Science Education

Over the next week or so, I plan to file several posts analyzing issues relating to Judge Jones’ decision in the Dover case. I start today by revisiting the question of whether Judge Jones is an “activist” judge. Some Darwinists are livid that I’ve applied this label to the Judge. Although I’ve explained my reasons for regarding Jones as an activist in detail to many reporters, my full views haven’t really been reported. So I thought I would explain them here.

I regard Judge Jones as an activist in this case not because I disagree with the outcome of his decision (although I do), but because I disagree with the injudicious and overreaching manner in which he framed his decision.

Intelligent Design critic Larry Arnhart has a thoughtful essay in Inside Higher Education encouraging students to learn about the controversy over Darwin by reading Darwin. Arnhart writes:

Why not introduce our students to this debate by having them read Darwin’s own writings in their biology classes? We could teach the controversy by teaching Darwin.

Arnhart seems to think that his idea won’t be acceptable to either proponents or critics of intelligent design. Yet his proposal is something a number of ID proponents have advocated for some time.

Note: From now on, we will try to properly credit the University of Minnesota, Morris as the employer of Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers. In a press release earlier this month, we mistakenly stated that P.Z. Myers was a biology professor at the University of Minnesota. We soon received an e-mail from a public relations person at the University of Minnesota, Morris. She wanted to make clear that Dr. Myers was actually employed by the University of Minnesota, Morris. The press release in question highlighted Myers’ bigotry and intolerance, pointing out that he advocated “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers” because they are critical of Darwin, and quoting his complaint that Darwinists “aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or Read More ›

You know you’re fighting a media war when you jump for joy simply because a news article accurately characterizes your theory. Well, I’m jumping for joy right now because an AP article by Martha Raffaele in the Philadelphia Inquirer has an excellent definition of intelligent design: “U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to rule Tuesday on whether the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause.” (“School district awaits judge’s decision on ‘intelligent design’” by Martha Raffaele, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec 20, 2005) By using the term “intelligent cause,” this article accurately characterizes how ID Read More ›

Here are my very brief, quick and dirty Top 10 problems with the Kitzmiller decision. Some of these will be elaborated more in future posts by various Evolution News & Views posters. 10) It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn’t and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn’t (Day 11 PM, pg. 95; Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents. 9) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that the nature of science is characterized by methodological naturalism and that intelligent design is not science (pg. 65).** 8) It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).** Read More ›

A “FAQ” for the interested layperson about the current federal lawsuit over the teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board. A decision in the case is now expected on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. This article responds to many questions we have received about what happened in the trial over teaching intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania. Many people have wondered what the potential ramifications of this case are for the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design, and have also wondered if the plaintiffs’ arguments in this case were accurate. This is a complex case. This article attempts to address those questions by laying out the case in simple terms, and by explaining Read More ›

This is my second post in 2 days praising media articles which get this issue right. Let there be no mistake: the Evolution News & Views blog is not a “media complaints desk.” It’s a place for objective analysis–and we just try to call the balls and the strikes as we see them! MSNBC’s Current Magazine article by Victoria Bosch (“Monkey Business“), manages to objectively discuss the question of how doubters of Darwin are treated in college science classes. The article sensitively talks about how students who are skeptical of Darwinism cope with the issue. It was also gratifying that Niall Shanks at Wichita State professes to require only that students simply understand–not fully endorse–Darwinian evolution. Not only is it Read More ›

In her new article dumping on intelligent design, New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein presents a fantasy version of the new Kansas science standards, claiming that “in Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design.” Actually, the Board did no such thing. The Kansas science standards encourage students to learn about scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory. They do not ask for the teaching of alternatives to Darwin’s theory such as intelligent design. Indeed, the Board included the following explicit statement in the standards: “We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design….” [emphasis added] This isn’t merely a case of sloppy reporting. When Ms. Read More ›