Books on "Intelligent Design"

Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

By Ken Miller (New York: Viking Press, 2008). Released in June. Amazon  Excerpt from Only a Theory

Miller (PhD, University of Colorado), a recipient of numerous awards for outstanding teaching, is a cell biologist, a professor of biology at Brown University, and the coauthor of widely used high school and college biology textbooks, e.g, Prentice Hall Biology (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), with TOC here. In addition, he has written articles that have appeared in numerous scientific journals and magazines, including Nature, Scientific American, Cell, and Discover. His CV is posted here.   Biosketch on Wikipedia.   His web page and evolution page link to a number of his helpful lectures in print, audio, and video formats.

A leading scientist examines the battle between evolution and Intelligent Design in America

At the dawn of the twenty- first century, the debate over Darwin’s theory of evolution is nearly as contentious as it was in the notorious Scopes trial a century ago. Today, however, people who believe that evolution is “only a theory” have put their hopes in a concept known as Intelligent Design.

In Only a Theory, Kenneth Miller dissects the claims of the ID movement in the same incisive style that marked his testimony as an expert witness in Pennsylvania’s landmark 2005 Dover evolution trial.

Unlike other books on the subject, Only a Theory’s critique of ID goes far beyond the scientific claims of the movement. To Miller, America’s “soul”—its place as the world’s leading scientific nation—is at risk because of this struggle. As he explains, the tactics of this new assault on science mimic earlier efforts of the academic left to remake science as a relativistic, culturally determined enterprise, rather than a rational search for truth about the natural world. Such marginalization, he argues, would effectively destroy American science.

Despite this analysis, Miller refuses to play the role of pessimist. He sees this as a teachable opportunity, a moment at which public understanding and support for science can be redeemed, and offers nothing less than a prescription for how America can save its scientific soul.

Review
"In this powerfully argued and timely book, Ken Miller takes on the fundamental core of the Intelligent Design movement, and shows with compelling examples and devastating logic that ID is not only bad science but is potentially threatening in other deeper ways to America's future. But make no mistake, this is not some atheistic screed -- Prof. Miller's perspective as a devout believer will allow his case to resonate with believers and non-believers alike."
--Francis Collins, Director, the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

"Only A Theory is an original and perceptive examination of the causes and effects of the ongoing civil war over evolution in America. A wise and tested veteran of its front lines, Ken Miller makes the compelling case that there is much more at stake in this conflict than one scientific theory - the fate of America's hard-earned scientific prowess is in the balance. Readers are sure to be inspired by this passionate appeal to defend and nourish one of our most important institutions."
--Sean B. Carroll, author of The Making of the Fittest and Endless Forms Most Beautiful

“Ever since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species 150 years ago, the public controversy over creation and evolution has been fought largely in books. For the past two decades, Ken Miller has been a prominent participant in that debate with his books and lectures. In Only a Theory, Miller takes up the cudgels again in a lively new book that persuasively argues for the theory of evolution, penetratingly critiques the claims for intelligent design, and explains why this dispute should matter to everyone. It may be only a book, but it’s a good one. I highly recommend it.”
--Edward J. Larson, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory

“Ken Miller’s new book, Only a Theory, is everything we have come to expect from him— informed, witty, and above all deeply serious about matters of concern to us all. He takes so-called intelligent design theory apart, piece by piece, showing it for the sham that it is. In its stead, Miller makes a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking and begs that we not keep this wonderful science from our children. Highly recommended!”
--Michael Ruse, author of Darwinism and Its Discontents

"Thoroughly enjoyable and informative, this new book by Miller (Finding Darwin’s God), a Brown University biologist and leading proponent of evolution, dismantles the scientific basis of intelligent design piece by piece. He does this by taking seriously the claims of intelligent design (though with tongue often in cheek), such as irreducible complexity, and looking at the biological facts and the dubious conclusions ID concepts would lead to. He turns to the peer-reviewed scientific literature to demonstrate that the two biological phenomena ID proponents say could not have evolved—blood-clotting proteins and bacterial flagella—are now well-enough understood to fully rebut intelligent design. Looking at the underlying philosophical issues, Miller explains that ID’s proponents want to replace modern science with “ 'theistic science’... that would use the Divine not as ultimate cause, but as scientific explanation.” Miller effectively explores the devastating consequences such a change would have on both science and society. In a measured, well-reasoned book, Miller explains why evolution does not deny us our humanity or our unique place in the universe."

