Statements on Teaching Evolution - Revision history

JNShaumeyer: /* Daniel C. Dennett */

2006-12-28T18:04:00Z

Daniel C. Dennett

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:04, 28 December 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=== Daniel C. Dennett ===		=== Daniel C. Dennett ===

-	Daniel Dennett, author of ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea'' and ~~''Consciousness Explained''~~, wrote in an August 2005 ''New York Times'' editorial:{{ref\|nyt0508}}	+	Daniel Dennett, author of ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea'' and professor of philosophy at Tufts University, wrote in an August 2005 ''New York Times'' editorial:{{ref\|nyt0508}}
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	Since there is no content [in intelligent design creationism], there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?		Since there is no content [in intelligent design creationism], there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?

JNShaumeyer: /* Notes */

2006-12-28T18:02:24Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 28 December 2006
Line 290:		Line 290:

	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
		+	#{{note\|nyt0508}}Daniel C. Dennett, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?ex=1282881600&en=5e66afa05b9ed96b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Show Me Science]", ''New York Times'', 28 August 2005.
	#{{note\|rh}}Rush Holt, [http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/8/183216/1039/ "Intelligent Design: It's Not Even Wrong"], TPMcafe, 8 September 2005.		#{{note\|rh}}Rush Holt, [http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/8/183216/1039/ "Intelligent Design: It's Not Even Wrong"], TPMcafe, 8 September 2005.
	#{{note\|ljt}}Jack Malvern, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837607,00.html "Puzzle of the penguin trek parable"], The Times [London], 22 October 2005.		#{{note\|ljt}}Jack Malvern, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837607,00.html "Puzzle of the penguin trek parable"], The Times [London], 22 October 2005.

JNShaumeyer: /* Science Professionals */

2006-12-28T17:59:18Z

Science Professionals

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Science Professionals ==		== Science Professionals ==
		+
		+	=== Daniel C. Dennett ===
		+
		+	Daniel Dennett, author of ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea'' and ''Consciousness Explained'', wrote in an August 2005 ''New York Times'' editorial:{{ref\|nyt0508}}
		+	<blockquote>
		+	Since there is no content [in intelligent design creationism], there is no "controversy" to teach about in biology class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politics: Is intelligent design a hoax? And if so, how was it perpetrated?
		+	</blockquote>

	=== Rush Holt ===		=== Rush Holt ===

JNShaumeyer at 16:35, 30 October 2005

2005-10-30T16:35:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 30 October 2005
Line 301:		Line 301:
	* [http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp National Center for Science Education].		* [http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp National Center for Science Education].
	* [http://bobpark.org/ "What's New", by Bob Park].		* [http://bobpark.org/ "What's New", by Bob Park].
		+
		+
		+	[[Category:From the 21st Century]]

JNShaumeyer: /* Science Professionals */

2005-10-28T19:11:18Z

Science Professionals

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 28 October 2005
Line 26:		Line 26:
	<br><br>		<br><br>
	Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.		Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
		+	</blockquote>
		+
		+	=== Ushma S. Neill ===
		+
		+	Ushma Neill, Executive Editor of the ''Journal of Clinical Investigation'', in an editorial in the same journal called [http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/10/2586 "Don’t be stupid about intelligent design"], wrote to colleagues:
		+	<blockquote>
		+	President George W. Bush and Senate majority leader Bill Frist have recently publicly advocated teaching intelligent design in science classes. Their endorsement of a discredited, nonscientific view could signal a huge step backward for scientific education. It is time for educated, motivated scientists to get involved and to educate others. [...] Get informed and get involved — whether by telling your neighbors, discussing with your children, or joining action groups or committees. Thinly veiled attempts to inject religion into the classroom should be stopped by those of us with the understanding and wherewithal to do so.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

