Britain’s National Academy of Science reprimands teachers for bringing religion into the classroom

Transcript of today's show:

Schools have come under attack by Britain’s National Academy of Science for misrepresenting evolution in order to promote Christian dogma. The Academy has singled out educators who teach intelligent design. These teachers, the Academy asserts, are partial and selective in the facts they present and treat gaps in scientific knowledge as proof of their own theory. According to the Academy, this amounts to a blatant neglect of scientific method, which is a fundamental standard in all sciences. [source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Isn’t it interesting that in the UK, where polls show an overwhelming bias against atheistic science, that the Academy has the good sense to chastise those teachers with a religious, creationist agenda? This is an example of checks and balances that we here in America would do well to emulate.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This reprimand expresses an outright arrogance of the scientific community. What will it take for Intelligent Design theory to be given respect and thoughtful consideration? Any scientist would want this: to be heard with unbiased, objective open-mindedness. The scientific community has been playing unfairly, seeking to control the flow of knowledge in the belief that their accepted ideas and theories are supreme and paramount. The arrogance of science, I believe, is rooted in a fear of the spiritual and all things unseen. And this arrogance, when expressed through public and private education, deprives young, open minds from exploring greater vistas of possibility, understanding, and meaning.

Barack Obama promises a return to science

Transcript of today's show:

In a direct fire across the bow of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity, the presumed Democratic candidate for US president has clearly stated where he stands on the evolution-creationism controversy. In his first speech after winning the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama took this very public opportunity to remind voters that his administration will be renewing a commitment to science, as had Bill Clinton when he was president.

Listen to the 1 minute show:

Texas debates intelligent design

Transcript of today's show:

Last month's resignation of the Texas state science curriculum director has ignited a highly charged and politicized debate over the teaching evolution in the state's schools, which come up for state-wide review In January. Most members of the State Board of Education, including the chairman, have said publicly they don't want to introduce intelligent design into the curriculum, and many of them also have said they want to keep the current language on evolution. To some, this exercise could turn into a pivotal opportunity for change. Even small changes in the language could mean big changes in textbooks later on. "Emphatically, we are not trying to 'take evolution out of the schools,'" said Mark Ramsey of Texans for Better Science Education, which wants schools to teach about weaknesses in evolution. "All good educators know that when students are taught both sides of an issue such as biologic evolution, they understand each side better. What are the Darwinists afraid of?"

[source: The Dallas Morning News]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial published in the San Antonio Express-News:

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently released the results of a test that assesses science and math skills of students in 30 industrialized countries. The results showed American students scored in the bottom half — worse than their peers from 16 other countries, and better than only those from Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico.

U.S. students do not reach "the baseline level of achievement ... at which students begin to demonstrate the science competencies that will enable them to participate actively in life situations related to science and technology," the report says. The comparative results for math were even worse.

Many explanations exist for the lagging performance in science by American students. One that cannot be avoided is that some of the adults who are responsible for their science educations don't take science seriously enough.

Do Texans truly want their educators to be neutral on the teaching of religious faith versus science in schools? If so, then the State Board of Education and the Texas Education Agency are well on their way to making students in Italy, Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico feel proud. [read full editorial]

from Eric Berger of the SciGuy Blog:

The state's science curriculum director, Chris Comer, recently resigned from the Texas Education Agency as part of a flap surrounding her endorsement of a lecture by Barbara Forrest, a critic of the intelligent design movement. We peripherally discussed the issue here.

Now biologists from the state's leading universities have taken to the defense of Comer, saying it's ridiculous that she was essentially fired for not adhering to the TEA's policy of remaining neutral on the issue of evolution versus intelligent design.

There should be no neutrality on an issue that is scientifically and legally clear-cut, they write. Evolution should be taught at the K-12 as it is in universities, they say, and the TEA should work to bolster evolution education in Texas rather than undermining it. [read full blog post]



from a news report by Rod Rose, published in Texas' Mineral Wells Index:

The Texas Education Board has taken a significant action to protect the American public from the horrors of scientific knowledge..... Next year, the state of Texas will choose new science textbooks. With California and New York, Texas is the largest single buyer of public school textbooks. Because of their buying clout, those states can influence what is said in those texts.