--Publishers Weekly, April 2008. 

 

Interviews about Only a Theory

 

The Colbert Report, June 16, 2008 (6 minutes).

Science Friday: Making Science User-Friendly, June 13, 2008

The Case Against Intelligent Design by Sarah F. Gold -- Publishers Weekly, 4/28/2008

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller is a leading opponent of intelligent design. In Only a Theory (Reviews, Apr. 14), he explains why.

How would you quickly sum up the central flaw in intelligent design?

No evidence. Was that quick enough? When you look at the arguments that are raised for ID, no one says: here’s the fingerprint of the designer or here we can see design taking place. Rather, the argument is, we see a feature of a biological system that evolution couldn’t have produced. Therefore something else must have made it. Now that’s equivalent to saying, let’s suppose, you think the moon is made of granite and I think it’s made of green cheese. And we get soil samples back from the moon, and you know what? They’re not made of granite. So I say, great, that’s evidence for the green cheese theory. Well, it’s not. It’s an entirely negative argument.

How did you become involved in the debate over intelligent design?

In 1981, a group of students came to me and said, “We”—meaning the Campus Crusade for Christ—“have invited a scientific creationist to campus. Why don’t you debate him on evolution?” I put them off, but listened to an audio tape of a lecture to know where this guy was coming from. And the more I listened, the more upset I got, on two grounds. The first was the scientific misrepresentation and distortions. And the second was that these guys would dare to say, “We speak for religion.” When we finally had our debate, quite frankly, I whupped the guy. In his own in-house newsletter, he said that this guy Miller at Brown was the most effective evolutionist debater he had ever encountered.

Why do you say that intelligent design is a greater threat to science than creationism was?

First, intelligent design is less easily identified as religious in nature. And second, it promotes a kind of relativistic interpretation of science. Phillip Johnson, the father of intelligent design, has said science is simply a collection of stories told by the dominant hierarchy in order to reinforce its position and privileges. The reason that’s dangerous is it undermines the reason why most people choose to go into science, and it undermines the reason why ordinary people are interested in science—honest curiosity about the natural world.

Is resolving this debate a matter of education?

There is no question that we don’t do as good a job as we should of scientific education in this country. But it’s also partly the way members of the scientific community present themselves to the public. All too often they say, we don’t want to get involved in squabbles in the political arena or the pop arena. And I think that is self-defeating, because science in a democracy like ours depends on popular support and popular understanding.

There Is ‘Design’ In Nature, Biologist Argues, but It's Evolutionary Design

ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) — Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller has to hand one victory to the “intelligent design” crowd. They know how to frame an issue. “The idea that there is ‘design’ in nature is very appealing,” Miller said. “People want to believe that life isn’t purposeless and random. That’s why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support.

"To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of ‘design’ and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature,” he said.

In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston, Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of “design” — the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life."

Miller will join seven other experts to discuss ways to craft communication efforts around evolution, stem cell research, climate change and nanotechnology that are sensitive to religious communities while remaining true to science.

Miller is a cell biologist and the Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown. Miller is coauthor of four high school and college biology textbooks, which are used by millions of students nationwide, and is regarded as America's leading defender of Darwin's theory of evolution. This year in South Carolina, Miller successfully defended one of his textbooks against an anti-evolution attack before the state school board. In 2005, he served as lead witness in the trial on evolution and intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania. His popular book, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution, addresses the scientific status of evolutionary theory and its relationship to religious views of nature.

“Miller will use arguments from his new book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul to be published by Viking Press in May, for his AAAS talk. Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the “design” concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design — or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.

“He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.

“There is, indeed, a design to life — an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”

The session is entitled "Communicating Science in a Religious America."

Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design 

by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).    Amazon

Book Description
This carefully documented expose of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement contributed to the stunning victory in Federal court of eleven Dover, PA, parents who recognized ID's threat to public education and religious freedom. Now in paperback, here is Forrest and Gross's influential work documenting the continuity of intelligent design with traditional creationism. The new text updates ID initiatives in Kansas and Ohio and the movement's shifting strategies in an attempt to remain viable after its legal undoing in federal court. Anyone who values science and the benefits of life in an enlightened society should know about the Wedge's political, cultural, and religious ambitions. With a new foreword by Barry Lynn, this updated edition is an essential guide to ID's continuing threat to public education and the separation of church and state. It is the book to turn to for an inside look at the claims and operations of the ID movement, the most recent manifestation of American creationism.

