Evolution: Just teach it
Evolution: Just teach it
By Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch
| |In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Most famously, 80 years ago, John Scopes was tried for breaking a|
| |Tennessee law outlawing such instruction. He was found guilty, and evolution effectively disappeared from the high school curriculum shortly |
| |thereafter, though it continued to be taught in universities. |
| |But when university scientists began writing high school biology textbooks in the late 1950s and early '60s, evolution returned to the curriculum, |
|5 |provoking a second outbreak of anti-evolutionism during the '70s and '80s. |
| |Creationism was repackaged as "creation science" in the hope that it would be taught along with evolution. |
| |In the '70s and '80s, at least 26 states tried to legislate equal time for creation science with evolution, bringing the courts back in. The 1982 |
| |U.S. district court decision in McLean v. Arkansas— Scopes II — showed that such laws violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by |
| |promoting a sectarian religious idea inappropriate for the public school science classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court reached the same decision |
|10 |in Edwards v. Aguillard. |
| |Such decisions doomed creation science in the public schools, but they opened a niche for a repackaging of creationism: "intelligent design" (ID). |
| |Like creation science, ID was presented as a scientific "alternative" to evolution, though its scientific content was intentionally vague. Its |
| |proponents claimed to have a method to identify natural phenomena that are, supposedly, incapable of being explained by evolution. ID advocates |
| |contend that "irreducibly complex" structures such as the bacterial flagellum can only be explained by appealing to the action of an intelligent |
|15 |agent. |
| |To secure a wide base of creationist supporters, ID advocates are coy about when and how such actions occurred. Because creation science, which |
| |insists on a 6,000-year-old Earth, is still the dominant form of anti-evolutionism, ID can't afford to take a stand to the contrary. Nonetheless, |
| |the mainstream of the ID movement is sympathetic to what theologians call progressive creationism, where God creates in fits and starts over time, |
| |rather than in six days. It's still creationism, and so is ID. |
|20 |All signs point to 'God' |
| |To avoid this accusation, and thus circumvent the Establishment Clause, ID advocates are also coy about the identity of the designer, claiming that|
| |it doesn't have to be God. But, token allusions to the possibility of extraterrestrial or time-traveling biochemists notwithstanding, no one is |
| |fooled into thinking that the designer is not the Designer: God. |
| |Initially, ID proponents encouraged the teaching of ID in the public schools, but lately they've had second thoughts. They likely have figured out |
|25 |that if a school district required the teaching of ID, a judge would inevitably ask, "By the way, who's the 'intelligent designer'? Sounds a lot |
| |like God." And the jig will be up. |
| |To avoid this legal predicament, the ID movement's leaders have shifted strategy, encouraging school districts and teachers not to teach ID but to |
| |teach "evidence against evolution" or "the controversy." This message comes too late for Dover, Pa., where last fall the school board passed a |
| |policy requiring the teaching of ID. In September, Dover's ID policy will go on trial, in what might aptly be called Scopes III. |
|30 |Elsewhere — in Kansas, for example, where a creationist majority on the State Board of Education is monkeying with the state's science standards — |
| |"teach the controversy" is the new rallying cry of creationists. The hope is that if students are taught that evolution is suspect, they will |
| |automatically embrace creationism. But "teach the controversy" is not a pedagogical device that will help them in college: Evolution is taught |
| |matter-of-factly at the nation's most prestigious universities, including religious institutions such as Brigham Young, Baylor and Notre Dame. |
| |The propaganda that evolution is a theory in crisis is hardly new. In 1925, William Jennings Bryan falsely contended that evolutionary science was |
|35 |on the verge of collapse, as his heirs argue today. Yet the evidence for evolution is stronger than ever. |
| |Historically, improvements in the teaching of evolution are inevitably followed by a backlash. When anti-evolutionists couldn't ban evolution, they|
| |tried to get creationism taught alongside it. When the courts said creationism couldn't be taught in public schools, anti-evolutionists called for |
| |teaching spurious "evidence against evolution" in the hope that students would come to mistrust evolution and accept creationism by default. |
| |What's happening in classrooms |
|40 |What ought to be taught in high school science class? The basic methods and results of the consensus view of the scientific community. Evolution is|
| |part, and a vital part, of this consensus; creation science and intelligent design are not. Students should understand evolution, both if they are |
| |going on to college and for general scientific literacy. But in too many places across the country, students are not learning it. |
| |And that's a problem, because it is widely recognized that the 21st century will be the century of biology, in which genomic, medical and |
| |biotechnological discoveries are bound to revolutionize our economy and our lives — and those of our children. America needs to produce the |
|45 |scientists who will pioneer in these fields, which means maintaining and improving the quality of science education — including a healthy dose of |
| |evolution, uncompromised by sectarian dogma, bad science and fake "critical analysis." Because those high school kids in India, China, Korea and |
| |Singapore are learning evolution, even if ours aren't. |
| |From: |
| | |
|50 | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|55 | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|60 | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|65 | |
| | |
|Neo-Darwinism | |
|The modern version of the theory of evolution. It affirms that all living | |
|organisms descended from original common ancestors, but it includes the | |
|infusion of newer molecular genetic and developmental theory. | |
| | |
|Theory of evolution | |
|The theory that all species of plants and animals descended from a common | |
|ancestor. It also asserts that the process of natural selection plays a | |
|large role in the diversification of life over time. | |
| | |
|Intelligent design | |
|A new and developing theory that says certain features of living systems are| |
|best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected mechanism. | |
|While ID does not reject evolution as change over time, or common ancestry, | |
|it does challenge the idea that life arose by undirected processes of | |
|natural selection. | |
| | |
|Creationism | |
|The religious concept that a supernatural creator produced the universe and | |
|life directly. It's often based upon the Bible's Book of Genesis. | |
| | |
|Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary, John Angus Campbell, Stephen| |
|C. Meyer, Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch. | |
| | |
Evolution vs. Creationism
|1925 |50s/60s |1982/87 |Intelligent Design |TODAY |FUTURE |
|“monkey trial” |Evolution comes back in to |=> Anti- Evolutionism |(ID) |Evolution is taught at most |- Science will be the key to progress |
|John Scopes violated a law |schools/ textbooks |- CREATION SCIENCE |Scientific alternative which claims|universities |_ in order to stay competitive, people |
|banning evolution from the | |- 26 states tried to legislate |explanations for natural phenomenon|- some states have banned it from |must be taught evolution in science |
|Tennessee curriculum | |creation science |which couldn’t be explained by |their school’s curriculum/ or tried|class or other will succeed |
| | |- Court decisions: |evolution theory |to | |
| | |Creation science is |- earth not created in 6 days |- many teach evolution as a theory | |
| | |unconstitutional |- intelligent agent |and present more theories of origin| |
Vocabulary:
irreducible (l. 19)- nicht verminderbar
bacterial flagellum (l. 20)- complex molecular system which is essential to the evolutionary process
coy (l. 22)- zurückhaltend
circumvent (l. 28)- abgrenzen
notwithstanding (l. 30)- dennoch, gleichwohl, obwohl
predicament (l. 36)- Dilemma, Zwickmühle
backlash (l. 50)- Gegenbewegung, Gegenreaktion
spurious (l. 53)- falsch, gefälscht, störend
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.