Critical Analysis of Evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the series on |
| Intelligent design |
| Concepts |
|
Irreducible complexity |
| Intelligent design movement |
|
Discovery Institute |
Critical Analysis of Evolution is the name of a proposed high school science lesson plan designed and put forth by the Discovery Institute, originators of the intelligent design movement. An integral part of the Teach the Controversy campaign, whose goal is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,"<ref>The Wedge Document (PDF file), a 1999 Discovery Institute fundraising pamphlet. Cited in Handley P. Evolution or design debate heats up. The Times of Oman, 7 March 2005.</ref> Critical Analysis of Evolution treats evolution as a flawed theory, defying mainstream scientific views.
The institute's primary method for achieving this goal is to delegitimize evolution and minimize its profile in science education public school curricula via textbook disclaimers and the language of state science standards.<ref name=AAAS> "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006 </ref> Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans have been accepted in a number of states as part of new science standards proposed by the Discovery Institute.<ref>Critical Analysis of Evolution - Grade 10 Discovery Institute model lesson plan. (PDF file)</ref> In 2002, Ohio became the first state to adopt a Critical Analysis of Evolution provision in state science teaching standards, though it was dropped in February 2006.<ref name="junkscience">Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.</ref> Discovery Institute promulgated standards were adopted by Kansas in 2005. New Mexico adopted strongly pro-evolution science standards in 2003, but because these standards happen to mention 'critical analysis' and evolution in the same sentence, the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design Network have since claimed (falsely) that New Mexico is "one of five states requiring critical analysis of evolution." <ref>[http://www.nmsr.org/thelie.htm The Lie: "New Mexico's Science Standards embrace the Intelligent Design Movement's 'Teach the Controversy' Approach"</ref>
The term 'Critical Analysis of Evolution' has become a slogan of the strategy and campaign to promote 'teach the controversy.' <ref>"...'critical analysis of evolution' may be the new creationist battle cry." Critical Analysis of Evolution (Or, What Will They Think of Next?) Ronald L. Ecker</ref> Describing the campaign, the Discovery Institute says "As a general approach, Discovery Institute favors teaching students more about evolution, not less. We think students deserve to know not only about the strengths of modern evolutionary theory, but also about some of the theory's weaknesses and unresolved issues. In other words, students should be taught that evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, continues to be open to analysis and critical scrutiny. According to opinion polls, this approach is favored by the overwhelming majority of the American public, and it has also been endorsed by the U.S. Congress in report language attached to the No Child Left Behind Act Conference Report."<ref>Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute, September 21 2005</ref> The institute hopes to take advantage of the opportunity presented by some states currently revising or developing science standards in preparation for state-wide science exams required under the No Child Left Behind Act which must be in place by the 2007-2008 school year. Viewed as an opportunity to introduce Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans, the institute implies it will benefit schools and students with the exams required under the act.<ref>Minnesota Becomes Third State to Require Critical Analysis of Evolution Discovery Institute, May 17 2004</ref>
The campaign and strategy was put forth by the institute in anticipation of legal challenges arguing that the teaching of intelligent design would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such a case was the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, pages 136-138</ref> which was predicted by the institute. The Dover ruling also considered the practice of "teaching the controversy" and characterized it as part of the same religious ploy<ref>"has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion, page 134 </ref><ref>"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."Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 89</ref> citing testimony that evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community and is a theory which every major scientific association endorses.<ref>"Moreover, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, Dr. Miller ... provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is "overwhelmingly accepted" by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. (1:94-100 (Miller)). As the court in Selman explained, "evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists." Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1309 (emphasis in original)."Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, whether ID is science, page 84</ref>
The ruling in the Dover trial has affected the Critical Analysis of Evolution campaign, most notably in Ohio. In February 2006, Ohio's board of education voted 11-4 to remove from the state's science standards the Discovery Institute's Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan. The Discovery Institute's John West called the removal vote an effort "to use the government to suppress ideas you dislike," and "an outrageous slap in the face to the citizens of Ohio." Eric Rothschild, the plaintiffs' lead attorney in the Dover trial, before the board's vote declared "When you see 'critical analysis of evolution,' you really need to look at what's behind that. Who? Why?" Rothschild asked, "Why is there this need for critical analysis of evolution? Why is there no call for critical analysis of plate tectonics?"<ref>Catherine Candisky, "Intelligent-Design Push," Columbus Dispatch, February 13, 2006.</ref> Martha W. Wise, the board member who proposed the removal motion, said, "It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science," and another board member who voted for removal cited the "Dover risk" (meaning the risk of a lawsuit) if the critical analysis lesson plan were allowed to remain in the standards. In October 2006 the Achievement Committee of the State Board of Education rejected it and any further attempts to force the consideration of "teaching controversial issues."
