-so antievolutionists will argue that the Supreme Court mandates teaching “scientific alternatives to evolution” -- which is interpreted as c.s., or ID 2) teach “evid against evol”

“Evidence Against Evolution” 2001 Montana HB 588 Georgia HB 391 Ohio HB 679 Arkansas HB 2548

WHEREAS, compelling evidence exists in support of divergent scientific conclusions and validly competing theories of origin and the spirit of science requires that students be impartially exposed to all evidence, including scientific information tending to prove and disprove each theory; and…

Evolution as Unsupported Science, 2001 Louisiana HB 1286 (“false or fraudulent information”) Arkansas HB 2548 Michigan HB 4382 (“unproven theory”)

3) teach evolution as “theory not fact”

“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans….” No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

Columbia County, GA, 1996 The teaching of science should distinguish between theory and fact. Scientific hypotheses which cannot be proven or replicated, such as the theory of evolution, must always be taught as theories and not fact.

Tennessee HB/SB, 1996 No teacher or administrator in a local education agency shall teach the theory of evolution except as a scientific theory. Any teacher or administrator teaching such theory as fact commits insubordination, as defined in Section (s)(6), and shall be dismissed or suspended as provided in Section

How can teachers and administrators deal with this argument? Possible that are arguments against evol -- not surfaced yet, though; arguments presented are uniformly creationist, refuted -well, it helps to know some of the arguments -- but best approach is to defer to scientific community -NCSE!!

“Pillars of Creationism” Evolution is a “theory in crisis”

( “evidence against evolution”....) u “Gaps in the fossil record” u Can’t get new body plans from mutation and selection u “Chance” can’t produce “design” u Life too complex to originate “by chance”

( “evidence against evolution”....) u alleged difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” u Earth too young for evolution to have occurred

( “evidence against evolution”....Icons) Haeckel’s embryos Peppered Moth “Fraud” Miller-Urey experiments Cambrian explosion a “problem” for evolution Archaeopteryx not a transitional form

moths <1848 mostly light-colored first dark moth found in years later, 98% dark moths decline in dark moths began with use of cleaner fuels today - dark moths are very rare moths <1848 mostly light-colored first dark moth found in years later, 98% dark moths decline in dark moths began with use of cleaner fuels today - dark moths are very rare parallel rise and fall occurred in the US. predators (birds) in aviary went first to moths that contrast with backgrounds. fewer light moths survive release in sooty woods fewer dark moths survive release in clean woods birds in wild go first to moths that contrast with backgrounds. parallel rise and fall occurred in the US. predators (birds) in aviary went first to moths that contrast with backgrounds. fewer light moths survive release in sooty woods fewer dark moths survive release in clean woods birds in wild go first to moths that contrast with backgrounds. True True True True True Wells’s version: “staged photos”; stresses sites that don’t match pattern; fusses about role of lichens Original Conclusion: Natural selection caused these changes — due to predation by birds. mainly

“... it became clear that he was intentionally distorting the literature in my field. He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent.” The Pratt (OK) Tribune, December 13, 2000 Bruce Grant William & Mary

Evolution is a “theory in crisis” Evolution and religion are incompatible “Pillars of Creationism”

1998 Coeur d’Alene, ID (citizen proposal:) Public secondary and elementary schools must give balanced treatment to the theory of scientific creationism and the theory of evolution.... (identical to Louisiana Balanced Treatment Act)

Indiana HB 1356, 2000 The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.

Oklahoma Legislature 2000 SB 1129 : When adopting science textbooks, the [textbook] Committee shall insure that the textbooks include acknowledgement that human life was created by one God of the universe. (House vote )

Best thing YOU can do, as a sci supervisor -- get an opinion from your legal retainer! -creation science, creationism is dead in water from a legal stdpt -what about teachers? Send them to us! -here’s what we recommend:

Distinguish science and religion as ways of knowing Distinguish between science as method and as philosophy Inform students of range of religious views towards evolution (descriptively!)

Creation Evolution Flat-Earthers Geocentrists Young-Earthers Old-Earthers Theistic Evolutionists Materialists The Creation/Evolution Continuum

Evolution is a “theory in crisis” Evolution and religion are incompatible It is only “fair” to teach creationism with evolution “Pillars of Creationism”

Because evolution is such poor science, and because it is antireligious, there has been much concern that its teaching be “balanced” with something else -re: Scopes -- try to ban teaching of evolution -later -- balance with creation science -still get this -- but now also “Intelligent design” to balance it out -and subtle variations: “teach all the evidence”; *ESP: singling out evolution -many respects, most difficult of all to deal with -- American public (Santorum)

Santorum Amendment, 2001 It is the sense of the Senate that (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and …

Santorum Amendment, 2001 (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

2002 Education Bill Conference Report, 2002 The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare 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.

Thus the Santorum language is part of the law. (OH Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot, 3/15/02)

“After a bitter fight, Santorum’s amendment to the education bill survived virtually unchanged.” Chuck Colson, BreakPoint Online, Oct. 2, 2002

"I offered some language to Senator Santorum, after he had decided to propose a resolution of this sort." Phillip Johnson,

Cong. Miller on Santorum Quality assessments involve the application of critical thinking skills, and perhaps this is nowhere more important than in science education. Teachers often encourage critical thinking through the introduction of controversial issues. While the subject of evolution was used as an example of a controversial issue in the report language, neither the teaching of evolution nor any other specific topic is mandated in NCLB or the conference report. (emphasis mine) Rep. George Miller to EC Scott,4/14/02

A very clever variation of “fairness” is a relatively new approach by the ID creationists (more on them later) in which they accuse teachers and “the establishment” of being guilty of “viewpoint discrimination” (Discuss) also “teach the controversy”

“Teach the Controversy….” At present many groups advise educators and administrators to ignore the controversy over design and to continue to teach a single theoretical viewpoint, ignoring scientific dissent and parental concerns about dogmatism and intellectual intolerance. In short, their approach is to suppress the controversy. We believe there is a better way. We suggest that public schools teach the controversy over biological origins in a way that faithfully reflects the debate that is actually happening among scientists. David DeWolf: Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, p. 2.

“Teach the Controversy….” We suggest that public schools teach the controversy over biological origins in a way that faithfully reflects the debate that is actually happening among scientists. David DeWolf: Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, p. 2.

Evolution is a “theory in crisis” Evolution and religion are incompatible It is only “fair” to teach creationism with evolution “Pillars of Creationism”

2 Kinds of Antievolutionism Bible-based Not biblically-based; attributes complexity of design to God’s direct action rather than natural cause Young earth creationism; Creation “science”; Genesis literalist creationism Design-based