dear all fyi, we know that there're creation vs evolution theory. however a darwin's theory abt evolution has been a debate for century. all scientists in the world re still argue and dont have a common theory abt how is the world created. The way we think and teach about the origins of life should be reevaluated in light of the lack of evidence supporting the neo-Darwinian Evolution Model, and the increasing evidence in support of Intelligent Design.
OUTLINE: I. Defining the terms used in the discussion of creation versus evolution is essential to understanding the issues. A. Evolution can mean change over time. B. Evolution can mean the special theory of evolution (microevolution). C. Evolution can mean the general theory of evolution (macroevolution) which is very different from microevolution. D. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron. E. Science can study the created as well as the evolved. F. Creation and evolution is not religion versus science, but is really the science of one religion versus the science of another religion. G. Intelligent design originates in a mind. II. Biochemistry, a world of ever-increasing complexity. A. Behe uses the flagellum to introduce the concept of "irreducible complexity." B. When an organism is irreducibly complex it cannot have evolved. C. For evolution to be true, life must have evolved from non-life. D. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field of abiogenesis either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. III. For neo-Darwinian evolution to be true, organisms must have gradually developed over time, and should appear in the fossil record. A. The fossil record does not show a pervasive pattern of gradualism. B. The fossil record now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic than originally thought. IV. Thaxton points out that the discovery of the DNA molecule has given rise to huge advances in our understanding of molecular biology. A. The DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the cell. B. Information theory is the science of message transmission. C. DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity. D. DNA has opened the possibility of seeing true design in the universe. The sciences of astronomy, biology, biochemistry, and paleontology have made huge advancements in the last 30 years. the Big Bang theory points to a definite beginning to the universe. The disciplines of genetics, microbiology, and biochemistry have found that the building blocks of life are far more complex than were ever imagined. Paleontology has discovered that some fossil evidences, once thought to be supportive of Darwin's theory of evolution, were actually hoaxes or simply misclassified, and it has been frustrated in its attempt to find transitional fossils that support gradual evolution. These discoveries, along with many others, have spawned a new scientific movement within the origins of life research community. The intelligent design movement is challenging the major presupposition of current biological science, which is that all life evolved through a gradual natural process, from non-living matter to simple microorganisms, and eventually to man. Evolution is a term referring to completely different processes depending on the context in which it is used. It is often used to mean change over time. By this general definition theology evolves, cities evolve, and life itself evolves. This kind of evolution is not in dispute, and showing these kinds of changes does nothing to prove Darwinian evolution. Evolution is also used to mean the special theory of evolution or "microevolution." Microevolution refers to small changes taking place in nature over time, which produce new characteristics. These are adaptive changes that work through natural selection, and allow the organism to survive and reproduce. Some examples of microevolution would be changes in the beaks of finches, changes in the coloring of peppered moths, or changes in a bacteria's ability to resist antibiotics. Microevolution has been substantiated scientifically, it is not in conflict with the creation accounts, and like change over time, it is not in dispute. Finally, the general theory of evolution, or "macroevolution," is an extrapolation of the special theory of evolution and is used to explain the origins of all life on earth. Macroevolution is the theory that asserts the common ancestry of all living things; that one species can evolve from another, and that all life originated from a pre-biotic soup. Evidence in support of microevolution (the special theory) such as the Galopagos finches or the peppered moths, cannot be used in support of macroevolution (the general theory) because they are not the same thing. One final use of the term evolution is in the context of theistic evolution. Theistic evolution assumes that the basic conclusions of Darwin are sound, but attempts to bring God into the picture as the designer of the process. Theologian and apologist Greg Koukl is the founder of Stand to Reason, an organization that teaches Christians to think more clearly about their faith. Koukl calls the theory of theistic evolution an oxymoron, because it essentially amounts to design by chance, and he observes that the point of Darwin's entire exercise was to find a non-theistic answer to the issue of origins. Science is based on the observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order. True science is the search for truth, regardless of where the search leads. Most of the scientific community since Darwin has based its origins research on the general evolution model (more recently refined and termed the neo-Darwinian model) as its starting framework, and so it becomes necessary to qualify scientific origins research that is not based on this model, hence the term creation science. Phillip Johnson, author of several popular books refuting neo-Darwinian evolution, concedes that creation scientists are biased by their pre-commitment to the creation model, but he argues that evolutionists are