A cornerstone in the Critical Analysis of Evolution campaign has been the institute's<ref>Stand Up For Science Discovery Institute, July 7 2006</ref> "Stand Up For Science" website<ref>www.standupforscience.org</ref> and poll, which says is "dedicated to promoting objectivity in the public school teaching of evolution." Its poll is aimed at swaying the Kansas State Board of Education in favor institute-promoted science curricula standards that present what it calls "scientific criticisms" of the evolution, which the scientific community says there are none, and calls the efforts of the scientific community to maintain established and accepted science curricula as "censorship of scientific evidence in public schools."
Contents |
[edit] Reception of Critical Analysis of Evolution
Critical Analysis of Evolution has not been well received by the education and scientific communities, who have overwhelmingly rejected the Discovery Institute's premise, that evolution is a flawed and disputed theory, and have failed to adopt the institute's proposals. Early drafts of the critical analysis of evolution lesson plan referred to the lesson as the "great evolution debate"; one of the early drafts of the lesson plan had one section titled "Conducting the Macroevolution Debate". In a subsequent draft, it was changed to "Conducting the Critical Analysis Activity". The wording for the two sections was almost verbatim identical, with just "debate" changed to "critical analysis activity" wherever it appeared, in the manner of how intelligent design proponents simply replaced "creation" with "intelligent design" in Of Pandas and People to repackage a creation science textbook into a intelligent design textbook.
Critics view the Critical Analysis of Evolution strategy as another iteration of the Discovery Institute campaign to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution in favor of "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"<ref>The Wedge Document (PDF file), a 1999 Discovery Institute fund raising pamphlet. Cited in Handley P. Evolution or design debate heats up. The Times of Oman, 7 March 2005.</ref> that begot the intelligent design movement and the teach the controversy campaigns. Professor Patricia Princehouse has described it as "critical analysis is intelligent design relabeled, just as intelligent design was creationism relabeled."<ref>Ohio Expected to Rein In Class Linked to Intelligent Design, by Jodi Rudoren, New York Times, February 14, 2006.</ref> Nick Matzke has written what he believes shows that Critical Analysis of Evolution is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.<ref>No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006</ref>
In promoting it's Critical Analysis of Evolution the Discovery Institute, home of the intelligent design movement, insists that critical analysis of evolution is not another attempt to open the door of public high school science classrooms for intelligent design, and hence supernatural explanations. Discovery Institute spokesperson Casey Luskin in February 2006 coined the term "false fear syndrome" of those who said it was, and said:
"This is simply another instance of Darwinists attempting to oppose critical analysis of evolution by pretending that it is equivalent to teaching intelligent design. This is a political tactic based upon misinformation, misrepresentation, emotions, and false fears."<ref>False Fear Epidemic over Critical Analysis of Evolution Spreads to Wisconsin Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, February 2006.</ref>
In July 2006 on the blog of Discovery Institute Fellow and leading intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski, Dembski's research assistant and co-moderator of the site, Joel Borofsky, contradicted the Discovery Institute's statements:
"My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I would love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID. There is a lot of movement among science high school teachers to never teach ID, even if it becomes a law because "we don't know how to teach philosophy." It would be nice to see them learn. I worked in a school and grew tired of hearing them speak of how it's wrong to point out the weaknesses in Darwin's theory because, "even if it is weak, it's still the best theory out there." (Shades of Dawkins anyone?)"<ref name=borofsky>Radio Commercials Air in Kansas Supporting Standupforscience.com’s Approach to Teaching Evolution Joel Borofsky. Uncommondescent.com, July 29, 2006</ref>To the claim that the Kansas science standards had nothing to do with intelligent design but were only about teaching evolution in a "balanced" way, Borofsky responded:
"It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID. If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause...which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID."<ref name=borofsky/>
In response to the reception to his comments,<ref>Revealing slip of the keyboard. PZ Myers. Pharyngula, July 31 2006.</ref><ref>Which Creationist is Lying? Jeffrey Shallit. Recursivity, August 1 2006.</ref> Dembski's research assistant felt compelled to issue a clarification that he was only voicing his personal opinion, not that of others in the movement, and that he is Dembski's "assistant on theological work, not necessarily the ID movement."<ref>Am I really that important? Joel Borofsky. UncommonDescent, August 3 2006.</ref> However, he later admitted that he does in fact sometimes work on ID-related work.<ref>Monday Madness: What would an ID research assistant do? August 16, 2006.</ref>
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, comprising 262 affiliated societies and academies of science and some 10 million individuals, has consistently opposed the teaching of intelligent design, with or without language that calls into question the validity of evolution, saying in a policy statement that "[T]he lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education."<ref>AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory </ref> In its 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution it called out the Critical Analysis of Evolution argument specifically saying: "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy.' But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one."<ref>Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Board of Directors, American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 16 2006. (PDF file)</ref>
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Discovery Institutes "Ohio Science Standards Resource Page"
- Discovery Institutes "Critical Analysis of Evolution" Model Lesson Plan
- Discovery Institutes Legal Analysis of the Alabama House Substitute for SB 336
- Think tank fuels debate on evolution Chris Dixon. The Post and Courier, March 05 2006.
- The Dover Trap Richard B. Hoppe. The Panda's Thumb, February 16, 2006