Review
"Science educators can benefit greatly by understanding creationists' motivations and strategies. These are thoroughly documented in Creationism's Trojan Horse"--SCIENCE

“Forrest and Gross have combined scrupulous standards of documentation with a fluid and lively narrative to generate an engrossing and chilling account of how a few people have been able to wreak havoc with science education. A must-read for anyone interested in how America can be hijacked.” --- Ursula Goodenough, Professor of Biology, Washington University and author of The Sacred Depths of Nature

“With all the rigor and detail of Ronald Numbers’s The Creationists but with the passion and verve of Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould, Creationism's Trojan Horse incisively analyzes the latest evolutionary step of creationism: ‘intelligent design.’ Forrest and Gross’s history and critique of intelligent design creationism is both authoritative and fascinating, painstakingly researched and compellingly argued. Creationism's Trojan Horse will be the standard work on intelligent design creationism for years to come.” --- Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education (below)

Interview with Barbara Forrest

 

Understanding the ID Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals

The Center for Inquiry Position Paper, 2007  Forrest. ID Creationism. 2007.pdf

 

Exposing the Latest ID Strategies: Dr. Barbara Forrest, a leading expert on the Intelligent Design movement, explained "Why Texans Shouldn't Let Creationists Mess with Science Education" on November 11, 2008, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Now video and audio of her talk is available on-line.  

Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism    

Edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; New Ed edition, March 2006).  Amazon   

Book Description

Is Darwinian evolution established fact, or a dogma ready to be overtaken by "intelligent design"? This is the debate raging in courtrooms and classrooms across the country.

Why Intelligent Design Fails assembles a team of physicists, biologists, computer scientists, mathematicians, and archaeologists to examine intelligent design from a scientific perspective. They consistently find grandiose claims without merit.

Contributors take intelligent design’s two most famous claims––irreducible complexity and information-based arguments––and show that neither challenges Darwinian evolution. They also discuss thermodynamics and self-organization; the ways human design is actually identified in fields such as forensic archaeology; how research in machine intelligence indicates that intelligence itself is the product of chance and necessity; and cosmological fine-tuning arguments.

Intelligent design turns out to be a scientific mistake, but a mistake whose details highlight the amazing power of Darwinian thinking and the wonders of a complex world without design.

 

Reviews

"Highly recommended." —Choice

"A terrific book that explores, fairly and openly, whether proponents of ID have any scientifically valid gadgets in their toolbox at all . . . accessibly written throughout and an invaluable aid to teachers and scientists."––Kevin Padian, professor and curator, University of California, Berkeley, and president, National Center for Science Education (below)

Read the Preface here

Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond

Edited by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey (New York: Norton, 2008).  Amazon

Book Description
From leading scientists, lawyers, and educators, a new and decisive rebuttal to the assault on evolution from proponents of "intelligent design."

With the pseudoscience of creationism rising again under the guise of "intelligent design," this powerful collection eviscerates the new assault on evolution and reveals the pervasive and insidious threat posed to genuine science by ID proponents like Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski. The sixteen original essays address two key issues: the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution gathered over 150 years and the dubious underpinnings of creationism; and how society can mount better educational and legal policies to prevent a theological takeover of our public and scientific institutions. The book includes powerful voices in the modern culture war against ID, including Kevin Padian, paleontologist and expert witness in the landmark lawsuit of Kitzmiller v. Dover. With creationist arguments forever morphing and reappearing under new aliases, this new confrontation is a must-read for teachers, students, and general readers, and a ringing and lasting refutation of creationism's fraudulent claims.

Nathan Comfort is Associate Professor at the Institute of the History of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. There he teaches on the history of biology, especially genetics, molecular biology and biomedicine, as well as the history of recent science.

Book Description: The debate over Intelligent Design seemingly represents an extension of the fundamental conflict between creationists and evolutionists. ID proponents, drawing on texts such as Darwin's Black Box and Of Pandas and People, urge schools to "teach the controversy" in biology class alongside evolution. The scientific mainstream has reacted with fury, branding Intelligent Design as pseudoscience and its advocates as religious fanatics.