obviously biased as well. The National Academy of Sciences tells us that reliance upon naturalistic explanations is the most basic characteristic of science. This seems to imply that scientists somehow know that a creator played no part in the creation of the world and its forms of life. The 1995 official position statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators in their official position statement, "The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments". This statement sounds more like naturalistic philosophy than empirical science. And so it becomes necessary to have a distinction based on the starting framework of origins research. Creation science is science based on the creation model as its starting framework, in much the same way as the majority of modern origins science is based on the neo-Darwinian evolution model. Ken Ham, the noted defender of creation science in debates around the world, points out in his book, The Genesis Solution, that, "In reality, the controversy between scientific creationism and evolution is not religion versus science. It is really the science of one religion versus the science of another religion". Henry Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, writes in his book, What is Creation Science, "Both the Creation Model and the Evolution Model are, at least potentially, true explanations of the scientific data related to origins, and so should be continually compared and evaluated in scientific studies related to origins". The term design refers to an intended arrangement of parts, and is evident when a number of separate interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond what the individual components alone could do. The inference to design can be made with a high degree of confidence even when the designer is very remote. Something has been intelligently designed when it is the end product of a thoughtful process that had that product in mind. In other words, intelligent design originates in a mind. In 1996, Dr. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University (and an evolutionist) published a book challenging neo-Darwinian evolution entitled Darwin's Black Box. To Darwin, and the other scientists of his time, the cell was a Black Box due to the limits of 19th century microscopy. Darwin's Black Box has been steadily explored with the advancements in microscope technology, and many of the organisms making up the inner workings of cells have been revealed. This has taken the search for how life works into the realm of biochemistry, a world of ever-increasing complexity. Behe uses the flagellum to introduce the concept of "irreducible complexity." If a structure is so complex that all of its parts must be present and functioning for the structure itself to function, then it is said to be irreducibly complex. The flagellum is a corkscrew-shaped, hair-like appendage attached to the cell surface. It acts like a propeller, and allows the cell to swim. The most complex aspect of the flagellum is that it is connected to, and rotated by, a tiny motor made of different kinds of protein. Working much like a miniature electric motor, the flagellum contains a rod, which acts like the drive shaft; a hook, which acts like the universal joint; L and P rings, which act like bushings and bearings; S and M rings, which act like the rotor, and the C ring and stud, which acts like the stator. The flagellar filament (acting as the propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell membrane. Because all the parts of a bacterial flagellum must have been present from the start in order to function at all, it is irreducibly complex. Dr. Dudley Eirich, a microbiologist, and a former theistic evolutionist, who became convinced of the fallacy of the evolutionary theory, explains why the neo-Darwinian evolution model has problems explaining how an irreducibly complex organism, like the flagellum, could evolve. He states that, "According to evolutionary theory, any component, which doesn't offer an advantage to an organism, i.e. doesn't function, will be lost or discarded. How such a structure [as the flagellum] could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by classical Darwinian evolution is an insurmountable obstacle to evolutionists". Even Darwin himself writes in his book Origin of Species, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Darwin, and the other brilliant scientists of his day, thought that once science had the technology to observe the inner workings of cells, they would discover them to be very simple. Instead they have proven to be irreducibly complex. For evolution to be true, life must have evolved from non-life. This theoretical process is known as abiogenesis. Life forms are distinct from inanimate matter because they grow, they metabolize, they react to stimuli, and they reproduce. Evolutionists are convinced that abiogenesis happened, but science has been frustrated it its attempt to account for this process. This statement from Harold P. Klien, who was the chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee reviewing origins of life research, captures the frustration, "The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible to imagine how it [abiogenesis] happened Even if scientists do create something with lifelike properties in the laboratory, they must still wonder: Is that how it happened in the first place? ". Further research and discovery in this area has only served to complicate things. As the sciences of biochemistry and genetics develop, the problem of abiogenesis has become that much more intractable. In July of 1999 the international conference of origin-of-life scientists met in San Diego, CA. The mood observed by two of the participants was described as "Grim, full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation" . One of the foremost experts in this area is the highly respected biochemist Klause Dose, who summed up the situation this way: More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance . Proving neo-Darwinian