Trying science in the courtroom shuts down scientific debate

Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center has published a column looking at the current court cases involving evolution. While he mistakenly looks at intelligent design theory as just the next step after creationism in the anti-evolutionary chain, he does have some interesting insights into the drawbacks for science of shutting down the debate. “If school board resolutions aren’t the answer, who decides what, if any, critiques of evolution get into the curriculum? The short answer is – or should be – scientists decide. But many in the science establishment worry that teaching the controversy – even conflicts among scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory – would open the door to creationist or other religious views. That’s why so Read More ›

The not so secular face of evolution

American Daily has posted an interesting article by writer Robert Myers, “The Face of Evolution,” making the case that neo-Darwinism may be unfit for the classroom as it is a religion itself and that if it is allowed in other theories should be as well. “The first time that I heard the concept of evolution presented as a religion or philosophy, I snickered at the audacity of such a proposition. But the more I have taken notice of how the arguments are made, the more I see the religious aspects of the evolutionary position.” I have to point out — lest we be misquoted — that our position remains that intelligent design theory should NOT be mandated, but that it Read More ›

Kansas to review science standards

The Kansas State Board of Education will take up science education when it reviews standards and policies for teaching evolution. A group of scientists and educators, who are members of the science standards writing committee, have submitted proposed revisions that would follow in the footsteps of Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico and require students to learn both the strengths as well as the weaknesses of Darwin’s theory. One can only hope that the media take the time to actually read the proposed revisions, and don’t just resort to rehashing the stereotypes that so dominated the media when this was an issue in Kansas in 2000. The proponents of these proposed revisions have set up their own website: www.kansasscience2005.com.