The fossil record strongly supports evolution
Courtesy Mark RyanEducators and students to our south (Iowa –not Mexico) are up in arms about a bill in committee in the Iowa legislature that they say is just another wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing attempt from anti-evolutionists to inject creationism into school curricula.

House File 183, aka the “Evolution Academic Freedom Act” would allow educators in public elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools to teach “the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution” without fear of dismissal, discrimination or being disciplined. But what exactly the full range of scientific views is, they don't say. That's because evolution is by far the best scientific explanation of biological life on Earth that we have at this time.

This attempt to open the way for getting non-scientific views about evolution into the schools is nothing new. The same tactic has been tried recently in other states, and all but one failed. The unfortunate exception was a bill in Louisiana which governor Bobby Jindal, a creationism supporter, recently signed into law.

Opposition to the Iowa legislation is being organized across the state.

“The bill sounds good in its language, but the reality is 99 percent of scientists believe in evolution,” said Hector Avalos, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Iowa State University. “It is all about Teach the Controversy strategy — the idea it’s fair to teach both sides.”

Fifty-six professors from across Iowa and more than 220 other people have signed an Iowa faculty petition which calls for the legislature to reject HF 183.

“The premise of the petition is that this [legislation] is ridiculous. Let’s stop it here,” said John Logsdon, a University of Iowa associate professor of evolutionary molecular genetics. “It is teaching something that is not science cloaked in an academic freedom issue.”

Opponents say the wording in the bill smacks of the propaganda disseminated by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based purveyor of so-called Intelligent Design (creationism all dressed up as science and looking for love). In 2005, a court ruling ( Kitzmiller v. Dover) in Pennsylvania concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and could not “uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

Another favorite creationist tactic is to create controversy where there is none. For example, HF 183 states “instructors have experienced or feared discipline, discrimination, or other adverse consequences as a result of presenting the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution.” But in reality state education departments have found no such cases of discrimination nor have sponsors of the bill provided any.

HF 183 is supported mainly by conservative religious groups and not from any legitimate scientific or educational organizations. The bill’s sponsor is Rod Roberts, a five-term representative, and ordained minister who also works as Development Director for Christian Churches-Church of Christ in Iowa.

Both the Iowa State Education Association and the Iowa Department of Education oppose the bill.

LINKS
National Science Teachers Association evolution resources
Uwire story
National Center for Science Education story

Tags : teaching evolution, intelligent design, evolution, creationism

read more... | add a comment | share

Evolution: Under attack again.
Courtesy Mark RyanDespite recent defeats in the courts, opponents of evolution continue to resort to some of their old tricks, namely attempting to add controversy to the theory where there really is none. It’s an old tactic used by the creationism movement since before the Scopes trial in the 1920’s.

Fortunately, not everyone is falling for it, and progress in the fight is being made. Last week in Texas, the state school board there eliminated restoration of a long-standing rule requiring high school science teachers to teach both “the weaknesses and strengths” of evolution to their pupils. This is good news for evolution, which despite some efforts to discredit it is a strong and well-documented scientific theory with - to date - no viable scientific alternatives.

Many people in Texas, including 800 scientists who signed a petition
against the wording’s inclusion, saw the rule as an attack against a well-founded scientific theory that would open the door for creationism to be taught in the public schools. The vote to restore the rule failed by a narrow 7-7 tie.

"Its removal is a huge step forward," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, Scott leads the fight for teaching evolution in schools, and was present at the board meetings last week in Austin.

Proponents of the “weakness” language tried to make the best of its defeat by pointing to other amendments passed by the board later in the day. The creationist faction again hoped to stir up controversy where there was none by tacking on language that added doubt and debate to such subjects as transitional fossils and common descent, both of which have been well-documented in the fossil record and scientific literature. Hopefully, the additional amendments can be removed when the board meets to finalize the draft text in late March.

Next door, in Louisiana, the legislature enacted a new law for the state Board of Education to “assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.” The language hints that it covers many scientific theories, but pointedly specifies evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Known as the Science Education Act, the measure was signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal - a creationism supporter - last October.

Another state over, in Mississippi, new legislation introduced by representative Gary Chism uses a larger hammer to pound his anti-evolution point home. It would require textbooks that mention evolution to carry a 200-word disclaimer about the theory being controversial. Here’s some of the text:

"Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations."

