Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Evolution Controversy in Our Schools (Letter from NAS President Bruce Alberts)
National Academy of Sciences ^ | 04 March 2005 | Bruce Alberts

Posted on 07/19/2005 9:03:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

Dear Colleagues:

I write to alert you to efforts by the National Academies to confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools; your help may be needed in your state soon.

On February 7, 2005, Michael Behe, a founder and leading proponent of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, published a long Op-Ed in the New York Times in response to an editorial that the Times had released the previous week. In that letter, Dr. Behe claimed that some words I wrote support his view that scientific explanations for the evolution of life on the Earth need to be modified to insert the work of an "intelligent designer".

In my response to the Times, I pointed out that, while my words are reflected correctly in Behe's column, he completely misrepresents the intent of my statement. This is a common tactic among those who are attempting to introduce religious views of the origins of life into the public schools -- or who are trying to undermine the teaching of evolution because of purported "weaknesses" in the theory.

I write to you now because of a growing threat to the teaching of science through the inclusion of non-scientifically based "alternatives" in science courses throughout the country. A recent article in the Washington Post pointed out that there are challenges to the teaching of evolution in 40 states or local school districts around the country today (for more details, visit the website of the National Center for Science Education. Major newspapers, magazines, and other media (e.g., Time, Newsweek, MSNBC, National Geographic) have featured major stories about the controversy during the past six months.

Recent tactics to cast doubt on the veracity or robustness of the theory of evolution have included placing disclaimer stickers in the front of high school biology textbooks (Cobb County, GA and Alabama; proposal before the Missouri House of Representatives), mandating or recommending the inclusion of Intelligent Design in high school biology courses (e.g., Dover, PA; Cecil County, MD, respectively); development of statewide lesson plans that encourage students to examine "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution (Ohio), and plans to revisit parts of state science standards that focus on evolution (Kansas State Board of Education). If these challenges have not yet reached where you live or work, they are likely to do so in time.

A federal judge recently ruled the Cobb County stickers to be unconstitutional and has ordered them removed from all textbooks; an appeal is pending. The courts will soon hear a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of parents in Dover County, PA about whether ID also is tantamount to promoting religion (for additional information about the various forms of "scientific creationism" and ID, see Resources. However, these challenges continue unabated across our nation, and the New York Times and Education Week report that even where the controversy is not overt, teachers are quietly being urged to avoid teaching about evolution -- or have decided not to do so because it engenders so much rancor from a subgroup of students, parents, and members of the school board or local community. As a result, one of the foundations of modern science is being neglected or banished outright from science classrooms in many parts of the United States.

If your discipline is not the life sciences, you may be wondering why I have chosen to write to all members of the National Academy of Sciences. Although the controversy focuses primarily on biology, some who challenge the teaching of evolution in our nation's schools have also focused their sights on the earth and physical sciences. For example, when the Kansas Board of Education first removed portions of biological evolution from their science standards in 1998, they also eliminated statements mandating that Kansas students learn about the Big Bang, that there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 10,000 years, and the theory of plate tectonics. All of these items were returned to the Kansas standards following extensive pressure from many organizations, including a joint letter signed by me and the Presidents of AAAS and the National Science Teachers Association and the removal of several Board members during a subsequent election. But, as noted earlier, the Kansas Board of Education plans to re-examine their science standards because the 2004 election has again resulted in a majority who favor the inclusion of "alternatives to evolution" in the state's science curriculum.

The National Academies have been involved for many years in helping scientific colleagues, teachers, and concerned citizens in individual states and school districts respond. While these challenges have national implications for science and science education, they are typically viewed as local issues, and "meddling" from organizations in Washington, DC is often viewed with skepticism. As a result, when asked to assist, I have contacted NAS members who live in the state where a specific challenge is presented, enlisting their assistance through the writing of op-ed pieces, speaking at school board meetings and related activities. The NAS also has published three reports, two of which are specifically directed to science teachers to help them understand both evolutionary theory and the social controversies that surround its teaching. Descriptions of these reports and our efforts to confront challenges to the teaching of evolution are summarized in a recent article [link doesn't work] published in Cell Biology Education.

We stand ready to help others in addressing the increasingly strident attempts to limit the teaching of evolution or to introduct non-scientific "alternatives" into science courses and curricula. If this controversy arrives at your doorstep, I hope that you will both alert us to the specific issues in our state or school district and be willing to use your positon and prestige as a member of the NAS in helping to work locally.

[Snip]

Thank you very much. We look forward to hearing from you.

With best regards,

Bruce Alberts
President
National Academy of Sciences


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationscifi; crevolist; despotism; education; scienceeducation; theoryasfact; unintelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,121-1,135 next last
Bold and underlining added by me.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

The NAS was signed into being by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, at the height of the Civil War. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. [Skip] The Academy membership is comprised of approximately 2,000 members and 350 foreign associates, of whom more than 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer. Source: About the NAS.

1 posted on 07/19/2005 9:03:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 290 names.
See the list's description at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

2 posted on 07/19/2005 9:05:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Radical evolutionists intent to throw science to the whims and assume they're theory is best sans evidence. This sort of public crushing of scientific reason and discourse in the favor of popular theory hasn't been seen since the heliocentric theory. The athiests continue to wage Jihad on the Religious.