evolution to be true also requires proving that organisms gradually developed over time. If evolution were true, we would see a fossil record full of gradual transitions. Instead we see sudden appearances of life forms, such as in the Cambrian layer, and then large gaps until the next appearances. Evidence of gradualism between phyla (a line of descent) classes and even orders of life forms is either non-existent or is much disputed. The fossil record does not show the expected pervasive pattern of gradualism. The distinguished evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, a professor at Harvard who also performed extensive fieldwork for the American Museum of Natural History, acknowledged this fact decades ago and described the situation in his book, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, where he points out that the lack of gradualism in the fossil record is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals. The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already had the basic ordinal characteristics, and in no case is a continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed. This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, and of the major animal phyla, and it is also appears to be true of analogous categories of plants. Charles Darwin himself writes that, " The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory" (292). Darwin must have hoped that paleontologists would one day vindicate his theory with findings in the fossil record, but that has clearly not been the case. There have been millions of individuals of millions of species over millions of years. If evolution is true this should have produced billions of transitional forms. Paleontology has simply not produced the fossil record to support evolution, and has even found evidence that refutes some of the classic examples of the theory. Renowned evolutionary paleontologist Dr. David Raup stated it this way: We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information--what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. Charles Thaxton is co-author of the best-selling college-level text on chemical evolution, The Mystery of Life's Origin and The Soul of Science (1994, Crossway). He is a fellow of the American Institute of Chemists and a recent recipient of the Templeton Foundation science-religion teaching grant. Thaxton points out that the discovery of the DNA molecule has given rise to huge advances in our understanding of molecular biology, and the processes of reproduction and self-replication. Although DNA is not alive itself, it is usually regarded as the sine qua non of life, the identifying mark of any living system. The DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the cell. The cell is complex, using many DNA instructions to control its many functions. The amount of information in the DNA of even the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, is incredibly vast. According to Thaxton, "It is greater than the information contained in all the books in any of the world's largest libraries". The DNA molecule is exquisitely complex, and extremely precise; the 'letters' of the code must be in a very exact sequence. If they are at all out of order they become like a computer program with a syntax error--the cell is given garbled instructions from its genetic code as a result. Analogous to the 26 letters of our English alphabet, DNA uses 4 genetic letters to transmit and store communications in the cell. Information theory is the science of message transmission developed by Claude Shannon and other engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in the late 1940s. It provides a mathematical means of measuring information. Information theory applies to any symbol system, regardless of the elements of that system. The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally well to human language, Morse code, and the genetic code. By applying the information theory to biology we can see that a structural identity exits between the DNA code and a written language. H.P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical". It is our uniform experience that it takes an intelligent agent to generate information, codes, or messages. As a result, it is reasonable to infer that an intelligent agent caused the original DNA codes. DNA and written language both exhibit the property of specified complexity. Since we know an intelligent cause produces written language, it is legitimate to pose that an intelligent cause is the source of DNA. If we define the DNA code as a message, then to claim that DNA arose by material forces is to say that information can arise by material forces. However, the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. The material base could not have anything to do with the message's origin. The message transcends chemistry and physics in much the same way as the written word transcends the media of paper and ink. Thaxton concludes his paper on the importance of DNA in the study of life's origins with this observation: Darwin convinced many of the leading intellectuals in his time that design in the world is only apparent, that it is the result of natural causes. Through the discovery of DNA, however, the situation has taken a dramatic turn, though few have recognized its significance. The elucidation of DNA and unraveling the secrets of the genetic code have opened again the possibility of seeing true design in the universe. The last 30 years of intense research in support of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution has produced more questions and problems for the theory than answers, while at the same time much of this research points in the direction of intelligent design. Biochemistry has so far failed to demonstrate that life evolved from non-life; if science does not know how abiogenesis happened, it cannot know that it did. Paleontologists have not found the extensive support for transitional forms we would expect to see in the fossil record if macroevolution were true. In short, macroevolution has not been proven and remains a theory. We cannot continue to teach macroevolution as the only scientific explanation we have for life's origins. The empirical scientific evidence of the origins of life should be taught in our schools along with the significant and viable models that the evidence supports. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, not proven fact, and it should be taught alongside the scientific theories of creation and intelligent design. Works Cited Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1988. Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1996. Darwin, Charles. Origin of Species. (original 1872) 6th Edition, New York: New York University Press, 1988. Dose, Klaus. "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers." Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 1998: 348. Erich, Dudley. "The Amazing Cell." Answers in Genesis, Internet: www.answersingenesis.org/ (Retrieved 11/08/2000) Fazale R. Rana, and Hugh Ross. "Life From The Heavens? Not This Way." Facts for Faith, Quarter 1, 2000. Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2nd edition, 1993.---. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1997. Ham, Kenneth. The Genesis Solution. Santee, CA: Master Books, 1988. Klein, Harold P. "In the Beginning." Scientific American February 1991: 120. Koukl, Gregory. "Why I'm Not an Evolutionist." Stand to Reason San Padro, CA: 1999. Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Morris, Henry M. What is Creation Science. El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987. Raup, David. "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology." Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50:1. Simpson, George G. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944. Thaxton, Charles B. "DNA, Design, and the Origins of Life." Origins, Internet: www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html (Retrieved 11/08/2000) Yockey, Hubert P. "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory." Journal of Theoretical Biology 91, 13 (1981): ----- Original Message ---- From: mediacare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: zamanku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ppiindia@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 7:17:45 PM Subject: [ppiindia] Darwinism Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution. Is Evolution Arkansas's "Hidden" Curriculum by Jason Wiles Originally published in RNCSE 25 (1-2): 32-36. The version on the web might differ slightly from the print publication. As I was working on a proposal for a project at the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montréal, I received an e-mail from an old friend back in Arkansas, where I was raised, whom I had known since high school. She was concerned about a problem her father was having at work. "Bob" is a geologist and a teacher at a science education institution that services several Arkansas public school districts. My friend did not know the details of Bob's problem, only that it had to do with evolution. This was enough to arouse my interest, so I invited Bob to tell me about what was going on. He responded with an e-mail describing the scenario. Teachers at his facility are forbidden to use the "e-word" with the kids. They are permitted to use the word "adaptation" but only to refer to a current characteristic of organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term "natural selection". Bob fears, and I agree with him, that not being able to use evolutionary terms and ideas to answer his students' questions will lead to reinforcement of their misconceptions. But Bob's personal issue is more specific, and the prohibition more insidious. In his words, "I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these Ordovician rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old." As a person with a geology background, Bob found this restriction a bit hard to justify, especially since the new Arkansas educational benchmarks for 5th grade include introduction of the concept of the 4.5-billion- year age of the earth. Bob's facility is supposed to be meeting or exceeding those benchmarks. The explanation that had been given to Bob by his supervisors was that their science facility is in a delicate position and must avoid irritating religionists who may have their fingers on the purse strings of various school districts. Apparently his supervisors feared that teachers or parents might be offended if Bob taught their children about the age of rocks and that it would result in another school district pulling out of their program. He closed his explanatory message with these lines: So my situation here is tenuous. I am under censure for mentioning numbers . I find that my "fire" for this place is fading if we're going to dissemble about such a basic factor of modern science. I mean ... the Scopes trial was how long ago now??? I thought we had fought this battle ... and still it goes on. I immediately referred Bob to the people at the NCSE. He wrote to them explaining the situation, and they responded with excellent advice and support. Bob was able to use their suggestions along with some of the position statements found in the NCSE's Voices for Evolution in defense of his continued push to teach the science he felt he was obligated to present to his students, but his supervisors remained firm in their policy of steering clear of specifically mentioning evolution or "deep time" chronology. I was going to be in Arkansas in December anyway, so I decided to investigate Bob's issue in person. He was happy for the support, but even more excited to show me around the facility. Bob is infectiously enthusiastic about nature and science education. He is just the kind of person we want to see working with students in this type of setting. He had arranged for me to meet with the directors of the facility, but he wanted to give me a guided tour of the place first. Self-censorship in defense of science? I would like