 

But stridency misses the point, argues Nathaniel Comfort. In The Panda's Black Box, Comfort joins five other leading public intellectuals -- including Daniel Kevles and Pulitzer Prize winner Edward Larson -- to explain the roots of the controversy and explore the intellectual, social, and cultural factors that continue to shape it.

One of the few books on the ID issue that moves beyond mere name-calling and finger-pointing, The Panda's Black Box challenges assumptions on each side of the debate and engages both the appeal and dangers of Intelligent Design. This lively collection will appeal to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of what's really at stake in the debate over evolution.

Opening Paragraphs of the Introduction (by Comfort)

When the topic of the Intelligent Design controversy comes up, my biologist-friends often shrug and laugh, "What controversy?" This remark illustrates two key themes. First, among biologists, there is no controversy over Intelligent Design. There are real controversies within evolutionary biology, such as over the role and importance of neutral evolution versus natural selection and over the relative importance of molecular and fossil data. But ID is not one of them. Biologists—whether atheist, animist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or Jewish--simply do not take Intelligent Design seriously as an evolutionary mechanism. Second, the remark reflects a contempt for the larger controversy of which Intelligent Design is only a part. Science has been the dominant cultural enterprise of the twentieth century, and biology is now the queen of the sciences. The basic claims of biology—the evolution of life, the role of genes in heredity, the material basis of mind—are as well supported as the claim that the earth revolves around the sun. As a consequence, it has become easy to believe that biology can explain anything about any living thing. In recent years, we have seen biological explanations seep into such unlikely venues as international relations, literature, and even religion itself. The biological worldview is so well supported by evidence, so coherent theoretically, so compelling to anyone not dog­matically mystical, that many of those insulated by ivy-covered labo­ratory walls find it inconceivable that anyone would challenge it. Yet challenge it they do, and when the scientific community dismisses the challengers as either ignorant or stupid, the public—many of whom accept science's authority in matters of nature but not of morals—tends to see the disingenuous design proponents as para­gons of intellectual honesty and integrity. Religion and science may be reconcilable philosophically, but they are locked in a war for cul­tural authority.

To be sure, science has its activists—bright, worldly, politically sophisticated observers and spokesmen—and they are deeply, per­haps rightly, concerned about the status of science. But they are a minority. Most scientists prefer to practice their politics in the cir­cumscribed worlds of the department, university, and funding agen­cies and committees, rather than on the public stage.

"Teach the controversy," say the design proponents. They claim only to want fair, open-minded discussion of the alternatives to Dar­winian evolution in public biology classrooms. Their principal tool for teaching the controversy is the "supplemental" textbook Of Pan­das and People. The panda became the emblem of Intelligent Design in 2005, after Mike Argento, a columnist for the York, Pennsylvania, Daily Record, dubbed the Intelligent Design trial in Dover the "Panda trial." Yet teaching the controversy in biology class puts the panda in a black box. It deliberately misconstrues "the controversy" as being about the biological evidence and so masks the larger cultural and political debate with scientific language.

By all means, let us teach the controversy—but not in biology class. We need the tools of the humanities to peel away the rhetoric and the politics, to see what the controversy is really about. We must open the panda's black box. Let us begin by recognizing the contro­versy as a debate between anti-Darwinists and anti-creationists, rather than creationists and evolutionists. Not all creationists are anti-Darwinists and not all evolutionists are anticreationists. The debate is between a small, highly vocal subset of the populations each side claims to represent. Recalling this is the first step in resolv­ing the apparent paradox of how such an antiscientific movement could garner so much attention at a historical moment when the life sciences have achieved unprecedented status and power.