If Texas tells a publisher it wants creationism in a biology textbook, it will probably get books that espouse creationism as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution — because publishing is a for-profit business.

The United States faces critical scientific challenges in the next few years. The solutions to those challenges cannot be based solely on the philosophy that “it’s in God’s hands.”

If any religion ever scientifically proves the existence of God, then science classes should include that proof. Until then, the existence of God is a matter of faith.

Faith may move mountains, but it can’t be grown in a petri dish.

[read full article]

Creationism and the candidates

Transcript of today's show:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee bristled when asked recently if creationism should be taught in public schools. Huckabee, one of 3 candidates who has confessed his disbelief in evolution, now asks why there is such fascination with his beliefs. He expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are. "That's an irrelevant question to ask me - I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
[source: Associated Press]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from an editorial by Daniel Finkelstein in the London Times:

Huckabee contends that it doesn't matter, because he is not intending to insist that schools stop teaching evolution. But that really isn't the point.

The reason that his support for intelligent design matters is that it is ridiculous. Who wants a President of the United States who doesn't accept the basic principles of science, taking refuge instead in a load of mumbo jumbo?

The religious beliefs of a President are a matter of conscience, but intelligent design is not a religious idea. It is, deliberately, put as an alternative scientific theory. But it is, sadly, nonsense.

It is clearly vital that he or she be someone who accepts and understands scientific methods. By rejecting evolution in favour of intelligent design Huckabee illustrates that he does not reach scientific conclusions based on evidence.

This is a serious downside in a President, whatever his other qualities.

from the blog Uncommon Ground:

Huckabee wants to avoid the issue, because “I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” He seems to think that it's irrelevant that his personal beliefs contradict an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. And don't think he can escape by arguing that he's a theistic evolutionist, a la Mitt Romney. He clearly doesn't accept the idea of common descent. He clearly doesn't understand that he shares a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas (and fruit flies and fungus and sunflowers, for that matter). It is dangerous to have someone so resistant to evidence and reason as President of the United States. [read full blog post]

related news story, Huckabee Declines Theology Discussion, published December 7, 2007 by the AP:

Republican presidential candidate and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee says he won't discuss "intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine," such as the role of women in the ministry, because the issues aren't relevant to the presidency.

The former Arkansas governor said that while he's open to discussing the basic pillars of his faith - and praised rival Mitt Romney for opening up in a speech Thursday about his - he won't voice his views on the often-discussed controversies in Southern Baptist denominations.

"I think (discussing faith) is an important part of helping people get to know the candidates," Huckabee said Friday morning after a breakfast fundraiser in Charlotte. "(But) sometimes the questions get a little laborious when they start asking you about intricate, nit-picky things of church doctrine that's probably not all that relevant to being president."

As in his decision not to discuss his views on the creation of the earth, Huckabee passed on a chance Thursday night explain his views on whether women should be able to serve in pastoral leadership roles.

"It's so irrelevant to being president that I wouldn't even get into that," Huckabee said before meeting with about 350 supporters in Greensboro, N.C. "Churches have different views on that and my personal views are completely immaterial as it would relate to being president." [read complete article]

Intelligent Design on trial

Transcript of today's show:

The PBS program NOVA brings the historic Dover trial to light in a two-hour documentary, titled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". The Dover trial exploded in a tiny Pennsylvania town in 2005 when parents sued their school board for introducing intelligent design into the science curriculum. To see the show online, visit pbs.org. And see our stories about the Dover trial at evominute.com.
[source: NOVA/PBS]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

excerpt from Judge Jones' verdict:

TThe evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of intelligent design's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth-grade biology class are referred, Of Pandas and People. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

It is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution. We do not question that many of the leading advocates of intelligent design have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that intelligent design should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.... [more]

from an interview with Phillip Johnson, a key proponent of intelligent design:

What if the Darwinian mechanism doesn't have the creative power claimed for it? Then something else has to be true. It's two sides of the same coin as I look at it, and that's why I've always devoted my energies to making the skeptical case about Darwinism. Others have evidence of a positive nature—irreducible complexity and complex specified information are part of that.

