SSHRC and Intelligent Design

1. BC Humanists

2. SSHRC and Intelligent Design Does Canada’s granting agency for science education research support Intelligent Design? SSHRC: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada’s granting agency for science education research Science education is education and therefore a humanity BC Humanists

3. Dr. Brian Alters • McGill University • Tomlinson Chair in Science Education • director and founder of the Evolution Education Research Centre • Written many books on the subject • expert witness for the plaintiff, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District BC Humanists

4. “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID (Intelligent Design) is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory”. Judge John Jones III 20 December 2005 Kitzmiller Decision BC Humanists

5. Brian Alters’ proposal • “Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution's intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policy makers” • The proposal was turned down. BC Humanists

6. SSHRC committee decision March 8, 2006 • “It (i.e., the grant selection committee) judged that the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents, and policy makers”. • “Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct”. • “It was not convinced , therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results”. • “In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit”. BC Humanists

7. Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that ascribes gaps in our scientific knowledge to a creation by a higher intelligence (This is God) that is beyond the human intellectual capacity to comprehend. There is no empirical evidence to support it. There are no published articles in peer reviewed journals. It distorts scientific evidence to support its claims (fraud) It is a credo that embraces ignorance and stifles scientific investigation. What is “Intelligent Design” and why is it detrimental? BC Humanists

8. Artists’ rendition of Intelligent Design in the classroom BC Humanists

9. Intelligent Design • to replace Evolution as description of natural world and bring religion to the classroom • is not even good theology. It has no reason to exist other than to corrupt science and science education • Implicit in the intelligent design conjecture is a redefining of science and how it is conducted • is fundamentally and absolutely detrimental BC Humanists

10. The Second Sentence • “Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct”. • Did the committee really mean to imply that Evolution and Intelligent Design were equally equivalent and alternate scientific theories? • It appears that they did. BC Humanists

11. Meet the Press • “there is a growing belief among scientists that certain phenomena in the natural world may not be easily explained by current theories of evolution”. • “there are features of the natural world including the rapid development of complex organs that Evolution has some trouble accounting for”. • “that Intelligent Design cannot be easily dismissed as mere “religious dogma” or “theocratic garbage” being foisted upon the world by conservative Christians in the U.S”. BC Humanists

12. More Press • “Credible people are trying to see areas where they (evolution and intelligent design) might come together and not necessarily be in conflict. There is a possibility of synthesis”. • “would have yielded predictable results that dump on the religious right”. • “Intelligent Design, stripped of any religious connotations, is an honestly debated issue among scientists”. BC Humanists

13. SSHRC position • “SSHRC recognizes the theory of evolution as one of the cornerstones of modern science”. • Expressed “regret for the inaccurate decision letter”. • “Committee was not convinced that Alters’ proposal met the necessary threshold conditions of quality of approach and methodology”. • “In future, committee views are expressed clearly and unequivocally in letters to applicants”. • “SSHRC’s focus has been to ensure the impartiality of the peer-review process, not to enter debates on the issues”. BC Humanists

14. What’s wrong with the SSHRC position? • No explanation regarding the 3 sentences about Intelligent Design. • Unwittingly backed ID’s “Teach the Controversy” campaign by its seemingly impartial stance within the so-called debate. • Refusal to give Alters a corrected statement after admitting the statement to Alters was inaccurate • no indication the obvious problems facing science education proposals are being met. BC Humanists

15. Clearly and Unequivocally? • It (i.e., the grant selection committee) judged that the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents, and policy makers. • Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct. • It was not convinced , therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results. • In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. BC Humanists

16. Clearly and Unequivocally? • The committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. BC Humanists

17. The Peer Review Process • No science or science education expertise on the committee • Literature • Sociology • History • Political philosophy • Feminist studies • SSHRC chose not to seek an outside opinion by a qualified referee • Committee chose to ignore Alters’ expertise BC Humanists