to describe the grounds of the facility in more detail, but I must honor the request of all parties involved to not be identified. It was, however, a beautiful setting, and the students, 5th graders that day, seemed more engaged in their learning than most I had ever seen. To be sure, the facility does a fantastic job of teaching science, but I was there to find out about what it was not teaching. Bob and I toured the grounds for quite some time, including a hike to a new cave he had recently discovered nearby, and when we returned I was shown to my interview with the program director and executive director. Both of the directors welcomed me warmly and were very forthcoming in their answers to my questions. They were, however, quite firm in their insistence that they and their facility be kept strictly anonymous if I was to write this story up. We talked for over an hour about the site's mission, their classes, and Bob's situation specifically. Both directors agreed that "in a perfect world" they could, and would, teach evolution and deep time. However, back in the real world, they defended their stance on the prohibition of the "e-word", reasoning that it would take too long to teach the concept of evolution effectively (especially if they had to defuse any objections) and expressing concern for the well-being of their facility. Their program depends upon public support and continued patronage of the region's school districts, which they felt could be threatened by any political blowback from an unwanted evolutionary controversy. With regard to Bob's geologic time scale issue, the program director likened it to a game of Russian roulette. He admitted that probably very few students would have a real problem with a discussion about time on the order of millions of years, but that it might only take one child's parents to cause major problems. He spun a scenario of a student's returning home with stories beginning with "Millions of years ago ." that could set a fundamentalist parent on a veritable witch hunt, first gathering support of like-minded parents and then showing up at school-board meetings until the district pulled out of the science program to avoid conflict. He added that this might cause a ripple effect on other districts following suit, leading to the demise of the program. Essentially, they are not allowing Bob to teach a certain set of scientific data in order to protect their ability to provide students the good science curriculum they do teach. The directors are not alone in their opinion that discussions of deep time and the "e-word" could be detrimental to the program's existence. They have polled teachers in the districts they serve and have heard from them more than enough times that teaching evolution would be "political suicide". Bob's last communication indicated that he had signed up with NCSE and was leaning towards the "grin and bear it" option, which, given his position and the position of the institution, may be the best option. I was a bit disheartened by the situation, but still impressed with all the good that is going on at Bob's facility. I was also curious about the climate regarding evolution in other educational facilities in the state, so, I decided to ask some questions where I could. The first place I happened to find, purely by accident, was a privately run science museum for kids. As with Bob's facility, the museum requested not to be referred to by name. I was only there for a short time, but I'm not quite sure what to make of what happened there. I looked around the museum and found a few biological exhibits, but nothing dealing with evolution. I introduced myself to one of the museum's employees as a science educator (I am indeed a science educator) and asked her if they had any exhibits on evolution. She said that they used to at one time, but that several parents - some of whom home-schooled their children; some of whom are associated with Christian schools - had been offended by the exhibit and complained. They had said either that they would not be back until it was removed or that they would not be using that part of the museum if they returned. "It was right over there," she said, pointing to an area that was being used at that time for a kind of holiday display. Because I had happened upon the place by accident, I had not made room in my schedule for a longer exploratory visit. I did call the museum at a later date to find out more about the removal of the evolution exhibit. After calling several times and leaving a few messages, I finally reached someone who explained that the exhibit had not been removed due to complaints, although people had in fact objected to the display. Rather, it had been taken down to make room for their merger with another science education institution. I am not speculating here, only reporting information that I was given, but when I asked when the newly partnered institution planned on moving in, I was told that the grant for the new space had not yet been written. It could be quite some time. Later that evening, I had a visit with the coordinator of gifted and talented (GT) education at one of Arkansas's larger public school districts. As before, she has requested that she and her school system be kept anonymous, so I will call her "Susan". Susan told me about a situation she had been trying to decide how to deal with. She had overheard a teacher explaining the "balanced treatment" given to creationism in her classroom. This was not just any classroom, but an Advanced Placement Biology classroom. This was important to Susan, not only because of the subject and level of the class, but also because it fell under her supervision as part of the GT program. Was she obliged to do something about this? She knew quite well that the "balanced treatment" being taught had been found by a federal court to violate the Constitution' s Establishment Clause - perhaps there is no greater irony than that two of the most significant cases decided by federal courts against teaching creationism were Epperson