It also states:

"The word ‘theory’ has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles,” the opening paragraph of the bill states.”

(Of course, Chism fails to point out which meaning is actually being used.)

"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory,"

Again, it’s the same old “add controversy where none exists” tactic. Presently, the bill is heading through two committees, and it’d be a shame if such an anti-science law gets passed, because it will only be detrimental to the development of any students who want to make science their career choice.

Back in 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky titled an essay “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.”

I think he hit the nail right on the head.

LINKS
21st Century Science Coalition
”Eroding Evolution” in Louisiana at NCSE website
Mississippi legislation in Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Creationism defeated in Texas

Tags : Texas, science education, Mississippi, Louisiana, evolution, creationism

read more... | add a comment | share

* Yes
* No
* I don't know (comment)

Charles Darwin, photographed by Julia Margaret Cameron, 1868
Courtesy Julia Margaret CameronI believe I have mentioned this film before - but have you ever seen the documentary "Flock of Dodo's"? It is a well made (imho) film that creatively and sometimes humorously, discusses the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. The thing that I find most interesting about this film is that it shows something that I think is important. While I may think people who support intelligent design or creationism are wrong, many scientists who argue with them act like uppity jerks. Its not likely a debate one side is going to "win" but we can all at least accept that and be civil.

Now, if you want to be ready to argue for evolution, Scientific American has put together a nice little web feature that covers the topics of creationism in the classroom, a state by state breakdown of the creationism in schools controversy, 15 answers to creationist nonsense (again, could be a bit less harsh in the language here) and a discussion about how scientists ought to approach religion and its followers.

Tags : religion, creationism, evolution, Charles Darwin, science

read more... | add a comment | share

Further proof of something. Photo by Mark Ryan

Please contact us if you have questions about the rights on this image.

Creating controversy?: This week's opening of a new museum near Cincinnati has generated new discussions on the origins of the world. Visitors at the museum are first greeted by this giant sauropod dinosaur. (Photo from Creation Museum)The Memorial Day weekend is pretty predictable in the news cycle. Lots of attention, and rightfully so, is provided about the military men and women who’ve given their lives for our country. Then there are the usual stories about the start of summer. And don’t forget the travel delays and stories on high gas prices.

But coming from out of right field this year was Monday’s opening of the new Creation Museum near Cincinnati, Ohio. The $27-million facility had 4,000 visitors on its opening day. Its state-of-the-art animatronics were designed by a former Universal Studios exhibit director. It shows dinosaurs co-existing with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and also riding aboard Noah’s Ark.

With this museum opening, I’ve been amused reading letters to the editor on both sides of the world debate in the local newspapers, particularly in the deep passion expressed by all writers.

My question: is there room at the table for having a museum dedicated to presenting the creationism viewpoint?

Regardless of my personal opinion on the origins of life, I have to give credit to the creationists for putting their money where their mouth is in finding a popular way to express their view. And we all have the option on spending our money and time visiting such a place.

Professionally, I work at the Science Museum of Minnesota which hosts this website. It’s only fair that I let you know where I’m coming from on this. Here’s a link to this museum’s official position on the origins of life.

As a person of faith who does believe our Earth’s origins came several billion years ago, it amazes me that most people find this issue as a non-compromiser. Creationists have an absolute trust in the science they interpret from the Bible, even though through history, Biblical interpretations on things like the shape of the Earth (flat) and it’s position in our solar system (the center) have been proven wrong. Conversely, science does an excellent job of explaining how things work, like the biology of human bodies. But it does a miserable job of explaining how and why we interact with each other: our emotions and feelings.

So let’s have a discussion here on if it’s possible to have intersections between the trajectories of faith and science. Be forewarned, moderators of this blog will not permit long diatribes on one particular point of view. Stick to the topic and your viewpoint will be heard. Let’s explore where there might be common ground between science and faith.

Tags : evolution, creationism, Creation Museum

read more... | add a comment | share

This week's opening of a new museum near Cincinnati has generated new discussions on the origins of the world. Visitors at the museum are first greeted by this giant sauropod dinosaur. (Photo from Creation Museum)

Please contact us if you have questions about the rights on this image.