18. What is the problem at SSHRC? • It is most likely the non-science culture within SSHRC and its accredited researchers. • Can this be determined? BC Humanists

19. Dr. Philip Sadler • Harvard University. • Member of the board, Evolution Education Research Centre. • director of science education at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. • “If he (Alters) was trying to answer the question as to whether all this popularization (of ID) had had an impact, he just saved the government $40,000. He found the evidence without doing the study”. BC Humanists

20. Taking Sadler seriously Assumptions • Pool of potential committee members divided into • Science expert • Non-committed • ID advocate • ID statement only if ID advocate on committee but not a science expert. • Committee members chosen at random. • ID statement was not improbable. BC Humanists

21. BC Humanists

22. Summary US Gallup poll: 44% Creation 36%, God guided evolution 14%, scientific evolution Virtually unchanged since 1982 BC Humanists

23. T.C. Mits • Potential SSHRC committee members are no more knowledgeable about science than the celebrated man-in-the-street T.C. Mits Lillian R. Lieber BC Humanists

24. Conclusions An overwhelming majority of SSHRC’s pool of potential adjudicators are not sufficiently versant in science to judge on matters between Evolution and Intelligent Design! • Implies a failure of science education in Canada, especially in the post secondary education of students in non-scientific disciplines. • Cast doubts on ability of SSHRC to administer the science education portfolio. BC Humanists

25. Solutions • Move the science education research portfolio to NSERC. • Make it mandatory to consult advice of a science expert on all proposals involving science education. NSERC: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada’s granting agency for scientific research BC Humanists

26. Action? • NSERC: “will not comment on questions raised regarding the position or programs of other agencies”. • SSHRC: “Council is satisfied with the process changes implemented at SSHRC” (no details given). • Any call to further action must come from the science community. BC Humanists

27. Present Situation • The official position of the SSHRC has left the committee’s ID remarks intact. Implies ID and Evolution are equivalent scientific theories. • AIBS: “The SSHRC is the first government grant-making body to give the appearance that it questions the importance of evolution”. • Science Education proposals will continue to be adjudicated by academics not versant in science. BC Humanists

28. “the decision letter sent to Dr. Alters did not accurately reflect the thinking of the peer-review committee” “SSHRC has committed to review its procedures to ensure that, in future, peer-review committee views are expressed clearly and unequivocally in letters to applicants.” “Patrick Walden has expressed himself on this matter many times. However with regard to SSHRC, this matter is closed.” Final Word from SSHRC Dr. Chad Gaffield President of SSHRC BC Humanists

29. Me: Would TRIUMF like to particpate in the Vancouver Evolution Festival? Science Community TRIUMF: It lies outside TRIUMF’s Purview, so I would be surprised if _____, et al would want to wade into the fray, especially since we must deal with a gov’t with Ministers who are fundamentalists. • Letters have been sent from • Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution • American Institute of Biological Sciences • American Sociological Association • Royal Society of Canada statement • “Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and Evolution is the only credible scientific position that is defensible. The RSC position in support of evolution has been consistent: from a scientific point of view, the teaching of Evolution is a benchmark for legitimacy. Other theories or positions, such as Intelligent Design, are not scientific in basis or nature”. Canadian scientific societies and institutions are seemingly reluctant to criticise granting agencies or become involved in controversey. The Canadian way is compromise. Of Canada’s scientific societies only the CSEE was sufficiently concerned that a reputable academic panel of a government granting agency would give credence to Intelligent Design. CAP: Canadian Association of Physicists DPE: Division of Physics Education Would not take a position in the Alters/SSHRC/ID affair. It did not wish to become involved in the controversey BC Humanists

30. CAP Initiative • 2007 Submitted an initiative to have science education grants reviewed jointly by NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC (tri-council). • 2008 DPE submitted to CAP council a resolution to “vigorously promote its initiative to the tri-council.” signed by over 100 physicists • Tri-Council has responded, “given the importance of science education, we will ensure that your recommendation is included in the tri-council discussions.” BC Humanists