Kansas. It concludes by faulting Darwinists for not being willing to engage in legitimate scientific debate, quoting Discovery Senior Fellow David Berlinski in the process:
"The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Today the Kansas Board of Education opens its hearings on whether students should learn about all of the scientific evidence relating to Darwin's theory, including the evidence that challenges the theory. The big question is whether journalists will actually report on the substance of the hearings, or will they simply follow the script supplied by the Darwin-only advocates, who have made clear that they want to prevent at all costs any discussion of the science.
Darwinists in Kansas have virtually promised to smear and demonize the scientists who will be testifying at the hearings. What they cannot do is make those scientists disappear. After months of claiming that there are no scientific critics of Darwinism, and insisting that the only criticisms of Darwin's theory are religious, the Darwin-only advocates are about to be shown wrong. Over the next three days, the Kansas Board will be hearing about scientific criticisms of Darwinian theory from an array of scientists, including biology professors at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Akron, biochemistry professors at the University of Georgia and Lehigh University, and genetics professors at Cornell University and the University of Perugia. According to Darwinists, these scientists aren't even supposed to exist. But they are here nonetheless, and they deserve to be heard. Given the scorched-earth tactics adopted by groups like Kansas Citizens for Science, these dissenting scientists have shown a great deal of personal courage in coming forward to testify. I only hope that the newsmedia will give them a fair shake and allow their arguments to be heard.
Washington Post reporter Peter Slevin seems to have become the new press secretary for the pro-Darwin National Center for Science Education (NCSE). But he apparently hasn't informed his editors at the Post, who are continuing to publish his stories. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to after reading Slevin's histrionic piece in yesterday's Post. While many local reporters in Kansas have been working overtime to accurately and fairly cover both sides of the evolution controversy, Slevin has weighed in with a piece that reads from the first sentence like one of the NCSE's fundraising letters:
Alarmed by proposals to change how evolution is taught, scientists and teachers are mobilizing to fight back, asserting that educational standards are being threatened by what they consider a stealth campaign to return creationism to public schools.
It goes downhill from there. Perhaps the most over-the-top part of the article is Slevin's hilarious attempt to argue that evolution's critics are better funded than the poor Darwinists. As an example, he cites the million dollar-plus budget of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and compares it to the $700,000 budget of the National Center for Science Education. Slevin neglects to mention that the vast majority of the Center for Science and Culture's budget (roughly 85%) goes to support research and scholarship, not science education policy efforts. On the other hand, virtually all of the NCSE's budget goes to support public policy efforts. Even more importantly, Slevin seems oblivious to the larger picture. The budget of Discovery Institute is infinitesimal compared to the budgets of the leading public evangelists of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science alone has annual revenue of more than $80 million. Anyone who seriously believes that the critics of evolutionary theory are better-funded than Darwinists is living in another world.
As for "balance," don't expect to find any in Slevin's story. Although the article is 1396 words long, virtually all of it is devoted to the views of those championing a Darwin-only approach to science education. To be precise, 711 words ( fully 50% of the article) are devoted to expounding the views of Darwin's defenders. Only about 129 words (or 9%) of the article can be described as providing the views of Darwin's critics, and even that figure is generous since some of Slevin's descriptions of the critics of Darwin are far from impartial.
When I met Slevin in January, I found him personable and hoped that he would be fair despite his obvious agenda. After his first article came out, I knew that my hope was illusory. But Slevin's latest piece veers over the line from slanted reporting into propaganda.
The news section of the Post was once the pride of the journalism profession. I realize many liberals are angry and bitter right now because the rest of the nation doesn't seem to be following them in lock-step. Still, you would think it would be embarrassing for Slevin's editors to publish such hack-reporting, especially when many other media outlets--like Newsweek, the Christian Science Monitor, the Associated Press, and even National Geographic --have been doing a much better job.
Topeka, KS -- Discovery President Bruce Chapman, and CSC senior fellow, Jonathan Wells, answered questions from the media at a Topeka news conference today.
Not so surprisingly, after meeting with the media, there are two accurate and balanced news reports about the coming debate over evolution in Kansas (AP story here and Wichita Eagle story here).
