NAS’s Draft “Framework for Science Education” Ignores Critical Thinking When Teaching Evolution

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is drafting a “Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards” which contains guidelines and standards on how to teach evolution. As we’ve noted before here on ENV, science education authorities often laud the importance of using critical thinking when teaching science, but then they completely ignore or eschew such educational approaches when it comes to teaching evolution. They single out evolution as the topic where scientific critique or critical analysis is carefully avoided. The NAS’s public preliminary draft “Framework for Science Education” (warning: large 6.8 Mb PDF file) uses exactly this approach. Having perused the proposed draft framework and found some dogmatic statements about evolution, a few noteworthy points emerge. While some of the Read More ›

The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism

I have written an extensive response to the National Academy of Sciences’ new anti-ID booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The full response, The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism, can be read online here or downloaded as a PDF. Permission is freely granted to reproduce the document for educational use. Below are some excerpts from the rebuttal: Introduction A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. Two years later, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its first Science and Creationism booklet, stating that science and religion occupy “separate and mutually exclusive realms.” Public skepticism of evolution remained high–a Read More ›

New NAS Document Science, Evolution, and Creationism Misrepresents the Flagellum

One could write many pages correcting the inaccurate information in the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) new version of Science, Evolution and Creationism. One of its most egregious errors is that it blatantly misrepresents the flagellum. It states, “For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria.” (pg. 40) While technically this statement may be true if one looks at the fine-grain of the amino-acid sequence of every single protein among flagellum-bearing bacteria, there most certainly are highly conserved flagellar parts. In this regard, this statement is extremely misleading and inaccurate. Consider the conclusions, directly to the contrary of the NAS, of Mark J. Pallen et al.‘s Read More ›

Why Don’t Proclamations that Evolution and Religion are Compatible Have a Large Effect on this Debate?

For years Darwinists have been doing their best to remind the world of the good news that evolution and religion can be compatible. Yet skepticism of evolution continues to remain at a very high level in the United States. Why is this? A timeline of random samples of statements and polls: 1982: Polls say that only 9% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. 1984: The National Academy of Sciences assures the public that science and religion occupy “separate and mutually exclusive realms,” and that religion and science are compatible. (Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 1st edition, 1984) 1993: Polls say that only 11% of Americans believe that humans developed Read More ›