v Arkansas and McLean v Arkansas Board of Education. She is quite knowledgeable, and her husband is a lawyer who has written about the Edwards v Aguillard evolution case. She also knew that this was unsound pedagogy, but dealing with the issue is not easy in Arkansas. Susan sincerely wanted to do something about it, but in the end, she had decided to let it go. Her reasoning was that this particular teacher is probably in her final year of service. To Susan, making an issue out of this just was not worth the strife it would have caused in the school and in the community when it would soon be taken care via retirement. As the discussion progressed that evening, I learned that omission was the method of dealing with evolution in another of Arkansas's largest, most quickly growing, and wealthiest school districts - an omission that is apparently strongly suggested by the administration. I decided to check on this, but made little progress, receiving the cold shoulder from the administration and the science department at that school. However, I spoke with a person who works for a private science education facility that does contract work for this district: "Helen" - she, like the other people I had visited, requested that she and her employers not be identified. I asked Helen about her experiences with the district's teachers. Her story was that in preparation for teaching the students from that district, she had asked some of the teachers how they approached the state benchmarks for those items dealing with evolution. She said, "Oh, I later got in trouble for even asking," but went on to describe their answers. Most teachers said that they did not know enough about evolution to teach it themselves, but one of them, after looking around to make sure they were safely out of anyone's earshot, explained that the teachers are told by school administrators that it would be "good for their careers" not to mention such topics in their classes. Inadequate science education How often does this kind of thing happen? How many teachers are deleting the most fundamental principle of the biological sciences from their classes due to school and community pressure or due to lack of knowledge? How many are disregarding Supreme Court decisions and state curriculum guidelines? These are good questions, and I have been given relevant data from a person currently working in Arkansas. I was introduced to this person, who has clearly expressed his wishes to be kept anonymous (are you noticing a pattern here?), through the NCSE. I will call this science educator "Randy". When I began looking into Arkansas's evolution education situation, the NCSE sent me Randy's contact information. Randy runs professional development science education workshops for public school teachers. He's been doing it for a while now, and he has been taking information on the teachers in his workshops via a survey. He had a bit of data that he was not sure what do with while maintaining his anonymity, but he shared it with me. He later posted the same results on an e-mail list-serve for people interested in evolution education in Arkansas, but this is the way it was reported to me. According to his survey, about 20% are trying to teach evolution and think they are doing a good job; 10% are teaching creationism, even though during the workshop he discusses the legally shaky ground on which they stand. Another 20% attempt to teach something but feel they just do not understand evolution. The remaining 50% avoid it because of community pressure. On the list-serve Randy reported that the latter 50% do not cover evolution because they felt intimidated, saw no need to teach it, or might lose their jobs. Apparently, by their own description of their classroom practices, 80% of these teachers are not adequately teaching evolutionary science. Remember that these are just the teachers who are in a professional development workshop in science education! What is more disturbing is what Randy went on to say about the aftermath of these workshops. "After one of my workshops at an [state] education cooperative, it was asked that I not come back because I spent too much time on evolution. One of the teachers sent a letter to the governor stating that I was mandating that teachers had to teach evolution, and that I have to be an atheist, and would he do something." Of course the dichotomy of "you're either an anti-evolutionist or you're an atheist" is a false one. Many scientists who understand and accept evolution are also quite religious, and many people of faith also understand and accept evolution. But here is a public school teacher appealing to the governor to "do something" about this guy teaching us to teach evolution. Given that evolutionary science is prescribed in the state curriculum guidelines, and given that two of the most important legal cases regarding evolution education originated in Arkansas and Edwards v Aguillard originated in Louisiana directly to the south (all of these cases resulted in support of evolution education and restriction of creationist teachings in public schools), how exactly would we expect the governor to respond? I am not sure how or even whether Governor Mike Huckabee responded to this letter, but I have seen him respond to concerned Arkansas high-school students regarding evolution in the schools on television. The Arkansas Educational Television Network produces a program called "Arkansans Ask" on which the state's citizens confront the governor about various issues affecting the region. I've seen two episodes on which students have expressed their frustration about the lack of evolution education in their public schools. These students obviously care about their science education, and for two years running Huckabee has responded to them by advocating that creationism be taught in their schools. Here is an excerpt from one of these broadcasts, from July 2004: Student: Many schools in Arkansas are failing to teach students about evolution according to the educational standards of our state. Since