As the stories about the issue begin to swarm the net beware that there will be much misinformation, mischaracterization, misrepresentation and a great deal of missing the point. Fortunately, there are some reporters who do a good job of presenting accurate and balanced reports of what is actually going on.
The news conference gave CSC the chance to outline its position on the debate over evolution. Chapman and Wells made two important points: Included in the updates and revisions to the standards are two key revisions proposed by eight scientists on the science standards writing committee. They recommend that:
1. Kansas expand the amount of information taught to students about the theory of evolution;
2. and that Kansas reinstate the traditional definition of science.
Discovery Institute supports the Minority Report drafted by members of the Kansas science standards writing committee. The Minority report recommends expanding the information presented to students about biological and chemical evolution by including some of the scientific criticisms of these theories.
The traditional definition of science recommended is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." This is nearly identical to the definition of science adhered to in 40 states across the country. Kansas is the only state that does not have a traditional definition of science.
The issue is not as complicated as some of our critics like to make it out to be.
To be clear:
This isn't about intelligent design, it's about evolution.
- The proposed standards don't deal with intelligent design or any other alternatives to evolution, they only deal with Darwinian evolution. Simply put, students should critically analyze Darwinian evolution and learn about both the evidence for the theory, as well as that which scientifically challenges it.
This isn't religion vs. science, this is science vs. science.
- Darwinian activists like the Kansas Citizens for Science want everyone to think this is about religion vs. science, but it isn't. This is about the scientific controversy over the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory. This is right out of mainstream scientific literature. Scientists are critically analyzing evolution, why can't students?
What matters in science is evidence, not motives.
- Science is about evidence and about following the evidence where it leads. Kansas needs a definition of science that allows for scientists, teachers and students to study all the scientific information in the manner that scientists have always done.
According to a recent Prentice Hall biology textbook, a few centuries ago 'very light-skinned' people, shipwrecked on a tropical island, became "dark-skinned" after "many years under the tropical sun."
But as Pamela R. Winnick at the Weekly Standard explains, this is nonsense, one of many examples of junk science in our high school science textbooks:
There's lots that's puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It's as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science.
She might just as easily have been describing the way high school biology textbooks present Darwin's theory of evolution. As biologist Jonathan Wells explains here, when the textbooks aren't presenting discredited evidence for modern evolutionary theory, they're ignoring substantive weaknesses in the theory.
The scientists testifying at the hearings in Topeka, Kansas are urging the state's school board merely to purge the junk from the chapters on evolution, and allow students to consider the full range of scientific evidence that bears on the theory, both pro and con.
TOPEKA, KS -- The Kansas State Board of Education is revising the state's science standards. This week a board sub-committee will hear testimony from two dozen scientists and scholars about how evolution should be presented in the classroom.
The Topeka Capital Journal last weekend published a very helpful Q&A on the hearings. There has been a great deal of media coverage leading up to the hearings. The AP has a preview of what to expect when the hearings open tomorrow.
One thing not to expect is any sort of defense of Darwinian evolution. Kansas Darwinists are refusing to participate, but regardless the debate and discussion will go on.
The building where the hearings will be held holds a little under 200 people and officials here expect standing room only in the meeting room. Here is the schedule for the opening day of testimony, tomorrow.
May 5
8:30 - 8:40: Introductions and Remarks: Dr. Steve Abrams, Chairman of the Science Committee: 8:40 - 8:55 Opening Statement of Counsel for the Minority: John Calvert
Witness Testimony (presentation times are noted in parentheses, with the balance reserved for questions by Mr. Irigonegary and the Committee):
8:55 - 10:40 William S. Harris, PhD (60)
Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein
Research Laboratory, St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City, MO
10:40 - 11:50 Intermission
11:50 - 12:00 Charles Thaxton, PhD (40)
Physical Chemist and co-author of The Mystery of Life's Origin
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00 to 2:30 Jonathan Wells, PhD (50)
Molecular and cell biologist, Author of Icons of Evolution and Senior Fellow Discovery Institute
2:30 to 3:30 Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD (30)
Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Genoa), one of the oldest extant biology journals in the
world; retired Professor of Genetics at the University of Perugia, author of the forthcoming “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”
3:30-3:40 Intermission
3:40 to 4:40 Ralph Seelke, PhD (30)
Professor of Biology, University of Wisconsin - Superior
4:40 to 5:30 Bruce Simat, PhD (30)
Biochemistry and Human Physiology, Associate Professor North Western College, St. Paul, MN
Earlier this week, the website www.kansasscience2005.com disclosed an incredible internet post from an official with Kansas Citizens for Science, the group trying to prevent the inclusion of scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory in the Kansas Science Standards. On February 10, Liz Craig (identified in this article as "a spokeswoman for Kansas Citizens for Science") outlined her group's outrageous disinformation plan for the newsmedia covering the Kansas science standards debate. Rather than talk about science, Ms. Craig described how she plans to use the newsmedia to smear and demonize anyone who opposes her group's agenda:
My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what's going on and portray them [the critics of evolution] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc.
