Author
|
Topic: AAAS on "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes (Read 1312 times) |
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.39
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
AAAS on "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes
« on: 2002-11-09 15:26:28 » |
 |
AAAS Board Resolution Urges Opposition
to "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Author: Ginger Pinholster
Dated: 2002-11-06
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.39
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:AAAS on "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes
« Reply #1 on: 2002-11-09 15:27:30 » |
|
AAAS Board Resolution
on Intelligent Design Theory
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Author: AAAS Board of Directors
Dated: 2002-10-18
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.
Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.39
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:AAAS on "Intelligent Design" Theory in U.S. Science Classes
« Reply #2 on: 2002-11-09 15:28:23 » |
|
Ohio should keep 'Intelligent Design' out of science class
Source: The Beakon Journal
Author: Alan I. Leshner
Dated: 2002-11-06
WASHINGTON - The writer is the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has 134,000 members serving 10 million scientists worldwide and publishes the weekly journal Science.
"Intelligent Design" theory -- reminiscent of creationism, but more nuanced and harder to label -- has continued to challenge the Ohio Board of Education for the past several years. Ohio officials are not alone as they grapple with ID theory, which holds that the complexity of DNA and the diversity of life forms on our planet can be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent.
In a growing number of other states across the country, advocates have gathered, some wearing T-shirts depicting Charles Darwin on a "wanted" poster, to protest ID's exclusion from science classrooms, and to seek disclaimer stickers on science textbooks, describing evolution as a "disputed view."
Surely, few would begrudge ID advocates their views, or the right to discuss the concept as part of religious studies.
At issue is whether ID theory, untested and un-testable by scientific means, should be served to students on the same platter with the well-supported theory of biological evolution.
On Oct. 14, the Ohio Board of Education voted unanimously, although in a preliminary way, to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. The ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."
In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District in Columbus adopted a motion in June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
Undaunted by tens of thousands of e-mails it already has received on the topic, the state's education board is now gamely inviting further public comment through November. In December, the education board is scheduled to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels.
The ID movement has been quietly gaining momentum in a number of states. Disclaimer stickers placed on science textbooks in Georgia this spring, and the Patrick Henry Local School District's nod to ID theory are only the latest indications of the movement's successes to date. In Georgia, Cobb County officials did at least soften their original decision to affix stickers to textbooks after a lawsuit was filed Aug. 21 by the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union: The biological theory of evolution is a "disputed view," officials said in a subsequent policy statement. It must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account alternative, religious teachings.
Clearly, the ID movement is emerging as one of the more significant threats to U.S. science education, fueled by a sophisticated marketing campaign based on a three-pronged penetration of the scientific community, educators, and the general public. ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well as Ohio and Georgia.
What do scientists think of all this? We have great problems with the claim that ID is a scientific theory, or a science-based alternative to evolutionary theory. We don't question its religious or philosophical underpinnings. That's not our business. But, there is no scientific evidence underlying ID theory. No relevant research has been done; no papers have been published in scientific journals. Because it has no science base, we believe that ID theory should be excluded from science curricula in schools.
In fact, the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest general scientific society in the world, has just passed a resolution urging policy-makers to keep intelligent design theory out of U.S. science classrooms. Noting that the United States has promised to "leave no child behind," the organization's board found that intelligent design theory -- if presented within science courses as factually based -- is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education. At a time when standards-based learning and performance assessments are paramount, children would be better served by keeping scientific information separate from religious concepts.
Certainly, American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, and the scientific community is no exception. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, science and conceptual belief systems should not be commingled, as ID proponents have repeatedly proposed. The ID argument that random mutations in nature and natural selection, for example, are too complex for scientific explanation is an interesting -- and for some, highly compelling -- philosophical or theological concept. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution, and it isn't based on science. In sum, there's no data to back it up, and no way of scientifically testing the validity of the ideas proposed by ID advocates.
The quality of U.S. science education and our international competitiveness are at stake here. We live in an era when science and technology are central to every issue facing our society -- individual and national security, health care, economic prosperity, employment opportunities. Children who lack an appropriate grounding in science and mathematics, and who can't discriminate what is and isn't evidence, are doomed to lag behind their better-educated counterparts. America's science classrooms are certainly no place to mix church and state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