To understand the positive evidence I think we have to realize that Darwin was writing a long time ago. He didn't understand anything about complex specified information or the irreducible complexity of the cell. In Darwin's day it was thought that cells were simply globs of a kind of jelly-like substance, a protoplasm. So it didn't seem to be very difficult to imagine how you could get a blob of some substance like mud at the bottom of a prehistoric pond, lake, or ocean. But since Darwin's day an enormous amount has been learned about the cell.

This is why my colleague Michael Behe's famous book is titled Darwin's Black Box. The point there is that to Darwin the cell was a black box. It did something, but you didn't know how it did it. So the cell was a black box in Darwin's day, and now it's been opened. Thanks to the work of biochemists and molecular biologists since that time, we know that the cell is so enormously complex that it makes a spaceship or a supercomputer look rather low-tech in comparison. So I think the cell is perhaps the biggest hurdle of all for the Darwinists to get over. How do you get the first cell?

It's not just that if they get the cell then everything else will be easy. But it was thought in Darwin's day that the cell was no problem at all. The only problems came after that. How do you get from cells to complex animals and then to apes, and from apes to human beings? That's the story that he told. Now, I don't think that story will hold water when you look for proof rather than just accept it as an inevitable, logical consequence of a naturalistic philosophy that you're starting out with.... [more]

from an interview with Dr. Kenneth Miller, professor of Biology at Brown University:

Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it's tested every day in the field. I can't think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they're right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.

Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it's survived that test of time.

Evolution has great strengths in that it unifies biology and gives us a coherent explanation. Its only weakness is that it hasn't explained everything yet. Evolutionary theory has never been more active in terms of an area of inquiry and an area of scholarship than it is right now. Evolution as an idea has never been more useful than it is right now, because we use evolution everyday to interpret genomes, to develop drugs, to prolong the useful lifetime of antibiotics, to grow genetically modified crops—all these things have components of evolution in them.

If you look at the major scientific societies in the United States and around the world, not a single scientific society has made a statement or claim in support of intelligent design, in support of scientific creationism. In fact, quite the contrary. Every major scientific organization that I'm aware of that has taken a position on this issue has taken their position four-square in favor of evolution. So the notion that evolution is in some sort of crisis is just not true.... [more]



from a news release issued by Discovery Institute:

More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called "Inherit the Wind" that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in "Judgment Day" was corrected by ID proponents long ago.... [more]

South African high schools may soon teach mandatory evolution theory

Transcript of today's show:

In 2008, public and private high schools throughout South Africa will begin teaching evolution. This recent decision has already ignited a tremendous uproar among parents, teachers and religious groups. Those responsible for these new standards say that evolution teaches students to think critically and analytically. Critics say, however, that it may be confusing to some students because of their religious beliefs.
[source: Thabo Mohlala/The Guardian]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Josef de Beer of the University of Johannesburg:

There is an urgent need to train teachers to deal with this complex issue in the classroom. My experience in teaching evolution in a foundation-year program at the University of Pretoria is that many students find evolution problematic because of their religious beliefs. I do not think that all teachers are ready for the challenge to teach evolution in grade 12 life sciences next year.

comment posted at RichardDawkins.net:

As an African, I can vouch for some of the sentiments expressed in the Guardian article. I was born and spent the first two decades of my life in Cameroon, a country with a fast growing Christian fundamentalist population. All my parents and siblings but one would describe themselves as biblical literalists, and thus creationists. I have relations and close Cameroonian friend, who although are in the most rational of professions (doctors, scientists and engineers) are totally unpersuaded by the evidence of evolution largely for religious reasons.

To the best of my memory, evolution was only given a cursory glance in our biology programme in high school. I have two reasons for that; the poor preparedness of the teachers and secondly the dissonance it would have caused to teach a subject that contradicts the basis of fundamentalist Christian ethos. When I last traveled to Cameroon 10 years ago, I was appalled at the rampaging inroads Christian literalism was making into the fabric of the society. My personal impression is that if this is left to continue unchecked, the intellectual fibre of the population may be irreparable damaged. I know these are strong sentiments, but we all know how long it takes to correct societal malaises (think of slavery, prejudices - racial, gender, sexual, etc).

