Evolution

1. Evolution Creationism Intelligent Design What the heck is going on with biology education in the USA??? Science RELIGION

2. In South Carolina: - Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution.

3. In South Carolina: - Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution. Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.

4. In South Carolina: - Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution. Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life. The EOC recommended the following change: EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.

5. In South Carolina: - Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution. The EOC recommended the following change: Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life. EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. On March 3, 2006, the BOE rejected the EOC recommendation and reaffirmed their commitment to the original approved standards.

6. In South Carolina: - Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording of the biology standards referencing evolution. The EOC recommended the following change: Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life. EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. On March 3, 2006, the BOE rejected the EOC recommendation and reaffirmed their commitment to the original approved standards. Many scientists and educators suggested that "critical analysis" was 'code' for the introduction of bogus challenges to evolution and non-scientific alternatives like ID...why only specify evolution for 'critical analysis'?

7. In South Carolina: WHAT'S GOING ON HERE??? HOW CAN SCIENTISTS OPPOSE CRITICAL ANALYSIS?? ISN'T THAT WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT??

8. YES, BUT....

9. historical context matters...

10. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that: • individuals will have freedom of religious expression;

11. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that: • individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism;

12. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that: • individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; • the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa.

13. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that: • individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; • the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa. 1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH.

14. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that: • individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; • the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa. 1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH. 2) with Sputnik launch in 1957, there was an emphasis on science ed. in the USA... which meant more evolution in biology class...

15. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that: • individuals will have freedom of religious expression; • the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; • the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa. 1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH. 2) with Sputnik launch in 1957, there was an emphasis on science ed. in the USA... which meant more evolution in biology class... 3) 1962 - Supreme Court - can't have officially sponsored prayer in school

16. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH.

17. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH. 1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least, evolution can be REMOVED.

18. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH. 1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least, evolution can be REMOVED. ***** Reveals an important false dichotomy****** Only those believing that the Bible is literally and historically inerrant see evolution as necessarily inconsistent with their religion.

19. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH. 1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least, evolution can be REMOVED. ***** Reveals an important false dichotomy****** Only those believing that the Bible is literally and historically inerrant see evolution is necessarily inconsistent with their religion. So, they attempted to get evolution out of schools by making it illegal to teach evolution (sensu Skopes trial of 1925!)

20. 1968 - Epperson vs. Arkansas - Supreme Court rules that teaching evolution can't be prohibited.

21. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • 1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious truth. • 2) But in science, evolution can't be prohibited as scientific truth...

22. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: • 1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious truth. • 2) But in science, evolution can't be prohibited as scientific truth... • 3) If Christian conservatives could get creationism defined as a science, it could be taught as scientific truth...

23. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: - and so "scientific creationism" was introduced...called the "equal time" argument or the "two model" approach.

24. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.

25. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: The decision recognizes the false dichotomy of "God" OR "evolution" 1) NOT in opposition

26. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: The decision recognizes the false dichotomy of "God" OR "evolution" And it affirms that supernatural causality is untestable and not science. (not "false" in a metaphysical sense, but not "science"). 1) NOT in opposition 2) It's NOT science

27. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.

28. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. so..... where did literalists go from here? They want to say the earth was created by God, but they can't say 'God' did it or it is promoting religion over secularism... so they attribute creation to an unnamed 'intelligent designer'...

29. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. so..... where did literalists go from here? They want to say the earth was created by God, but they can't say 'God' did it... so they attribute creation to an unnamed 'intelligent designer'... and thus, in 1990, the Intelligent Design movement was born.

30. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: The fundamental premise of ID: There are structures which are composed of multiple, interdependent parts that could not be acquired sequentially (through evolution). ID proponents call these structures "irreducibly complex"... suggesting they were designed de novo by an 'intelligent designer'.

31. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: The fundamental premise of ID: This is NOT a new idea... the complexity of nature was used by Aquinas as a "Proof of God", and was used by Paley (1802) in his 'Natural Theology'...

32. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: The fundamental premise of ID: Darwin used the comparative method to reveal the logical and empirical fallacy of this perspective. 1) Just because we can't envision how it might occur does not mean that IT CAN'T occur.... this is also called the "argument of personal incredulity." (This is the logical fallacy of 'irreducible complexity')

33. 2) If intermediates exist now, then they could exist as a transitional sequence. (This is the empirical disproof of 'irreducible complexity')

34. The 'evolution' of the ID Movement: The fundamental premise of ID: There are structures which are composed of multiple, interdependent parts that could not be acquired sequentially (through evolution). ID proponents call these structures "irreducibly complex"... suggesting they were designed de novo by an intelligent designer. But now the ID proponents use molecular structures as examples... such as the flagellum. Or blood clotting proteins.