There may no way to head off another science standards debacle, but we can sure make them look like asses...
This is the Darwinists' idea of reasoned debate? Avoid at all costs any genuine discussion of science, and portray one's opponents "in the harshest light possible, as... opportunists... ignoramuses... unprincipled bullies, etc." In sum, don't bother the public with facts or rational arguments. Engage in a cynical smear campaign instead.
Later in her post, Ms. Craig also revealed her contempt for potential supporters, saying that her group's "target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues...." The implication seemed to be that such supposedly less-educated people could be more influenced by the planned smear campaign.
Now we know the script that will be followed by Kansas Citizens for Science going into this week's science standard hearings. What remains to be seen is whether journalists in the national newsmedia will be credulous enough to allow themselves to be manipulated by Ms. Craig and her colleagues.
Today's Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article claiming that students are starting to question Darwin in science classes. Imagine that! Students are so interested in the subject they are actually asking teachers questions about it. The article features information about the Coldwater Media video Icons of Evolution, and it even lists the suggested questions to ask biology teachers drafted by biologist Jonathan Wells.
Note the stock response of Darwinists in the story who apparently think having students ask questions in class is disruptive (!) and who claim that asking questions about Darwin is tantamount to injecting religion into the classroom. But, as the article clearly shows, the questions being raised about Darwin focus on science, not religion.
Are Darwinists now going to campaign to prevent students from being able to ask questions in biology class just like they have tried to stop teachers from raising questions about Darwin?
If you want to see how bad major media coverage can be, check out this over-the-top story filed by the British news agency Reuters. Titled "Evolution on trial as Kansas debates Adam vs Darwin," the story starts off with the following gross misrepresentation of the Kansas hearings:
More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.
As pointed out previously on this blog, the scientists who will testify in Kansas are not going to argue against the teaching of evolution. They are going to argue for presenting students with scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory as well as the evidence favoring the theory. Contrary to the fanciful reporting of Reuters, the testimony of these scientists will focus on the challenges posed by modern biology to Darwinism, not on "Adam and Eve."
The biased record of NPR's "Science Friday" continues unabated with last week's segment on the Kansas evolution hearings. As might be predicted, host Ira Flatow mangled the definition of intelligent design and asserted that ID is "creationism dressed in new clothing." He went on to falsely claim that the purpose of the Kansas Board of Education hearings to be held this week is to "listen to arguments pro and con about teaching evolution in science class." In reality, I don't know of anyone testifying in Kansas who is going to argue against teaching evolution in science class. Instead, the witnesses are going to argue that in addition to teaching the evidence for modern evolutionary theory, students should also hear about some of the scientific criticisms of the theory already appearing in the science journals. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a stereotyped story? To Flatow's credit, he did have the AP's John Hanna on the show to explain what is going on in Kansas. Hanna's explanations were noticeably more accurate and balanced than Flatow's ill-informed remarks. But the only non-journalist guest on the show was the president of Kansas Citizens for Science, who of course promptly denounced anyone who favors presenting scientific criticisms of Darwinian theory and who falsely portrayed the Kansas debate as a battle between the supporters of science and "Biblical literalist(s)."
Even though Flatow described what was happening in Kansas as a "debate," he only had one side of the debate represented on his show. I guess that's NPR's definition of "balance." It's not the first time Flatow has refused to include both sides of the evolution debate. When will journalists on "public" radio finally decide serve the public by offering a genuine diversity of views?
|
 |
