Four scientific societies oppose Bush’s intelligent design stance
Earlier this month, I reported on how President Bush wants to teach “intelligent design” alongside evolution in public schools. Now, four separate scientific societies have come out against Bush’s stance. The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), the Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), and the American Chemical Society (ACS) have each come out in favor of teaching evolution in classrooms in the US.
A position statement was unanimously passed by the first three organizations I listed. Their position echoes my sentiments expressed in my previous post on the subject. Here’s an excerpt:
Intelligent design is not a scientific discipline and should not be taught as part of the K-12 science curriculum. Intelligent design has neither the substantial research base, nor the testable hypotheses as a scientific discipline. There are at least 70 resolutions from a broad array of scientific societies and institutions that are united on this matter. As early as 2002, the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) unanimously passed a resolution critical of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
The intelligent design/creationist movement has adopted the lamentable strategy of asking our science teachers to “teach the controversy” in science curriculums, as if there were a significant debate among biologists about whether evolution underpins the abundant complexity of the biological world. We believe there is no such controversy.
The fundamental tenet of evolution -– descent with modification -– is accepted by the vast majority of biologists. The current debates within the research community deal with the patterns and processes of evolution, not whether the evolutionary principles presented by Darwin in 1859 hold true. These debates are similar to those surrounding the relativistic nature of gravitational waves. No one doubts the existence of gravity just because we are still learning how it works; evolution is on an equally strong footing.
The discussion of life’s spirituality is most appropriate for philosophy or religion classes. It is a mistake to conclude that reluctance to incorporate spiritual questions in science classes runs counter to the cherished principle that vigorous challenge is vital to the scientific method.
[...]
…President Bush, by suggesting that we use intelligent design as a scientific counterpoint to the teaching of evolutionary biology, is unwittingly undermining the scientific method at its core. This is most unfortunate in an era when U.S. students are already lagging behind their international peers in science education.
(Emphasis mine.)
The fulltext of a separate statement posted by the ACS is available on the ACS website (PDF), and it expresses sentiments similar to those above.
If your science education was anything like mine, the topic of how we got here was glossed over. Vague references to “millions of years ago” and “the Jurassic period” and “the first Ice Age” were occasionally made, but we were never taught the ins and outs of evolutionary theory. Instead the school system opted to leave out this part of our education. As a result, I know next to nothing about evolutionary theory except the bits and pieces that I’ve learned from my independent reading, and journey through higher education. I went to a very good school, but they wouldn’t touch evolution with a ten-foot pole. I’m curious how many other Americans had an education like mine?
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
My bioclass in High school deffinitly breezed over the subject.
Comment by Andrew — August 20, 2005 @ 5:52 am
Where I went to school in the United Kingdom, both evolution and creationism (as it is still called over here) were taught in the classroom. Evolution was part of biology class and creationism (along with other creation stories) was part of religious studies class. This co-existence but disciplinary separation seems quite satisfactory to me, and is not at all incompatible with what Bush has said on the issue. I quote from the full transcript, courtesy of the Washington post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200899_5.html
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.
Bush’s reaction to the second question is very important. When asked whether ID should be taught as a valid alternative to evolution, he says “I’m not suggesting –”, but rather that people out to be exposed to both sides, and understand the debate which as we all know is more religious than scientific. So I can find nothing in the Bush interview that conflicts with the kind of education that I received that treats the issues in their proper academic domains. The quote from the American Chemical Society seems to assume the worst of Bush’s statement and in the sentence hi-lighted by Rian, the phrase “scientific counterpoint” seems somewhat unfounded in the text of Bush’s remarks.
Comment by Dom Howells — August 21, 2005 @ 7:54 am
Yes I noticed the same thing, actually. But most schools do not have a religious studies class, or anything like it. Which means that ID would be taught alongside evolution… in the science classroom. The idea that it could even be taught outside the science classroom is not something which occurs to many people.
Given this, you have to remember that creationists have an agenda: to get rid of the theory of evolution. Supplanting evolution in the science classroom, or at least, somehow lessening its effect by teaching ID alongside it, is their main goal.
Creationists are not happy to let evolution co-exist alongside creation. The reverse does not necessarily hold true: you and I have no problem allowing ID its place… so long as it’s not in the science classroom. I think this last fact is what makes teaching ID in science classrooms, in public schools, dangerous.
Comment by Rian — August 21, 2005 @ 9:18 am
[...] I can relate to Neil Swidey when he says “Just when I would become swayed by the evidence supporting one discreet theory, I would stumble onto new evidence casting some doubt on it.” Such is to be expected when one is working in a field which has political and religious groups opposing it. It was, however, nice to see a conservative anti-gay advocate step up to the plate and make some concessions, which is very rare when it comes to science conflicting with religion. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something “deeply rooted” in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he’d spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that “many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation.” His message: “If it’s inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don’t have one, we won’t have any credibility.” [...]
Pingback by polyscience.org » A journey through sexual orientation research — August 22, 2005 @ 11:51 am
I don’t think we covered evolution in any of the 5 high schools I went to. In fact, one of my science teachers told the class he did not believe in it and he wasn’t going to teach it. Gotta love the Bible Belt.
Comment by Ashley — October 1, 2005 @ 5:12 am