JNShaumeyer: /* National Association of Biology Teachers */

2005-10-27T19:55:20Z

National Association of Biology Teachers

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 27 October 2005
Line 218:		Line 218:
	As stated in ''The American Biology Teacher'' by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. [...] Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.		As stated in ''The American Biology Teacher'' by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. [...] Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
		+
		+	This entire NABT statement has also been adopted as their official statement on teaching evolution by the following organizations:
		+	* [http://www.statweb.org/positions/STATEvolution.html The Science Teachers Association of Texas]
		+	* [http://www.texarkanacollege.edu/%7Emstorey/TABT/ The Texas Association of Biology Teachers]

	=== National Science Teachers Association ===		=== National Science Teachers Association ===

JNShaumeyer: /* Education Professionals */

2005-10-27T03:53:10Z

Education Professionals

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 27 October 2005
Line 35:		Line 35:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called "intelligent design" (ID) might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution. [... Because ID does not meet any of the criteria that would mark it as a science,] We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions - and crowd out the teaching of real science.		As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called "intelligent design" (ID) might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution. [... Because ID does not meet any of the criteria that would mark it as a science,] We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions - and crowd out the teaching of real science.
		+	</blockquote>
		+
		+	=== Georgia Science Teachers Association ===
		+
		+	This is an excerpt from their undated [http://www.georgiascienceteacher.org/position.htm#Evolution "Position Statement on the Teaching of Evolution]:
		+	<blockquote>
		+	Science is a method of explaining the natural world. It assumes the universe operates according to regularities and that through systematic investigation we can understand these regularities. Because the methodology of science is based on explanations that use empirical data, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations. Science has increased our knowledge because of this insistence on the search for data to explain natural processes. <br>[...]<br>
		+	The Georgia Science Teachers Association supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept of science and should be included as part of K-College science curricula and offers the following recommendations: [there follows 5 specific suggestions to teachers, administrators, and parents.]
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

JNShaumeyer: /* Professional Societies */

2005-10-27T03:40:43Z

Professional Societies

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:40, 27 October 2005
Line 184:		Line 184:
	</center><br>		</center><br>
	Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter.		Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter.
		+	</blockquote>
		+
		+	=== Association for Women Geoscientists ===
		+
		+	From the AWG's [http://www.awg.org/about/evolution.html "Policy Paper on Science Curricula and the Teaching of Evolution in K-12 Classrooms"], the following resolution in its entirety:
		+	<blockquote>
		+	The Association for Women Geoscientists supports the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum and urges the separation of science from religious teaching in public school's science curricula. We believe that all students should be taught the method and principles of modern science, including the method of hypothesis testing by observation, data collection, experimentation, and the difference between scientific theory and hypothesis. Any hypothesis that is not subject to testing, or does not arise from observation and repeatable data, cannot be considered science.
		+	<br><br>
		+	To do otherwise puts students at a disadvantage in understanding and appreciating the wonder of our Earth, as well as in their pursuit of higher education and careers in science.
		+	<br><br>
		+	Passed by the AWG Board of Directors on April 25th, 1998.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

JNShaumeyer: /* Notes */

2005-10-24T03:47:08Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 24 October 2005
Line 256:		Line 256:
	#{{note\|ljt}}Jack Malvern, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837607,00.html "Puzzle of the penguin trek parable"], The Times [London], 22 October 2005.		#{{note\|ljt}}Jack Malvern, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837607,00.html "Puzzle of the penguin trek parable"], The Times [London], 22 October 2005.
	#{{note\|jhm}}Quoted in: Eisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution", ''New York Times'', 3 August 2005, [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305L.shtml archived] at ''truthout.org''.		#{{note\|jhm}}Quoted in: Eisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution", ''New York Times'', 3 August 2005, [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305L.shtml archived] at ''truthout.org''.
		+	#{{note\|aus}}The signatories were Professor Michael Archer, Dean of Science, University of New South Wales; Professor Sue Serjeantson, AO, Executive Secretary, Australian Academy of Science; Bradley Smith, Executive Director, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies; Gary Thomas, President, Australian Science Teachers Association; Paul Carnemolla, President, Science Teachers Association of NSW; Julie Webber, President, Science Teachers Association of Western Australia; Peter Turnbull, President, Science Teachers Association of South Australia; Niels Hider, President, Science Educators Association of the ACT; and Rob Brooks, President, Australasian Evolution Society.
	#{{note\|reh}}Robert E. Hemenway, [http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/evolve/compare/statement/chancellors_statement.html "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth"], Autumn 1999.		#{{note\|reh}}Robert E. Hemenway, [http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/evolve/compare/statement/chancellors_statement.html "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth"], Autumn 1999.
	#{{note\|cde}}[http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr05/yr05rel118.asp "State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Defencs California Science Standards: Opposes Intelligent Design Theory as Threat to Integrity of Teaching Natural Sciences"], California Department of Education press release, 28 September 2005.		#{{note\|cde}}[http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr05/yr05rel118.asp "State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Defencs California Science Standards: Opposes Intelligent Design Theory as Threat to Integrity of Teaching Natural Sciences"], California Department of Education press release, 28 September 2005.