One point on which anti-Darwinists and anticreationists agree is that this is a pitched battle between dogmatic religious fanatics on the one hand, and rigorous, fair-minded scientists on the other. However, which side is which depends on who you read. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the philosopher and ardent anticreationist Daniel Dennett wrote that there were "no forces on this planet more dan­gerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism" and fol­lowed with a discussion of the creation scientists' campaign to have creation science taught alongside evolution in schools. But Dennett himself has been called a fundamentalist-and by no less than the distinguished evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Reviewing The Devil's Chaplain by the English evolutionist and anticreationist Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse called Dawkins "the atheist's answer to Billy Graham." Anti-Darwinists delight in such table-turning and rarely miss a chance to cast their opponents as fundamentalist fanatics. George Gilder, cofounder of the Discovery Institute, the epicenter of the ID movement, wrote, "To parallel 'Inherit the Wind,' it's the materialists who are the religious fanatics this time. They want to stomp on their critics." In Darwin on Trial (1991), a founding text of ID, Phillip Johnson distanced himself from fundamentalism, writ­ing, "I am not a defender of creation-science ... I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their pre-commitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have very little to say about their posi­tion." His goal in the book was to investigate whether Darwinism, too, was "another kind of fundamentalism." In this debate, then, fundamentalism stands for dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and superstition.

Science, in contrast, stands for reason, fairness, objectivity, and adherence to demonstrable fact. The anti-Darwinists drape them­selves in the mantle of science, damning their opponents as mystics and mountebanks...

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives

Edited by Robert T. Pennock (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).  Amazon 

Review: "This book is a terrific one-volume summary of the scientific, philosophical and theological issues." -- Scientific American

Book Description: The last decade saw the arrival of a new player in the creation/evolution debate--the intelligent design creationism (IDC) movement, whose strategy is to act as "the wedge" to overturn Darwinism and scientific naturalism. This anthology of writings by prominent creationists and their critics focuses on what is novel about the new movement. It serves as a companion to Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel, in which he criticizes the wedge movement, as well as other new varieties of creationism.

The book contains articles previously published in specialized, hard-to-find journals, as well as new contributions. Each section contains introductory background information, articles by influential creationists and their critics, and in some cases responses by the creationists. The discussions cover IDC as a political movement, IDC's philosophical attack on evolution, the theological debate over the apparent conflict between evolution and the Bible, IDC's scientific claims, and philosopher Alvin Plantinga's critique of naturalism and evolution. The book concludes with Pennock's "Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in the Public Schools."

Chapter 1: "The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream" by Barbara Forrest, PhD

Other "ID-Critical" Resources

The National Center for Science Education

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice on teaching evolution in the science classroom. They provide:

Voices for Evolution (Berkeley: The National Center for Science Education, 2008).

Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, “Evolution is not a peripheral subject but the central organizing principle of all biological science. No one who has not read the Bible or the Bard can be considered educated in Western traditions; so no one ignorant of evolution can understand science.” Yet the teaching of evolution in the public schools of the United States is under constant attack. Voices for Evolution is a vital part of the defense…

Amid the dizzying panoply of creationist activity, what is gratifyingly constant is the thoughtful, balanced, and authoritative opposition from the scientific, educational, and civil liberties communities, as well as from a considerable portion of the faith community. Organizations small and large, local, national, and international, have expressed their unflinching support for evolution education. Their statements are collected here, in Voices for Evolution.

When creationists claim that evolution is a theory in crisis, tottering on the verge of extinction, ready for the dustbin of history, the scientific community—including the most prestigious scientific organizations in the country, the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science—is always there to tell the truth. “The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry,” the AAAS observes.

When creationists claim that evolution is intrinsically antireligious, a deadly threat to faith and morals, a goodly portion of the faith community—Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and humanist—is always there to demonstrate that there are people of faith who regard their acceptance of evolution as compatible with, or even enriching, their religious faith, and who reject any creationist attempts to portray a rejection of evolution as essential to their faith.

And when creationists claim that it is unfair not to teach creationism along with evolution, or not to teach that evolution is in a precarious state, the rebuttal is twofold. The science education community—including the National Association of Biology Teachers and the National Science Teachers Association—is always there to explain that compromising the integrity of science education in order to cater to creationist ideology is not fair to students or teachers.

Neil deGrasse Tyson praised Voices for Evolution as "a beacon for students, teachers, and the curious public who never knew the full extent that biological evolution is recognized and accepted among secular as well as religious organizations"; Michael Ruse described it as "a wonderful guide to the reasons for teaching evolution in our schools, and proof that we do our students a grave disservice if we keep them from one of the jewels in the crown of science"; and Nina Jablonski maintains that "it needs to be in the hands of every teacher in the United States."