it is against these standards to teach creationism, how would you go about helping our state educate students more sufficiently for this? Huckabee: Are you saying some students are not getting exposure to the various theories of creation? Student (stunned): No, of evol . well, of evolution specifically. It's a biological study that should be educated [taught], but is generally not. Moderator: Schools are dodging Darwinism? Is that what you . ? Student: Yes. Huckabee: I'm not familiar that they're dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that's why it's called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I'd be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that's held by people. But it's not the only view that's held. And any time you teach one thing as that it's the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it. Governor Huckabee's answer has several problems and is laced with some very important misconceptions about science. Perhaps the most insidious problem with his response is that it plays on one of the most basic of American values: Huckabee appeals to our sense of democracy and free expression. But several court decisions have concluded that fairness and free expression are not violated when public school teachers are required to teach the approved curriculum. These decisions recognized that teaching creationism is little more than thinly veiled religious advocacy and violates the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, Huckabee claimed not to be aware of the omission of evolution from Arkansan classrooms. From my limited visit, it is clear that this omission is widespread and no secret; but it is even harder to understand the governor's apparent ignorance about the situation in July 2004, when another student called in with similar concerns almost exactly one year earlier on the July 2003 broadcast of "Arkansans Ask": Student: Goal 2.04 of the Biology Benchmark Goals published by the Arkansas Department of Education in May of 2002 indicates that students should examine the development of the theory of biological evolution. Yet many students in Arkansas that I have met . have not been exposed to this idea. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the state in mandating the curriculum of a given course? Huckabee: I think that the state ought to give students exposure to all points of view. And I would hope that that would be all points of view and not only evolution. I think that they also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism . . The governor goes on for a bit and finishes his sentiment, but the moderator keeps the conversation going: Moderator (to student): You've encountered a number of students who have not received evolutionary biology? Student: Yes, I've found that quite a few people's high schools simply prefer to ignore the topic. I think that they're a bit afraid of the controversy. Huckabee: I think it's something kids ought to be exposed to. I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally. But that does not mean that I'm afraid that somebody might find out what it is . Sisyphean Challenges How are teachers like "Bob", administrators like "Susan", and teacher trainers like "Randy" supposed to ensure proper science education regarding evolution in accordance with state standards and within the bounds of case law and the Constitution if politicians like Huckabee consistently support and advocate the teaching of non-science and pseudoscience that flies in the face of sound pedagogy and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? It is quite telling that none of the people I spoke with were willing to be identified or to allow me to reveal their respective institutions. In the case of "Bob" and his facility's directors, they were concerned about criticism from both sides of the issue. They did not want to lose students by offending fundamentalists or lose credibility in the eyes of the scientific community for omitting evolution. "Susan" has been trying to avoid a rift in her district, so identifying her school is out of the question. "Randy" believes that much of the good that he does is at least partly because of his "behind- the-scenes" activity and that he "may do the cause more good by not standing out." Some people might assume that the evolution education problems of Arkansas and its governor end at its border. In fact they do not, but I think that we seldom realize the wider influence our local politicians might have. For instance, the Educational Commission of the States is an important and powerful organization that shapes educational policy in all 50 states. Forty state governors have served as the chair of the ECS, and the current chair is - you guessed it -Governor Huckabee of Arkansas. Because anti-evolutionists have been quite successful in placing members of their ranks and sympathizers in local legislatures and school boards, it is imperative that we point out the danger that these people pose to adequate science education. Although each school, each museum, or each science center may seem to be an isolated case, answering to - and, perhaps trying to keep peace with - its local constituency, the larger view shows that evolution is being squeezed out of education systematically and broadly. Anti-evolutionists have been successful by keeping the struggle focused on the local level and obscuring the larger agenda, but the educational fallout is widespread ignorance of the tools and methods of the sciences for generations to come. The scientific literacy of our future leaders may very well depend on it. Author's Address Jason Wiles Evolution Education Research Centre McGill University 3700 McTavish Street Montréal PQ Canada H3A 1Y2 jason.wiles@ mcgill.ca http://www.ncseweb. org/resources/ rncse_content/ vol25/8118_ is_evolution_ arkansas39s_ h_12_30_1899. asp mediacare http://www.mediacar e.biz [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Reading only, http://ppi-india.blogspot.com 4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