JNShaumeyer: /* Education Professionals */

2005-10-24T03:44:28Z

Education Professionals

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 24 October 2005
Line 29:		Line 29:

	== Education Professionals ==		== Education Professionals ==
		+
		+	=== Australian Scientists and Science Teachers ===
		+
		+	On 20 October 2005, the open letter [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html "Intelligent design is not science"] was published in major Australian newspapers. The letter was the "unanimous initiative of the executive of the Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, led by its Dean, Professor Mike Archer"; the signatories, leads of nine Australian Professional Societies and Teaching Associations{{ref\|aus}}, represent over 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers. In part, the letter read:
		+	<blockquote>
		+	As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called "intelligent design" (ID) might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution. [... Because ID does not meet any of the criteria that would mark it as a science,] We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions - and crowd out the teaching of real science.
		+	</blockquote>

	=== Robert E. Hemenway ===		=== Robert E. Hemenway ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 24 October 2005
Line 256:		Line 256:
	#{{note\|ljt}}Jack Malvern, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837607,00.html "Puzzle of the penguin trek parable"], The Times [London], 22 October 2005.		#{{note\|ljt}}Jack Malvern, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837607,00.html "Puzzle of the penguin trek parable"], The Times [London], 22 October 2005.
	#{{note\|jhm}}Quoted in: Eisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution", ''New York Times'', 3 August 2005, [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305L.shtml archived] at ''truthout.org''.		#{{note\|jhm}}Quoted in: Eisabeth Bumiller, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution", ''New York Times'', 3 August 2005, [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305L.shtml archived] at ''truthout.org''.
		+	#{{note\|aus}}The signatories were Professor Michael Archer, Dean of Science, University of New South Wales; Professor Sue Serjeantson, AO, Executive Secretary, Australian Academy of Science; Bradley Smith, Executive Director, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies; Gary Thomas, President, Australian Science Teachers Association; Paul Carnemolla, President, Science Teachers Association of NSW; Julie Webber, President, Science Teachers Association of Western Australia; Peter Turnbull, President, Science Teachers Association of South Australia; Niels Hider, President, Science Educators Association of the ACT; and Rob Brooks, President, Australasian Evolution Society.
	#{{note\|reh}}Robert E. Hemenway, [http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/evolve/compare/statement/chancellors_statement.html "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth"], Autumn 1999.		#{{note\|reh}}Robert E. Hemenway, [http://rnaworld.bio.ku.edu/evolve/compare/statement/chancellors_statement.html "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth"], Autumn 1999.
	#{{note\|cde}}[http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr05/yr05rel118.asp "State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Defencs California Science Standards: Opposes Intelligent Design Theory as Threat to Integrity of Teaching Natural Sciences"], California Department of Education press release, 28 September 2005.		#{{note\|cde}}[http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr05/yr05rel118.asp "State Schools Chief Jack O'Connell Defencs California Science Standards: Opposes Intelligent Design Theory as Threat to Integrity of Teaching Natural Sciences"], California Department of Education press release, 28 September 2005.