Eugenie Scott (PhD, University of Missouri - Columbia) is the Executive Director of NCSE. She a former university professor and past president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. She has been both a researcher and an activist in the creationism/evolution controversy for over twenty-five years, and is conversant is many components of this controversy, including educational, legal, scientific, religious, and social issues. She has received national recognition for her NCSE activities, including awards from the National Science Board, the American Society for Cell Biology, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Geological Society of America, and the American Humanist Association. A dynamic speaker, she offers stimulating and thought-provoking as well as entertaining lectures and workshops. Biosketch from Wikipedia.

Scott's Essays

The Creation/Evolution Continuum

Many -- if not most -- Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with "creationists" on one side, and "evolutionists" on the other. This assumption all too often leads to the unfortunate conclusion that because creationists are believers in God, that evolutionists must be atheists. The true situation is much more complicated. I encourage people to reject the creation/evolution dichotomy and recognize the creation/evolution continuum. It is clear that creationism comes in many forms. If a student tells a teacher, "I´m a creationist", the teacher needs to ask, "What kind?" The essay continues >>

What's Wrong with the "Teach the Controversy" Slogan? McGill Journal of Education 2007;42:307-316.

“Teach the Controversy” is a phrase that teachers may encounter in many venues: in newspaper and magazine articles, in letters to the editor, in conversations with neighbors, or even in the supermarket checkout line. Where teachers are unlikely to encounter “Teach the Controversy” is in the science education journals, or the journals of professional scientists. So what does this phrase mean in the context of science curriculum and instruction?

“Teach the Controversy” might mean that teachers should teach controversies taking place in science. And of course, science is full of controversies. In a recent issue of Science, biologists debated dangers associated with the chemical dioxin, while astronomers discussed competing theories about a long-standing problem concerning the shape of the moon, its orbit, and its motion. Also in this issue, there was a debate over the risks of human and avian flu organisms swapping genes: how dangerous would this be? Yet proponents of “Teach the Controversy” have a very selective – even myopic – focus: they are only interested in teaching what they describe as the controversies concerning biological evolution.

Real scientific controversies, not creationist pseudoscience

Finding genuine controversies within the evolutionary sciences is not difficult; evolution is a very rich and active scientific field, and like all such fields, is full of contending ideas. There are numerous controversies concerning how evolution happens, having to do with both the patterns and processes of evolution. Controversies concerning the patterns of evolution revolve around questions such as: How closely related are Neanderthals to modern humans? Which group of mammals is most closely related to whales? What is the relationship between birds and dinosaurs? Controversies about the processes of evolution involve such issues as the relative importance of natural selection to genetic drift and other mechanisms of evolution, the evidence for and against allopatric speciation, and the adaptive value of sex compared to asexual reproduction. Yet the slogan “Teach the Controversy” does not concern teaching students about the fascinating controversies about pattern and process within the rich field of evolutionary biology.

Rather, what’s concealed behind the slogan “Teach the Controversy” is the idea that teachers should teach students that there is a controversy among scientists over whether evolution, descent with modification from common ancestors, takes place. Scientists find this claim baffling. To scientists, evolution, the most important organizing principle in the biological sciences, is not a “theory in crisis.” Statements from scientific societies from across the globe reflect the view of the Royal Society of London:

Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognized as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.

Issues of Science, Nature, and other well-respected scientific journals contain numerous articles about evolution, and whole journals, and even academic departments, are devoted to research in the evolutionary sciences. Arguably the most exciting new area in biological research is developmental evolutionary biology – “Evo-Devo” – which brings together developmental biology, based upon cellular and molecular processes, and traditional evolutionary concerns of phylogeny (Carroll, 2005). Biology, long fragmented into hyphenated subspecialties, is reuniting because of the power of evolution to bring together different areas of study within the discipline.

In fact, it appears that more scientists are involved in evolutionary studies than ever before. Contrary to what “Teach the Controversy” proponents assert, there is no long line of scientists questioning whether living things had common ancestors. There are many scientists arguing about pattern and process, but that is quite different from questioning the big idea of evolution. To teach students that there is a controversy where none exists would seriously mis-educate them.

 

The rest of the article >>

Scott's Books

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Second Edition (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2008). Amazon.

