Science Education

California parent and attorney Larry Caldwell is seeking a retraction from Eugenie Scott and the California Academy of Sciences after an Academy magazine published false and potentially defamatory claims about Caldwell’s effort to improve the teaching of evolution in his northern California school district. For more than a year, Caldwell tried to get the Roseville Joint Union High School District to present scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory as well as the evidence favoring the theory. Scott now asserts that Caldwell attempted to get the district to adopt materials advocating Biblical creationism. In particular, she claims he proposed for use in the district

a young-earth creationist book, Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Safarti; and the Jehovah’s Witness book Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? Thanks to its free distribution, this book is probably the most widely-circulated creation science book in the country.

Caldwell tells me that not only is Scott’s claim patently false, he has never even heard of the books she cites. But that’s not the only problem with Scott’s fanciful account according to Caldwell. In a letter sent to both Scott and the California Academy of Sciences, Caldwell catalogues the various errors in Scott’s hit-piece:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of CSC, gave a standing room only presentation of the case for intelligent design at the Heritage Foundation here in Washington. Dr. Meyer delivered a very thorough presentation in which he presented two key components of the case for design theory: irreducible complexity, and the digital code in DNA molecules. It was an engaging lecture and you can watch it online. The event was streamed live on the Heritage website, and is now available for viewing from their archive at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/archive.cfm (events are listed chronologically and this one was April 19, 2005). The lecture, including Q&A (which begins at about 1:05 into the event), ran just about an hour and a Read More ›

CSC Fellow John Angus Campbell in a column for today’s Memphis Commercial Appeal argues that teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution has several beneficial outcomes for students including preparing students to be informed citizens and helping them to understand the very nature of science. His appeal is to teach Darwin’s theory the way Darwin would have himself, as an argument. Further, when training in argument is recognized as the center of science education, and science education is seen as an extension of the civic education vital to a democratic and pluralistic culture, we will be able to turn the heat of our longstanding cultural debate over evolution into needed educational light. The opening sentence of the final Read More ›

Update: Craig Roberts, Editor-in-Chief of Crop Science Society of America, pointed out that the poll noted below was posted for the normal, two-week period of time before giving way to the next two-week Quick Question. The ASA should be commended for leaving the poll up for the full period, and for all of its members who support free scientific inquiry into the question of origins. The post has been updated to incorporate Roberts’ information. As William Dembski notes here, there’s a new fad among professional societies — denouncing intelligent design. Perhaps somebody wanted the American Society of Agronomy to join the new fad; but agronomists, apparently, don’t herd very well. The society conducted an online poll regarding the teaching of Read More ›

Let me get this straight, philosophers of biology Dr. Paul Nelson and Dr. Niall Shanks can debate for a live audience about evolution, ID, and public education.

And, Darwinist Dr. William Provine will debate design proponent Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

And, Cambridge University can publish an academic work featuring scientists writing about the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design.

And, MSU Press can publish a book featuring scientists debating what exactly should be taught about evolution in public school classrooms.

And, PBS can air a debate between biologists Darwinist Dr. Massimo Pigliucci and Darwin doubter Dr. Jonathan Wells.

And, Darwin defender Michael Shermer can debate design theorist Stephen Meyer.

And, Rev. Barry Lynn will even debate our own Dr. John West.

And, the editor of The Scientist has recently stated twice (here and here) that the debate over Darwinian evolution needs to take place, exhorting his Darwinian colleagues to “get out there and argue!”

And, reporters are starting to embrace aspects of our teach the controversy approach, (for example here and here) which ultimately rests on the idea that there is a scientific debate to be had.

But, no Darwinist will testify to the Kansas board of education. Amazing. Simply amazing.
Why? Because the Darwinian high priests at the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued a sort of scientific papal bull, a gag order to scientists, telling them not to debate the flaws in Darwin’s theory before the Kansas State Board of Education. (Apparently a couple of dozen of scientists and scholars didn’t get the memo, or chose to ignore it, and have agreed to testify in spite of the AAAS gag order.)

The statement is full of misinformation and outright lies such as these:

The PBS debate between biologists Massimo Pigliucci and Jonathan Wells is now available online in both streaming video and as a transcript on the website for “Uncommon Knowledge.” During the exchange, Jonathan Wells effectively articulates what is at stake in the growing public debate over science education: I absolutely think science students should be taught Darwin’s theory of evolution and the modern version of it because it’s so important and so influential in modern biology. But I also think they should be taught scientific evidence and arguments against it as well as for it. And if you question whether there’s a controversy, you have here two biologists and you’ve heard the controversy, at least a little snippet of it. So Read More ›

After wrongly reporting that upcoming Kansas evolution hearings would feature witnesses advocating the teaching of intelligent design, the Associated Press has issued a correction admitting that it got its facts wrong: The Associated Press State & Local Wire April 12, 2005, Tuesday, BC cycle HEADLINE: Correction: Evolution Debate story DATELINE: TOPEKA, Kan. In an April 8 story about Kansas science standards, The Associated Press reported erroneously that public hearings next month will feature witnesses who advocate teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school classrooms. Instead, the witnesses are expected to advocate exposing students to more criticism of evolution, not teaching alternatives to it. The AP is to be congratulated for correcting the record. Let’s hope other news organizations take Read More ›

The latest Wichita Eagle story on the upcoming Kansas science hearings does a solid job of explaining that the 23 scientists are coming to testify about the weaknesses in Neo-Darwinism, not to push for public school teaching of intelligent design. The story is mostly balanced, giving the Darwinists against balanced classroom coverage of their theory plenty of rope to hang their argument. As one reads the story, their reasoning becomes all to clear. Boiled down it works something like this:

Earlier this week, NY Times’ Paul Krugman published a column that, among other things, sounded alarm bells about a supposed invasion of creationism in college classrooms. This column has reprinted in papers across the country, and the editorial writers at smaller publications are now voicing fears about this highly unlikely scenario.

In “The Goldberg File,” National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg takes on Krugman in a recent article intitled “BullKrug.” Specifically addressing science education and academic freedom at universities, Goldberg says the following:

Phil Magers’ recent UPI story about evolution in the classroom (“Teachers feel pressure”) conveys a growing problem for biology teachers: more and more students refuse to uncritically accept Darwinism.

How horrible!

Magers’ pro-Darwin analysis is simplistic, even misleading. This is fitting, for so too is the presentation of evolution in the typical classroom. When students aren’t being fed bogus evidence for Darwin’s theory (like Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings), they’re being led to believe the theory is without important weaknesses.