Statements on Teaching Evolution

From Scienticity

Jump to: navigation, search
(→Daniel C. Dennett)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Science Professionals ==
== Science Professionals ==
 +
 +
=== Daniel C. Dennett ===
 +
 +
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>
 +
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 ===
Line 10: Line 17:
   <br><br>
   <br><br>
Understanding sciences brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives.  The sciences teach us that the world is intelligible and not capricious.  They give us the skills for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself.
Understanding sciences brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives.  The sciences teach us that the world is intelligible and not capricious.  They give us the skills for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
=== Luc Jacquet ===
 +
 +
Luc Jacquet, director of the surprise documentary-film hit of 2005, ''March of the Penguins'', was quoted{{ref|ljt}} in ''The London Times'' reacting to the popularity of the film among American fundamentalists and anti-evolutionist:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
For me there is no doubt about evolution. I am a scientist. The intelligent design theory is a step back to the thinking of 300 years ago. My film is not supposed to be interpreted in this way [i.e., as "evidence" for intelligent-design creationism].
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Line 19: Line 33:
   <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>
== 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>
 +
 +
=== 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>
=== Robert E. Hemenway ===
=== Robert E. Hemenway ===
Line 28: Line 64:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community. We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles. [...] The United States cannot accept efforts to undermine the teaching of science. Our focus should be to raise the level of scientific literacy among our citizenry because we face a critical shortage of scientists in the next two decades. As a public research university, we have a special mission to educate tomorrow's scientists and to support the science teachers who will inspire young people to become chemists, geologists, biologists and physicists.
The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community. We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles. [...] The United States cannot accept efforts to undermine the teaching of science. Our focus should be to raise the level of scientific literacy among our citizenry because we face a critical shortage of scientists in the next two decades. As a public research university, we have a special mission to educate tomorrow's scientists and to support the science teachers who will inspire young people to become chemists, geologists, biologists and physicists.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
=== Lehigh University Department of Biological Sciences ===
 +
 +
The Department's undated [http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm "Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"] reads, in its entirety:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
 +
  <br><br>
 +
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Line 35: Line 80:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences.
The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
===  Hunter R. Rawlings III ===
 +
 +
The ''Cornell Daily Sun'' reported{{ref|hrr}} on the State of the University Address, given on 21 October 2005 by Cornell University's interim president Hunter R. Rawlings III to a joint session of the Board of Trustees and University Council. Rawlings is quoted as saying:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
We should not suspend, or rather annul, the rules of science in order to allow any idea into American education. Intelligent Design is a subjective concept. It is, at its core, a religious belief.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
=== Timothy P. White ===
 +
 +
In a [http://www.president.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=85947 "Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students"] dated 4 October 2005, Timothy P. White, President of the University of Idaho, wrote:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to articulate the University of Idaho’s position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
== Public Figures ==
== Public Figures ==
 +
 +
=== Howard Dean ===
 +
 +
Howard Dean, M.D., is a former governor of Vermont, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In an interview with Bob Scheiffer of the CBS news program "Face the Nation" on 14 August 2005, [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/081505I.shtml Dean made the following remarks]:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
But the truth of the matter is, intelligent design is a religious perception and a religious precept. That's fine. That should be taught wherever religion is taught, if that's the desire of those people who are religious. [...] Science is science. There's no factual evidence for intelligent design. There's an enormous amount of factual evidence for evolution. Those are the facts. If you don't like the facts, then you can fight against them. The Catholic Church fought against Galileo for a great many, many centuries. But it never pays to ignore the facts. [...] The truth is, you can't run a business, a state, a country or a family if you don't care what the facts are.
 +
</blockquote>
=== Jon Huntsman Jr ===
=== Jon Huntsman Jr ===
Line 140: Line 206:
</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>
Line 155: Line 232:
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 ===
Line 209: 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|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.
 +
#{{note|hrr}}Eric Finkelstein and Michael Morisy, [http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/21/4359001d49152 "Rawlings Condemns Intelligent Design: Cornell president discusses religion, science in State of University address"], ''The Cornell Daily Sun'', 21 October 2005.
#{{note|csremarks}}Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein, [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050709/news_1n9evo.html "Cardinal: Evolution may conflict with Catholic beliefs"], ''The San Diego Union-Tribune'', 9 July 2005.
#{{note|csremarks}}Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein, [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050709/news_1n9evo.html "Cardinal: Evolution may conflict with Catholic beliefs"], ''The San Diego Union-Tribune'', 9 July 2005.
#{{note|csreuters}}[http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-10-04T160725Z_01_DIT457969_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-RELIGION-EVOLUTION-CARDINAL-DC.XML "Cardinal backs evolution and 'intelligent design' "], ''Reuters'', 4 October 2005.
#{{note|csreuters}}[http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-10-04T160725Z_01_DIT457969_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-RELIGION-EVOLUTION-CARDINAL-DC.XML "Cardinal backs evolution and 'intelligent design' "], ''Reuters'', 4 October 2005.
Line 224: Line 309:
* [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]]

Current revision as of 18:04, 28 December 2006

Retrieved from "http://scienticity.net/wiki/Statements_on_Teaching_Evolution"
Personal tools
science time-capsules