Product Description

The evolution versus creationism conflict is here to stay. Even after their devastating defeat in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, advocates of intelligent design and other forms of creationism continue to revise their strategies for undermining the teaching of evolution-and thus of science in general-in American schools. In this revision of Evolution vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, one of the leading proponents of teaching evolution in the schools, describes these ever-changing efforts to undermine science education and shows what students, parents, and teachers should be aware of to help ensure that American science education prepares our students to compete in the 21st century. This second edition of Evolution vs. Creationism will help readers better understand the issues involved in these debates. It expands and updates the original work with:

• An insider's look at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial
• A new selection of primary source documents on "The Creationism/Evolution Controversy in the Media"
• Up-to-date analysis of the most recent creationist challenges across the country
• The revision also expands and updates the collection of primary source documents that address cosmology, law, education, popular culture, and religious issues from all sides of the debate, as well as the resources for further information.

Chapter 1: Truth without Certainty Scott. Chap 1. Truth wo Certainty.pdf

 

Description of the First Edition

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). Amazon

Almost eighty years after the Scopes trial, the debate over the teaching of evolution continues to rage. There is no easy resolution--it is a complex topic with profound scientific, religious, educational, and legal implications. How can a student or parent understand this issue, which is such a vital part of education? Evolution vs. Creationism provides a badly needed, comprehensive, and balanced survey. Written by one of the leading advocates for the teaching of evolution in the United states, this accessible resource provides an introduction to the many facets of the current debate--the scientific evidence for evolution, the legal and educational basis for its teaching, and the various religious points of view--as well as a concise history of the evolution-creationism controversy.

 

Each of the four sections of Evolution vs. Creationism provides a resource that will assist the reader in better understanding these issues. The first section addresses the nature of how evolution works as part of the scientific enterprise, as well as a summary of the relationship between religious beliefs and science. A section on the history of the controversy provides a handy synopsis of the lengthy struggles, from before Darwin to the present day, between advocates of creationism and the proponents of evolution. A collection of primary source documents addressing cosmology, law, education, and religious issues from all sides of the debate constitute the third section. The book concludes with a selection of resources for further information for those who wish to study the topic in more depth.

New York Times Review: In the merely controversial part of his decision last month banning "intelligent design" from biology classes in Dover, Pa., Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design, a theory that attributes the complexity of life to supernatural causes, amounts to religion, not science. In the part that really drove some of the theory's supporters crazy, he pronounced it "utterly false" to think that evolution is incompatible with faith in God. An editorialist on the Web site of the Discovery Institute, a research group that promotes intelligent design, declared that the judge had no right to tell him what to believe. "This is like a judge assuring us that it is 'utterly false' that Judaism is inconsistent with eating pork," he wrote.

The judge was echoing a position taken by scientific expert witnesses, who had testified that science is a method, not a creed - a way of finding things out about the natural world, not a refutation of anything beyond that world. On the enduring mysteries of divinity and transcendence, science remains officially agnostic. But people rarely hew to official doctrine. That science and religion belong to separate realms (they're "non-overlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould grandly put it) is a good line to stick to if you're going to argue that the creationists play unfair, but it's wishful to think that scientists always live by it...

Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism (University of California)...is both a straightforward history of the debate and an anthology of essays written by partisans on each side. Its main virtue is to explain the scientific method, which many invoke but few describe vividly. Scott also manages to lay out the astronomical, chemical, geological and biological bases of evolutionary theory in unusually plain English....Scott could be said to be the one really doing God's work as she patiently rebuts people who make most other scientists spit gaskets like short-circuiting robots.

Anyone who wants to defend evolution at his next church picnic should arm himself with this book. What's flood geology? It's the creationist thesis that a vast canopy of hot vapor once surrounded the earth, cooled down in the time of Noah, and turned into a flood; an atmospheric scientist explains why that's impossible. Why don't evolutionary biologists worry about the Cambrian Explosion, when invertebrates showed up on earth as if out of nowhere? Because paleontologists don't need to see a fossil of every species that ever existed to infer the links between species, for one thing. Scott also walks us through the legal history of American creationism - the court rulings that forced anti-evolutionists to adapt to their increasingly secular environment by adopting scientific jargon...

By Judith Shulevitz, “When Cosmologies Collide,” The New York Times, January 22, 2006.

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools (co-edited with Glenn Branch) (Boston: Beacon Press, 2006). Amazon.