This Christmas I have resolved to give as present to close friends and family the brilliant book by Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God. All I can hope for is that it gets read, since this is a book by a Christian scientist.



from the science blog of Chris Rowan, geologist at the University of Johannesburg:

I'm starting to think that South African schoolchildren would be better off if they weren't taught about evolution; they're about to be caught between the clashing rocks of creationist straw-men, and the treacherous whirlpool of post-modernist baloney, and the chances of them actually coming out the other side with any sort of understanding of science, or evidence-based reasoning, seem rather slim.... [more]



from Claidheamhmor's Blog:

I'm glad that it's being introduced (and a little surprised it isn't being taught already); I'm afraid that opponents are just going to have to deal with the fact that it's science, and the prime underpinning for most of biology. Countries in Europe have also recently been stopping any teaching of Creationism (which is really something that should be taught in Quackery or Philosophy classes).

This quote is daft: "No child would be compelled to “adopt” or “defend the viewpoint or any way subscribe to evolution”. So there could be no reason for parents to take legal action, Vinjevold said." People should not be compelled to adopt the viewpoint of evolution any more than they should adopt the viewpoint of gravity. It's there. Deal with it.... [more]

Florida educators mandate evolution education

Transcript of today's show:

Florida may soon adopt new teaching standards that will require public school students to learn about evolution. These standards will be a step toward improving the state's poorly rated science education. Officials fear that without changes Florida students will be ill-prepared for college and a technology-based workplace. Said one author of the new standards , "If we want to be competitive in the world, we have to do this." The draft standards require in-depth instruction on the subject and clearly state "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."
[source: Orlando Sentinel]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from the opinion page of Florida Today:

These standards -- written by a group of Florida professors and teachers, and based on recommendations of national science groups -- reflect volumes of undeniable evidence underpinning evolutionary concepts.

But it's a quantum leap from the state's abysmally inadequate current standards, which avoid use of the word evolution and which helped earn Florida an F for science teaching in 2005 from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonpartisan organization that researches educational issues.

Religious groups that deny the validity of evolution and want to mix faith-based ideas such as creationism in with science are likely to protest the move.

But the board should approve the frank teaching rules, which are part of a broader revamp to strengthen science education in public schools.

Florida's children need strong science skills to compete for jobs in a global workforce, and evolution is a critical part of that package.

from Mickey Carter, pastor at the Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, FL:

These revisions are a disservice to students. There should be a balance between both intelligent design and evolution. We are denying freedom of ideas, speech and shutting down one side. The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it so we don't just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom. When it's all said and done, folks just don't give God enough credit. Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident. You've got to give some credit to some intelligence.

comment posted on the Florida Citizens for Science blog:

The new science standards will most certainly not denigrate religion, religion is quite capable of doing that to itself without any help from science. Many main stream religions (Jewish Catholic )readily accept evolution within their faith structure. It is mainly a small minority of religious zealots who wish to impose their narrow minded, out dated religious ideologies on the rest of the country. Saying ”God did it” is not science and does not belong in a science class room unless of course we can show scientific evidence that a God was responsible, and we can not.

Signs of the Controversy in Canada

Transcript of today's show:

The evolution-creationism controversy is beginning to brew in Canada. Reports indicate that a growing number of science teachers are bowing to pressure from parents who want creationism or intelligent design taught in public schools. Canadian advocates of evolution theory are considering an offensive to prevent alternative theories from being taught. Meanwhile, some teachers are avoiding the controversy by excluding all theories from their lessons. But as one educator noted, this approach is hardly a solution.
[source: Toronto Star]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from Stuart Laidlaw in the Toronto Star:

The Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University has found that about one-third of teachers report pressure from parents to teach creationism or intelligent design, the theory that God directs the development of life, in the class as an alternative to evolution.

Most respond by teaching neither evolution nor creationism, leaving students with the impression that the two are of equal merit, he says. Others tiptoe around the issue, acknowledging that people of some faiths believe in creationism.

