1 / 18

Paul Godden

An analysis of the arguments for intelligent design creationism to be taught as part of the science curriculum in the public education system of the United States. Paul Godden. Creationism is…. Also called creation science , intelligent design (ID), and evidence against evolution

afia
Download Presentation

Paul Godden

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An analysis of the arguments for intelligent design creationism to be taught as part of the science curriculum in the public education system of the United States. Paul Godden

  2. Creationism is… • Also called creation science, intelligent design (ID), and evidence against evolution • A religious doctrine, holding that life and the universe were created by a supernatural actor out of nothing(Superfine, 2009) • Not science(Bowman, 2007; Coyne, 2009; Dawkins, 2005, 2006, 2009; Futuyma, 2005; Kitcher 1984)

  3. Evolution is… • A change in the genetic properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations(Futuyma, 2005, p. 2) • Science, based on more than 150 years of replicable and falsifiable observation, experiment and predicted outcome (Avise, 2000; Coyne, 2009; Dawkins, 2009; Futuyma, 2005; Gould, 2002; Lenski & Travisano, 1994) From: Hutchins, M. (Ed.) (2011). The increase in hominin cranial capacity through various species over time. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia: Evolution, p. 304. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, Cengage Learning.

  4. Creationism is taught… • In many U.S. public school science classes, under the guise of Intelligent Design(Behe, 2006; Berkman & Plutzer, 2011; Bowman, 2007; Davis & Kenyon, 1993; Moore, 2000, 2004; Sapin, 1996) • And attempts are continually made, to make teaching creationist doctrine a legal proposition in U.S. science classes (NCSE, 2014)

  5. Even though… • it’s illegal to teach creationist doctrine in U.S. public school science classes(Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968; Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987; Freiler v. Tangipahoa, 2000; Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005; McLean v. Arkansas, 1982) • it contravenes the U.S. Constitution—Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…(U.S. Constitution, 1791) • it’s not science(Bowman, 2007; Coyne, 2009; Dawkins, 2005, 2006, 2009; Futuyma, 2005; Kitcher 1984)

  6. Why? Research Questions… • What arguments have been put forward by advocates of creationism, to make the case for creationist ideology in the American science curriculum? • What impact have the arguments of proponents of intelligent design creationism had, on American public education policy and the law?

  7. To answer these questions… • Document Analysisof publically availablelegal testimony and judicial opinion… • Testimony from expert witnesses under cross-examination—directly addresses research question 1. • Analysis of precedent setting cases, Judicial opinion and analysis of public debate—address research question 2.

  8. What does this study contribute? Very little work has analysed this discourse and weighed the arguments presented, evaluating strengths and weaknesses in terms of education (Bowman, 2007; Burtt, 2008; Thomasson, 2011). I would like to fill that gap, to provide a summative analysis of the arguments presented for intelligent design creationism (ID), and a baseline to compare to future debate, so that—as educators—we can sort the wheat from the chaff and identify potential strategies for alleviating this on-going and costly dispute.

  9. Interim findings… • Creationist arguments have fallen into a number of major themes, only some of which have been briefly presented below…

  10. Interim findings (continued)… • (1) ID is science: Represented by ideas such as irreducible complexity and argues that ID fits the definition of a scientific theory (Behe, 2006, 2010). • Professor of Biochemistry, Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, Pennsylvania • Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct? • A. That is correct, yes. • 04cv2688: Kitzmiller, T. et al. v. Dover Area School District, transcript of proceedings bench trial. October 17-19, 2005 (testimony of Michael J. Behe). Retrieved from http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts.

  11. Interim findings (continued)… • (2) Balanced treatment and Teach the Controversy: Providing “an affirmative action strategy with regard to disadvantaged theories. It's not obvious in the normal system of science that these theories will get a fair hearing.” • Don’t teach creationism, teach the controversy with equal time to ID and evolution. • 04cv2688: Kitzmiller, T. et al. v. Dover Area School District, transcript of proceedings bench trial. October 24, 2005 (testimony of Steven William Fuller). Retrieved from http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts. • (3) Criticism/misrepresentation of the scientific method—evolution is just a theory: According to Michael J. Behe… “Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one…” • 04cv2688: Kitzmiller, T. et al. v. Dover Area School District, transcript of proceedings bench trial. October 17-19, 2005 (testimony of Michael J. Behe). Retrieved from http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts.

  12. Interim findings (cut short)… • What impact have these arguments had on public policy and the law? • Judge John Jones III (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005, p. 89)… • … we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science… it [ID]has utterly no place in a science curriculum. • Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

  13. And you’d think that would be it, wouldn’t you? • Kitzmillerv. Dover (2005) has been estimated as costing more than $2m. Yet more legislation is proposed every month (NCSE, 2014).

  14. A final thought… do scientists believe in evolution? Belief in a scientific theory, is not based on faith, scientists understand evolution to be a fact, based on replicable, falsifiable, testable, and peer-reviewedevidence. If the evidence points elsewhere, our understanding will evolve with the evidence. To say that scientists believe in evolution, may add credence to the creationist argument that evolution is itself a belief system(Prof. L. Shulha, personal communication, December 10, 2013).

  15. Thanks for listening… • Electronic copies of all supporting material, this presentation and other resources are available at… • http://www.pauldgodden.com/queens.html • Please contact me at… • paul.godden@queensu.ca • Should you require any further information.

  16. Irreducible Complexity… “Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete.” (Behe, 2010) Refuted by… Dr. Kenneth Miller at Brown University, Rhode Island (Miller, 1999, 2004) amongst many others… Avise, 2000; Coyne, 2009; Dawkins, 2009; Futuyma, 2005; NAS, 2008; NCSE, 2008; Nei & Kumar, 2000; Young & Edis, 2004. The Logical Fallacy of Personal Incredulity or, Here There Be Dragons… I cannot conceive of a scientific explanation for this phenomenon, therefore the explanation must be theistic in nature.

  17. Irreducible Complexity—An Example… Behe (2006), cites the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. Eyes in living mollusks (a) A pigment spot: The simplest eye is found in limpets, consisting of only a few pigmented cells, slightly modified from typical epithelial (skin) cells. (b) A simple pigment cup: Slit-shell mollusks have a slightly more advanced organ, consisting of some pigmented cells shaped as a cup. (c) The simple optic cup found in abalone: Further elaborations and increasing complexity are found in the eyes of the families Nautilidae, Haliotidae andMuricidae. (d) The complex lensed eye of the marine snail and the octopus (order Octopoda). Adapted from NCSE (2008, p. 41)

More Related