It was not until 1968, some 43 years after the famous Scopes trial, that the U.S. Supreme Court declared bans on the teaching of evolution to be unconstitutional. But that long-sought ruling hasn't ended the debate as Christian conservatives mount ever more aggressive efforts to have creationism taught alongside evolution. Scott and Branch, directors of a nonprofit that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, offer a collection of lively and informative essays on the conflict between the teaching of science and religion in American schools.

Following a brief history of the efforts by Christian groups to develop a biblically based countertheory to evolution, contributors detail the religious, legal, and pedagogical issues raised by efforts to replace science with religion and the ultimate cost to children poorly educated in the sciences in an increasingly competitive and technological world market. Cautioning against public complacency in the face of mounting creationism campaigns, contributors detail recent efforts to defend the teaching of evolution. Readers concerned about the teaching of "intelligent design" will appreciate this resource.

Scott's Lectures

On-line Video Lecture: On Intelligent Design, delivered at the University of Michigan (2006).

Glenn Branch: Understanding Creationism after Kitzmiller  

Glenn Branch is Deputy Director of NCSE.

If you were investigating intelligent design—the latest manifestation of antievolutionism—and you were unwise enough to regard the pronouncements of its leaders as reliable, what would you conclude? That intelligent design is, in the words of its main scientific proponent, “one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin” (Behe 1996, pp. 232–233). That intelligent design is not a form of creationism, since, in the words of its main theoretical architect, “Intelligent design as a scientific theory is distinct from a theological doctrine of creation.... [It] starts with the data of nature and from there argues to an intelligent cause responsible for the specified complexity in nature”(Dembski 1999, p. 248). And that intelligent design is uniquely appropriate for the promotion of the Christian gospel, for, in the words of its main public exponent, “The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘In the beginning God created.’ Establishing that point isn’t enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message” (Johnson 2000, p. 5).

Weaving all three threads of the intelligent design message within the same fabric was always awkward, and the proponents of intelligent design were unsurprisingly selective in tailoring the message to different audiences—here telling a reporter that intelligent design was a purely scientific endeavor, there telling a fundamentalist church audience that intelligent design was the key to reclaiming the culture for Christ. But over the course of 40 days in a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the tangled web unraveled. The case, of course, was Kitzmiller v. Dover (400 F. Supp. 2d 707 [M.D. Pa. 2005]), in which the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in the public schools was successfully challenged. At the trial, with the aid of a stellar team of expert witnesses aiding the plaintiffs, intelligent design was revealed to be riddled with scientific error and entangled, historically and conceptually, with creationism. The unpretentious piety of two of these expert witnesses—biologist Kenneth R. Miller and theologian John F. Haught—was, though irrelevant to the legal argument, a reminder of the absurdity of the intelligent design movement’s claim to represent the only satisfactory attitude for a Christian to adopt toward evolution.

The Kitzmiller case was by no means the end of the intelligent design movement, still less of the antievolution movement that it aspires to pilot. Increasingly, the energies of creationists are likely to be devoted to promoting the fallback strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning any creationist alternative. To its creationist supporters, such a strategy offers the promise of accomplishing the goal of encouraging students to acquire or retain a belief in creationism while not running afoul of the Establishment Clause (Scott and Branch 2003 [noted above]). Still, Kitzmiller is clearly a landmark in the contentious history of teaching evolution in the United States, and as such it provides a convenient occasion to review the recent spate of books—from 2005 to the first quarter of 2007—that variously seek to examine the course of the trial, to explain the history of creationism, to expose its scientific failure, to explore the theological alternatives to creationism, or simply to expound the basic issues to (in the Quarterly Review of Biology’s charming phrase) “tyros and laics.” It is particularly instructive to consider how well such books have appreciated, or anticipated, the unraveling of intelligent design in Kitzmiller.

Full-text of BioScience. 2007;57:278-284.  

Educational Organizations

The National Association of Biology Teachers

The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) is "the leader in life science education." To date, more than 9,000 educators have joined NABT to share experiences and expertise with colleagues from around the globe; keep up with trends and developments in the field; and grow professionally.  NABT empowers educators to provide the best possible biology and life science education for all students. Evolution Resources 

NABT’s Statement on Teaching Evolution

As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.

While modern biologists constantly study and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms, and pace of evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory. Explanations are constantly modified and refined as warranted by new scientific evidence that accumulates over time, which demonstrates the integrity and validity of the field. 

Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.

The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences. 

Supporting Material

And Many More...