Either way, he says, scientific education in our schools is undermined.

Alters warns that the danger of creationist theories such as intelligent design is that whenever something can't be explained scientifically, it is credited to divine intervention – which he says effectively shuts down further inquiry, the underpinning of good science.

The situation has become such a concern to scientists that an international team of biologists has put together a new journal to help teachers prepare lesson plans on evolution.... [more]

from John Volmers, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Obviously any country that separates Church and State should not be teaching religious myths as being anything other than religious myths. Unfortunately, the flat-earthers who want to drag science back to the stone-age have developed a real skill for nailing themselves to a cross in front of the ever sympathetic "secular" media and making the ludicrous claim that they are being discriminated against.

from Terence Rooney, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Creationism does not belong in the school system as it has no scientific basis; it is merely an expression of religious belief by some Christians and others. The believers are free to expound their idea in a religious setting and in the media but not as a topic of education.


from Michael Henry, letters to the editor, Toronto Star:

Creationism is at best bad science, and at worst dishonest. People who believe in Young Earth Creationism show ignorance of science as well as biblical history. It should not be taught in schools except to discredit it.

Teachers in Britain are suddenly caught in the evolution debate

Transcript of today's show:

The number of British students who believe in creationism is rising sharply. This is partly due to an increased number of Muslim students. Many teachers are uncomfortable with addressing creationism in their science classrooms. Education officials have proposed guidelines that will help teachers understand how to teach the difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief.
[source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss:

The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families. The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins. By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others.

from Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering:

Further discussion of creationism should occur in religious education as it is a belief system, not one based on science. Professor Reiss suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true

from The Department for Children, Schools and Families:

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory.

Europe poised to ban creationism in schools

Transcript of today's show:

The British government has issued a new set of guidelines that prohibit the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in science classes. In a related development, Europe's main human rights body is voting on a similar resolution. The resolution says that attacks on Darwin's theory of evolution are rooted in forms of religious extremism and pose a threat to science and human rights. [source: Reuters/Tom Heneghan]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Comment on this story.

Sound Off: What is being said about this story from around the blogging and opinion world.

from a comment posted at South Korea News Online:

All the fossils in the world stacked up in order is not enough to get through to the fundamentalists' mind. All the scientific studies or data means nothing!

But when questioned about relative 'happenings' these same individuals fold up their tents with narry a word and are not heard from with an answer ever again!

Ask about when something occurred in the bible or the old testament a ready date is available 1200 1000 bc an important time, and 2300 2000 bc another important period. Both containing particular Religious Factual time periods. These were rudimentary time for the civilization of the Jews, in that they were not technologically developed.

Much of the society were cave dwellers and nomads. The gradually became strong enough to fight and conquer the Philistines(the land of Palestine), who had by comparison highly developed cities and technologies. And they had had these for numerous years.

In South America the Native Peoples also had had for thousands of years prior to the earliest biblical accounts of the Jews a highly developed society and a more 'just' Religious Beliefs!

The same is even more true of the Chinese. The Chinese were drilling deep wells and mining salt. And the Biblical accounts have no Knowledge of such things! When asked to explain the creationist fold up their tent and leave!
.... [more]

from Twmshanti at the Guardian UK Blog:

I think the teaching of religion has a valuable place in education but this should be confined to 'religious studies' where ideas such as creationism can be taught in proper context.

Steve Fuller's introduction to the Holloway debate perhaps unwittingly acknowledges this when he says: "...the first point that needs to be conceded, at least to be conceded for the purposes of argument, is that at a sociological level, it's quite clear that evolution is superior to Intelligent Design; in terms of which the way evidence is mobilized in the scientific literature, it is certainly more often mobilized in support of evolution that Intelligent Design."

This is because the scientific method is used.

Steve Fuller (continued from above): "That leaves open the question, of course, about whether the same evidence could be equally used to support Intelligent Design. And this, it seems to me, says something about the actual conceptual states of the two theories that we are talking about here. OK"

No, to the best of my knowledge and after rational analysis of the literature, the same evidence cannot be used to support ID. If anyone can demonstrate that the same evidence for evolution can be used to support ID then I am willing to examine it.

This leads me to the conclusion that, as in my day, religion and science are best taught seperately. It is good that this is recognised by those providing guidelines for educators....[more]

from the Truth in Science web site:

For many years, much of what has been taught in school science lessons about the origin of the living world has been dogmatic and imbalanced. The theory of Darwinian evolution has been presented as scientifically uncontroversial and the only credible explanation of origins….

Pupils should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution).

Few schools have taught this controversy. This is partly because many popular textbooks present Darwinism as the only scientific theory of origins and give little coverage to alternative theories, sometimes misrepresenting them.

We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views.

There is a modern controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution and the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and this has considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications. Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education.
... [more]

The US Department of Education makes a quick come back

Transcript of today's show:

Here is a follow-up to a recent story we aired. After being accused of discriminating against evolutionary biology students by excluding them from a science grant program, the Department of Education quickly back-pedaled. They claimed that the omission was an inadvertent typographic error and immediately issued a revised list. The new list now includes evolutionary biology, which once again, takes its place as a legitimate subfield of science. source: US Department of Education

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
It's been said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Even though the Department of Ed. quickly made a correction, I still suspect a testing of the “creationist waters” with this kind of foolishness. I remain convinced that the omission was intentional, and the Department of Ed tried to sneak it by under the radar. Fortunately, we do have functional radar systems, paying attention to potential shenanigans. Gotta watch these guys. This is an Administration, after all, that saw fit to arm the hero of Desert Storm with hand-drawn representations of Iraqi WMD installations to the United Nations to make the case for war. Why the drawings when satellite surveillance is so good I can see my house and mailbox in Weather.com's satellite imagery?

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This speculative blame of the Department of Education' motives in this matter is as politically motivated as the purported wrongdoing itself. I sense a degree of desperation on the part of those who are so eager to exaggerate and possibly, completely fabricate, the intentions of the Department and administration. The error has been corrected, promptly and with grace. Let us be appreciative and let lie the need to blame.

Internet Petitions Oppose the Creation Museum

Transcript of today's show:

Petitions asking educators to voice their opposition to evangelical Ken Ham’s Creation Museum have begun to circulate on the Internet. Our offices received one from an organization called Defending the Constitution. The petition calls the museum the most recent example of the religious right’s war on science education -- whether in the form of anti-evolution stickers in textbooks or the promotion of intelligent design in the classroom. [source: Defcon Blog]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Educators can sign the online petition here. If you're not an educator, you can sign this petition. By doing so, you are voicing your stand against religion's war on science. If you are concerned about the integrity of science education in our country, I urge you to take part in this small bit of advocacy. Every voice counts.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
As Ken Ham himself has noted, scientists and atheists are clearly and profoundly threatened by the Creation Museum. Perhaps one reason is the fact that the Evangelical Community spared no expense at making the exhibits as realistic as possible. They may also fear the very dramatic and public message that there is a compelling alternative to Darwinism.

Another policy reversal in Kansas

Transcript of today's show:

Kansas has repealed public-school science guidelines that questioned the theory of evolution and brought the state international ridicule, but educators are not sure how long it will be before the decision is overturned. The State Board of Education approved new, evolution-friendly science standards with a 6-4 vote last month. Other states have been embroiled in legal debates over the issue, but none has inspired comedians' jokes like the long-running and wildly vacillating battle in Kansas. [source: John Hanna/Associated Press]


Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
Kansas has been at this for years. We will be naïve to believe that this issue has come to some sort of resolution. Those who support teaching creationism and Intelligent Design to Kansas schoolkids have shown no signs of throwing in the towel. Still, of course I’m pleased at this development! For the time being, the side of sanity has won this epic battle. If nothing else, it puts off into the future the next reversal, a policy choice of grand stupidity such as we saw in Kansas’ last round of battle in the State Board of Ed.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Great victories are often not won in a single engagement, nor in neat and tidy packages. Those who do not believe in the supremacy of Darwin’s theories are tenacious, fearless, and afire with their convictions. I do not see this policy decision as a defeat, but as a small event in a long journey toward a righteous goal.