35. Miller's response: His examples for "irreducible complexity" are wrong.... they are reducible in principle. Flagellum: - 40 of 42 flagellar proteins have homologs that are used in other things - some flagella don't have the inner core proteins and cross-link (picture) - type III secretory vesicles have subunits but not "tail" and function

36. Miller's response: His examples for "irreducible complexity" are wrong.... they are reducible in principle. Clotting Proteins: - Fish lack 2-3 clotting proteins found in mammals, but blood clots...

37. A Little History.... 2003 - The South Carolina Senate was considering S153, a bill dealing with instructional materials and textbooks. On April 9 an amendment was offered by State Sen. Mike Fair (R- Greenville) with the following key provision: The following must be placed in all science books published for kindergarten through twelfth grade: 'The cause or causes of life are not scientifically verifiable. Therefore, empirical science cannot provide data about the beginning of life.'

38. A Little History.... 2003 - The South Carolina Senate was considering S153, a bill dealing with instructional materials and textbooks. On April 9 an amendment was offered by State Sen. Mike Fair (R- Greenville) with the following key provision: The following must be placed in all science books published for kindergarten through twelfth grade: 'The cause or causes of life are not scientifically verifiable. Therefore, empirical science cannot provide data about the beginning of life.'

39. A Little History.... When another Senator objected, because of the cost involved, the bill and amendment were postponed. "Sen. Fair, irritated that a study done for the Fordham Foundation gave South Carolina an "A" for how well it teaches evolution, is challenging the premise of Darwin's widely accepted theory. He bases his argument on the fact that no one was there when life began to make a scientific observation about it." - Greenville News, April 15, 2003

40. A Little History.... "Fair, a Republican from Greenville, said he's disappointed the measure didn't go through this year but he's prepared to give it another push in 2004. "I'll just have to be patient," he said." - Greenville News, June 14, 2003 I'll just have to be patient

41. A Little History.... "Fair said Darwinism isn't supported by scientific evidence. He points to a theory called intelligent design, which argues that the complexity of life on Earth doesn't seem likely to develop through natural selection and random mutation, as Darwinism holds. He believes Darwin's theory is "foolish" and is a religious belief in itself. " Fair said." - Greenville News, June 14, 2003 "Evolution as change within a species has been observable in the fossil record, but change from one species to another species hasn't been observable,"

42. A Little History.... In January 2004, Senator Fair introduced Senate Bill S114, which would establish The South Carolina Science Standards Committee. this committee would: (1)    study science standards regarding the teaching of the origin of species; (2)    determine whether there is a consensus on the definition of science; (3)    determine whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools." - Senate Bill s.114 "science"??..... hmmmm...

43. A Little History.... "The bill calls for creating a 19-member committee that would hear testimony from top scientists and report to the General Assembly on "whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools." "I think it would be a great opportunity to hear from national experts on both sides of the issue," said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, who put forward the idea. "I think it would be a great exercise."

44. A Little History.... "The bill calls for creating a 19-member committee that would hear testimony from top scientists and report to the General Assembly on "whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools." "I think it would be a great opportunity to hear from national experts on both sides of the issue," said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, who put forward the idea. "I think it would be a great exercise." He said his intention is to show that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative that should be taught in the public schools. Scientists who espouse Intelligent Design question whether random mutation and natural selection — the cornerstone's of Darwin's theory of evolution — can account for the complexity of life. - Greenville News, May 1, 2004

45. A Little History.... On June 1, 2005, Senator Fair introduced Senate Bill S. 909 which would: "require students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society." The State - August 6, 2005

46. A Little History.... "Fair said the bill he has proposed wouldn’t prevent teachers from discussing evolution, but would require them to present other theories — like intelligent design — to students. Fair acknowledged that his Christian beliefs play a part in his desire for other theories besides evolution to have a chance in the classroom." The State - August 6, 2005

47. Back to the Story.... so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do scientists oppose this language?

48. Back to the Story.... so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do scientists oppose this language? Because history shows the true intent of this language and its promoters... not to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent design into the classroom.

49. Back to the Story.... so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do scientists oppose this language? Because history shows the true intent of this language... not to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent design into the classroom. Amazingly, Senator Fair continues to suggest: "critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design, the Discovery Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)

50. Back to the Story.... so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do scientists oppose this language? Because history shows the true intent of this language... not to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent design into the classroom. Amazingly, Senator Fair continues to suggest: hmmm... where did he get this idea about 'critical analysis'? "critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design, the Discovery Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)