3 posted on 07/19/2005 9:09:18 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"If this controversy arrives at your doorstep, I hope that you will both alert us to the specific issues in our state or school district and be willing to use your positon and prestige as a member of the NAS in helping to work locally."


Please help us! They aren't teaching we descended from monkeys. What shall we do? bah wah wah
4 posted on 07/19/2005 9:09:32 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Could they see fit to introduce a presentation on when life begins in human procreation?

After all, that is observable and repeatable. They should be able to do the necessary case studies to prove for once and for all when life begins.

Meanwhile, at best evolution will be a theory. It may be correct in principle but there can always be some details that are wrong on not know (a leap of faith must be made to fill in for the "missing links" between one species and the next).

When we permit theory to be taught as fact, we wind up with things like "global warming" and "Marxist philosophy" being taught in public schools.

Call it a theory and let the young ones know that just because we are adults does not mean that we know it all. This is why scientists continue to do research. Maybe a young student will get the spark to choose that as a path to unlock the answers we don't know.


5 posted on 07/19/2005 9:09:56 AM PDT by weegee (The blame on Plame is mainly that it's lame . . . - END THE ROVEBAITING NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I hate "bold and underlining added."

I hate government schooling, too.

I guess I'm just in a hate-filled mood today. Better go find some chocolate.


6 posted on 07/19/2005 9:10:29 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Democrats ... frolicking on the wilder shores of Planet Zongo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
Radical evolutionists intent to throw science to the whims and assume they're theory is best sans evidence.

1) It's "their", not "they're".

2) Pretending that the theory is "sans evidence" does not make it so.

The athiests continue to wage Jihad on the Religious.

Ah, not even five posts in and already a creationist has dishonestly equivocated acceptance of evolution with atheism.
7 posted on 07/19/2005 9:11:32 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
Never too soon to post a source of information. Alas, those who are most in need are the least likely to look:
The List-O-Links.
How to argue against a scientific theory.
8 posted on 07/19/2005 9:12:12 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with athiesism. Of course, that fact is not important to you.


9 posted on 07/19/2005 9:12:24 AM PDT by TOWER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: weegee
let the young ones know that just because we are adults does not mean that we know it all

This is something I regularly reinforce with my kids. You can't just believe everything you hear from an adult ... he could be lying, honestly mistaken, or joking with you. Always be ready to evaluate the source.

10 posted on 07/19/2005 9:12:40 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Democrats ... frolicking on the wilder shores of Planet Zongo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
o you really think it is approriate for the NAS to be involved in this. They are supported by the taxpayer after all.

This would seem inappropriate to me.

11 posted on 07/19/2005 9:12:59 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TOWER

"athiesism"?


12 posted on 07/19/2005 9:13:09 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Democrats ... frolicking on the wilder shores of Planet Zongo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

As has been evidenced in every debate on FR evolutionists do not respond with evidence, they respond with accusations of spelling mistakes. The theory is full of holes and assumptions most of those based on other assumptions. The theory even in it's relatively short life span has frequently relied on falsifying, or ignoring evidence to the contrary. The point of the article is to convince people to eliminate any other teaching from the schools or colleges. This is no less radical than removing references to Russian history from US textbooks during the cold war. Darwinian evolution is athiesm. Pure and simple. Heck even the pope says so.


13 posted on 07/19/2005 9:14:39 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic


Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" (source: Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, [Master Books 1987], pp.155-156)


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Taken from: http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html


14 posted on 07/19/2005 9:17:14 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"when the Kansas Board of Education first removed portions of biological evolution from their science standards in 1998, they also eliminated statements mandating that Kansas students learn about the Big Bang, that there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 10,000 years, and the theory of plate tectonics."

Why not take the next step, Kansas? Eliminate all science from your schools now. That way, you can make sure your students are as uneducated as possible and doomed to failure in the high tech workforce of the 21st century. School districts that take these sorts of actions will see an incredible proportion of their students serving fries and wearing funny hats the rest of their lives. Regardless of whether or not you believe Big Bang theory and the ToE, it's vital to have a strong background in the science behind them. No one benefits from removing science from the classroom and replacing it with Raelian pseudoscience. I tend to wonder if, when ID starts being taught in some schools, they'll have Rael come out and talk to the kids about the origins of the species.
15 posted on 07/19/2005 9:17:59 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
ping


Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info

16 posted on 07/19/2005 9:18:54 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
You can't just believe everything you hear from an adult ... he could be lying, honestly mistaken, or joking with you. Always be ready to evaluate the source.

Hmmm. The entire scientific community on one side with over 150 years of data to back them up vs. few strident "God-in-the-gaps" voices on the other. How to choose.... How to choose...

Well Duh!

17 posted on 07/19/2005 9:19:00 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
Wow, a grammatical and scientific abomination in the same post.

With opponents like this, evolution is in no danger whatsoever.

18 posted on 07/19/2005 9:19:44 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

And yet evolutionists continually sue schools which teach anything but the theory of evolution. Students are routinely, as was I, forced to acknolwedge only the theory of evolution as a valid theory on tests in the science programs. Evolutionists will delete eany evidence contrary to their theory from the curriculum, and falsify evidence as needed to satisfy the curious.


19 posted on 07/19/2005 9:20:18 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Typo


20 posted on 07/19/2005 9:21:16 AM PDT by TOWER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,121-1,135 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson