Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 | Science : Teaching Science | print version Print | Comments

Document Creationism debate continues to evolve

by Stuart Laidlaw, Toronto Star

Thanks to Mark for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.thestar.com/Life/article/198318

Brian AltersIntelligent design creeping into Canadian schools, academic warns

The battle over creationism in the classroom is not unique to small town America, prominent Canadian biologists warn. It's creeping into this country's public school science classes and it's up to parents to do something about it.

Brian Alters, director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University, says the problem stems from a general de-emphasizing of evolution in our classrooms – from curriculum that barely mentions it, to teachers who avoid a topic they fear will be controversial with students or parents.

"If you know you are going to get a lot of flak, there are ways to dance around it," says Alters, in Toronto recently to speak on the issue.

Alters says informal research by his centre has found that about one-third of teachers report pressure from parents to teach creationism or intelligent design, the theory that God directs the development of life, in the class as an alternative to evolution.

Most respond by teaching neither evolution nor creationism, leaving students with the impression that the two are of equal merit, he says. Others tiptoe around the issue, acknowledging that people of some faiths believe in creationism.

Either way, he says, scientific education in our schools is undermined.

Alters warns that the danger of creationist theories such as intelligent design is that whenever something can't be explained scientifically, it is credited to divine intervention – which he says effectively shuts down further inquiry, the underpinning of good science.

The situation has become such a concern to scientists that an international team of biologists has put together a new journal to help teachers prepare lesson plans on evolution.

"We've got to teach the teachers," says Daniel Brooks, a University of Toronto evolutionary biologist behind the journal, to be launched in the fall by European academic publishing giant Springer.

"You can't teach biology without teaching the one thing that unifies the whole discipline."

Toronto-based fundamentalist author Denyse O'Leary charges that Alters is overstating the situation, saying the problem is not that intelligent design and creationism are creeping into schools, but that only evolution is taught.

"He and his colleagues are essentially importing a controversy that doesn't exist here," says O'Leary, who describes herself as a "post-Darwinist."

Evangelism and the religious right in Canada are much smaller than in the United States, so ideas such as creationism and intelligent design tend to have fewer followers, she says.

That means there's really not that much for Alters to worry about, she says. "He needs to find examples of fundamentalist teachers promoting their ideas in the classroom. That will get him funding."

Alters, however, says there is already evidence that intelligent design is gaining ground.

When he applied for $40,000 in federal funding last year to examine whether intelligent design was hurting the teaching of science in schools, he was turned down.

The committee reviewing his application said there was inadequate "justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct."

Alters, who gained international attention for the funding denial, quips that the rejection may become part of any future study he does on the issue.

In the meantime, he wants parents to play an active role in ensuring that evolution gets taught in their children's classes.

His fear is not that Canadian parents will see a situation similar to that in the U.S., where school boards have tried to get intelligent design on the official science curriculum alongside evolution.

U.S. President George Bush, a born-again Christian, has backed such efforts.

Alters testified against a school board in Dover, Pa., that was sued by parents after intelligent design was added to science classes. His testimony was cited heavily by the judge in striking down the curriculum.

Alters warns that north of the border the encroachment of creationism is much more stealth. It begins, he says, with the general absence of evolution from provincial curriculum until Grade 12 – and then only for students who take biology.

Within weeks of the Dover ruling, prominent creationist Ken Hovind of the Florida-based Creation Science Evangelism centre, was at the Dover High School arguing that the next step in the fight should be to remove evolution from the curriculum, even if intelligent design cannot be added.

"To me the much better approach is don't mention creation, don't mention evolution, don't mention intelligent design," Hovind told the AgapePress, the news service of the American Family Association. "If all the lies are taken out of the textbooks, there will be nothing left to support the evolution theory."

Neither Brooks nor Alters argues that teachers are deliberately teaching creationism over evolution. Instead, teachers can feel stuck between trying to keep religion out of the classroom and not wanting to offend the beliefs of students or their families by teaching evolution – particularly if it's not on the curriculum.

Brooks says teachers should not have to worry about such things, saying evolution is science and creationism and intelligent design are not. Teachers, he says, can still teach the science of evolution, while leaving it to families and faith groups to teach the basic tenets of their faiths.

Both Brooks and Alters point out that the vast majority of scientists support evolution, even as creationism gains grounds in evangelical circles.

The Vatican has likewise said that it has no problem with evolution, saying that while man's body may have evolved, the soul was created by God.

"It's only controversial outside of the scientific community. Inside the scientific community, there's no controversy," Alters says.

He urges parents to talk to teachers and make sure that evolution is being taught. Not doing so, he says, could allow creationism to foster by default. O'Leary counters that intelligent design only gets attention when people like Alters make a fuss about it.

Brooks says he and his colleagues are not trying to challenge anyone's religious beliefs, but are trying to keep them out of the science class.

"In order to believe in evolution, you don't have to not believe in a deity," says Brooks, whose family in Florida are evangelical Christians. "That's never been the case."

Comments 1 - 30 of 30 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #29573 by Damien Trotter on April 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

 avatar"Within weeks of the Dover ruling, prominent creationist, (and now convicted criminal) Ken Hovind of the Florida-based Creation Science Evangelism centre, was at the Dover High School arguing that the next step in the fight should be to remove evolution from the curriculum, even if intelligent design cannot be added."

There, fixed it for you all!

DT

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

2. Comment #29576 by ridelo on April 3, 2007 at 1:03 pm

 avatarSometimes I ask myself if this rise in religionism has something to do with all the fuss about global warming, pollution, extinction, in short with a feeling of impending disaster. I can imagine that many people think the endtimes are nearing and are taking precautions for getting saved. In my youth in the sixties everybody seemed more optimistic. So there was less need for religion. I've just seen the video debate with David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Jane Goodall and Richard Leaky. They also proposed general optimism. Giving up just isn't an option. And in my view religion is giving up.

Other Comments by ridelo

3. Comment #29581 by cry4turtles on April 3, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"Both Brooks and Alters point out that the vast majority of scientists support evolution, even as creationism gains grounds in evangelical circles."

These "evangelical circles" can be defined as circles of pure, psychopathic madness. I'm glad I chose not to have kids. If these sickos ever get a real foothold in power, humanity will once again be hurled into the dark ages. At least I could say I've spared my prospective children.

Other Comments by cry4turtles

4. Comment #29582 by davyB on April 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm

This must be an old article. Kent Hovind recently moved into a Federal prison camp to do ten years for tax evasion and obstruction.

Other Comments by davyB

5. Comment #29584 by fonex_86 on April 3, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Hmm, maybe the US should consider exiling him to a particular country in SE Asia, where I am: here religious fundies flourish and most biology teachers skim evolution in 5 minutes or less -- teaching it only because the national curriculum orders them to.

Other Comments by fonex_86

6. Comment #29605 by ghostbuster on April 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm

If religous people insist on invading secular science classes with relgious views then I see no reason why secular science cannot invade religious institutions and give their scientific views on religious topics.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

7. Comment #29607 by dirtpiggy on April 3, 2007 at 2:53 pm

 avatarCreationism is completely born of religion, there is absolutely no science behind it. How are teachers supposed to teach it? I don't understand how people can even suggest that it be taught in a science class (get this, not even Biology or History... science! Chemicals and falling objects!). I guess people have forgotten what science means.

"Hi kids, today we're talking about the origin of species. The Bible says God made you from dust in a day, he made the man first and then took a rib from him from which he made a woman. See, it all makes perfect scientific sense. Yeah, you can all pretty much go home now. Everything else we teach in school is just going to contradict this one fact."

Why don't parents let teachers teach their kids what has been tested and proven to work in the real world, and if they disagree with something, tell their own kids at home "your teachers are wrong", sadly still exerting a negative influence on their own children, but how inconsiderate to want teachers to teach things that they know are lies, and spread their RELIGION to other gullible children under the camouflage of ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC FACT? Also, if the kids are taught evolution in school, and their parents tell them it's baloney, they'll have been informed, and they will have both sets of information to consider. I guess that's what the parents are afraid of. Nothing angers me more than parents that try to keep their children from thinking, except parents that try to keep other people's children from thinking as well.

Another thing I do not understand: Christians believe in the virgin birth, but they don't clamour that it should be taught in sex ed that the Holy Spirit might impregnate you. They believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and don't ask that schools teach the process of resurrection in Biology. They don't ask that it be taught that the earth is flat in geography. Why do they seem to be able to work around every fact that basically proves their religious doctrine to be false, except evolution?

I just thought of something rather humorous. A Christian once told me "how can you not believe in God, when you look at a baby? A perfect new little human being?" Actually, watching an embryo's cells divide and watching the ball of cells become a little creature, is probably very close to watching something evolve before your very eyes. No God necessary, just add sperm! The entire process of a human forming can be explained with science. If reproduction can happen without God, why should he be involved at all? Those creationists had better get a move on with removing reproduction being taught in Biology.

Other Comments by dirtpiggy

8. Comment #29626 by PaulJ on April 3, 2007 at 4:39 pm

 avatarMaybe the very first thing that kids should be taught in science class is a definition of science, followed by a thorough explanation of the scientific method. Then round off that first lesson with a grounding in critical thinking.

Other Comments by PaulJ

9. Comment #29648 by johntfiorito on April 3, 2007 at 7:39 pm

the creationists should hold their breath...see the following from scientific american regarding the primordial soup....

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479

Other Comments by johntfiorito

10. Comment #29667 by Logicel on April 4, 2007 at 1:50 am

 avatarI agree with PaulJ.

And this excerpt from dirtpiggy's post is brilliant:

"Another thing I do not understand: Christians believe in the virgin birth, but they don't clamour that it should be taught in sex ed that the Holy Spirit might impregnate you. They believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and don't ask that schools teach the process of resurrection in Biology. They don't ask that it be taught that the earth is flat in geography. Why do they seem to be able to work around every fact that basically proves their religious doctrine to be false, except evolution?"

Unfortunately, evolution is somewhat difficult to understand, especially when you insist on eyewitness proof as being the only worthwhile evidence for evolution.

Other Comments by Logicel

11. Comment #29673 by dirtpiggy on April 4, 2007 at 2:31 am

 avatarThanks Logicel :)

I think whenever someone encounters someone who doesn't believe in evolution, you should ask that person why they think we haven't figured out how to eliminate the aids virus from a person's bloodstream, or why new flu vaccines have to be developed constantly. People seem to beileve in the medical sciences in general, but they deny evolution while it is supported by an equal amount of evidence from research as say, cancer.

But I forget; God planted fossils. Hard evidence doesn't seem to play a role in affecting most people's judgement anymore.

Other Comments by dirtpiggy

12. Comment #29682 by Myryama on April 4, 2007 at 4:17 am

I'm waiting for geocentricity to be taught in Physics lessons. Maybe the religious extremists should simply admit that their ability to understand the real world by reading an ancient text is, as Galileo demonstrated, limited.

Other Comments by Myryama

13. Comment #29696 by Eureka Step on April 4, 2007 at 7:46 am

 avatar"If religous people insist on invading secular science classes with relgious views then I see no reason why secular science cannot invade religious institutions and give their scientific views on religious topics."

Blam! Excellent point, I'll be raising that at every opportunity from now on.

Other Comments by Eureka Step

14. Comment #29698 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 8:05 am

 avatar
7. Comment #29605 by ghostbuster on April 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm

If religous people insist on invading secular science classes with relgious views then I see no reason why secular science cannot invade religious institutions and give their scientific views on religious topics


Right On! The door has been openend, and its time to rush in.

Just started reading Victor Stenger's "God - The Failed Hypothesis - How science shows that God does not exist". This book should be the main text book on the topic. Highly recommended.

Other Comments by sane1

15. Comment #29700 by SRWB on April 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

My first post after visiting the site for some time now.

As a follow on to dirtpiggy's post (#29607), I have often wondered why God stopped "creating" humans from dust after the supposed first effort some few thousand years ago. The more troubling question for theists should be why humans, and other animals, procreate through sexual reproduction. If God created the original creatures on earth why did he stop there? Why haven't all subsequent living things been created directly by God, instead of through this very labor and time intensive method of sexual reproduction? Why the need for middle-men and women? Think of the benefits intrinsic to such a method if God immediately replaced deceased life forms with fresh, fully-grown beings ready to worship and do his bidding. Of course that's not really how it works. Absurd isn't it?

Other Comments by SRWB

16. Comment #29715 by willerror on April 4, 2007 at 11:54 am

SRWB, that's an excellent point. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the very existence of life as we know it tells us there is no god of any kind. Any god surely could have created us, life, in its own ethereal spirit world without biological processes. If god as the theists understand him is "spirit" or "outside of nature," why then is life "inside" nature, or of nature? Why be separated from a god at all? No, for me, existence itself is enough proof of god's non-existence.

Other Comments by willerror

17. Comment #29720 by NoLongerHaveBelief on April 4, 2007 at 12:32 pm

And that's an excellent point, too, willerror!

I haven't posted on here since Xmas [an irony?]. Been too busy. But I've popped back, from time to time. I'm now on page 327 of TGD. I must say, I really admire Professor Dawkins and his work! I've got 3 of his books now, but I want 'em all.

I'd like some believer - any Theist - to explain to myself, WHY does God not lift a finger at the DISGRACE of starving children? Today, as you and I willerror, went about our lives, 30,000 children, under the age of 5, will have perished from starvation.

True. Our own species should sort it. If I were God, though, I'd have made everything right FIRST TIME.

This is the crap I hear at work anyway! "Get it right first time!"

Kind Regards.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

18. Comment #29727 by willerror on April 4, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I've never understood the big deal about "free will" when it comes to shit like children starving, dying, or the Holocaust, or cancer, or tsunamis, etc. We can live our lives perfectly fine without having to "learn" from any of that shit. All that "free will" stuff is after-the-fact rationalizing; precisely upside down and backwards theorizing, as all religions and superstitions are.

Other Comments by willerror

19. Comment #29790 by Nails on April 4, 2007 at 5:21 pm

 avatar18. Comment #29720 by NoLongerHaveBelief on April 4, 2007 at 12:32 pm


I'd like some believer - any Theist - to explain to myself, WHY does God not lift a finger at the DISGRACE of starving children? Today, as you and I willerror, went about our lives, 30,000 children, under the age of 5, will have perished from starvation.


I'm not a theist, so I guess my answer will not be the one you are looking for but hey, here goes. The reason we have so many starving children in the world is because we tend to over-populate (especially in developing countries) and when disaster strikes, it hits these people hard because they are already living on the edge of what their land can produce.
Of course, being told that using condoms will send you straight to hell isn't helping, is it Pope....

Other Comments by Nails

20. Comment #29819 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 2:07 am

 avatardirtpiggy,

Bremas said on another thread that the religites take the stand that science picks a theory and then proves it.

I suspect Bremas is correct. It means that they are not wanting to teach ID so much as trying to corrupt the understanding of the scientific method. That is even more frightening.

If their aim is to subvert scientific method, then I fear we are in for another dark age.

In Australia within our state school system, we have Parents' and Citizens' Associations attached to each school. They are unable to set curricula because that comes under the aegis of each State Education Department. We seem safer than Canada (for a while).

If the religites hanker to get themselves appointed to the Department then that subversion could well start here. I have no idea what is happening to science in our religiously funded sectarian schools, but I know (like in England) they are proliferating in Aus. And they receive government funding as well. And we have more parents (even atheists et al.) sending their children to these schools in the hope that discipline and controlled study methods will be inculcated (read - I haven't the time to ensure that my kids do what's best for them and the Jesuits or whomever will instil discipline etc).

Admittedly, our state system has had its teeth removed by political correctness and the curricula is burgeoning in content so that students get a smattering of everything and nothing in much depth and teachers are therfore constrained to 'get through' the curriculum in the time allotted.

The last surevey on literacy and numeracy I can remember (about 4 months ago) relating to Australian educational standards put us somewhere about 14th (I think) in OECD countries. I find that pretty appalling in a country that used to churn out some quite amazing scientists and technology whizzes.

Of course, we don't use our public funds to keep our whizzes in Aus. so they and their technology and brains go overseas to where funding is more available and prospects are more exciting. We don't have much in the way of philanthropy in Aus. Or, it seems, much business acumen that isn't based on what "I can get out of it in the short term". Sad and short sighted.

Eureka - I agree in principle. However, while schools can be infiltrated and teachers appear to be becoming more cowardly (job tenure must be a reason), can you imagine any religious institution allowing any rationalist into its confines? And to sprout evolution or critical thinking? I can't see it. It is anathema to religious faith that relies on nothing more than bronze age (incorporating older 'pagan' ceremonial acts and subsuming those to its dogma) myths.

All I have left is my pitiful little front yard blackboard and letters to the editor. I can't (musn't) give up. Every time my blackboard gets rubbed off, I hope that my posts are 'getting' to someone and that it may eventually bear critical fruit! One has to have hope!

I have pre-ordered Dawkins' video for our local High School. Come May after it is released, I will follow it up at the school.

NB. I have just phoned the science teacher, whose name I put on RD's order form, to alert him that I had done this thing. It was somewhat presumptuous of me to buy the video without telling the school; I have rectified that.

He thanked me for my generosity, agreed to take my double copies of RD's earlier books and I will develop a good relationship with him. He hadn't heard of RD - can you believe that? I must be living in a rarified atmosphere here in Mullumbimby, NSW!! I would not have thought it.

Anyway, onward and ever upward. Let's not stop now. Logicel, all we can do is keep on keeping on. I am so grateful for this web site. You all keep all of us going.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

21. Comment #29821 by Chris Davis on April 5, 2007 at 2:35 am

 avatarjohntfiorito - thanks a bunch for the pointer to the new Miller Experiment at
Scientific American

This is something I've needed for a while.

Josh, any chance of putting the article in the Science category? It's important ammunition.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

22. Comment #29822 by Veronique on April 5, 2007 at 2:37 am

 avatarThe other thing, dirtpiggy, is that if you look at the tiny marsupial baby that emerges from a kangaroo, perfect in every tiny detail, or the wee joey that emerges from our endangered Tasmanian Devil, you are consumed with awe at the most mysterious and miraculous act of generation.

Your religite sees god - what absolute nonsense. It is the growth through stages of evolutionary history that fills me with this awe. Just like us humans.

No god, no sky fairy, no immaculate conception, no nothing, except our whole evolutionary history passing before us during the nine months to birth.

How could anyone want to diminsh that by postulating a sky god as a creator. It is beyond my understanding. It is the most stupid postulate I have ever heard.

It still makes me cross that people can be so indocrinated with religious cant that, in RD's words 'a firewall is erected against scientific endeavour' (or words to that effect; I have paraphrased - sorry RD).

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

23. Comment #29824 by Philip1978 on April 5, 2007 at 3:12 am

 avatarVeronique, I suggest you never research Dr Francis Collins! The man has mapped the human genome and has made leaps and bounds helping to combat disease. With this knowledge, the man did all that and still believes that he knows how it happened scientifically but reckons the reason WHY it happens is dear old yahweh, now that is the definition of tragic!

Other Comments by Philip1978

24. Comment #29828 by Mikado on April 5, 2007 at 3:52 am

20. Comment #29790 by Nails


I'm not a theist, so I guess my answer will not be the one you are looking for but hey, here goes. The reason we have so many starving children in the world is because we tend to over-populate (especially in developing countries) and when disaster strikes, it hits these people hard because they are already living on the edge of what their land can produce.
Of course, being told that using condoms will send you straight to hell isn't helping, is it Pope....


I disagree with your answer. Reducing the population do not increase the efficiency in the agricultural sector. Moving more of the population into cities would probably help. There is no requirement for a country to produce any food at all. Many African countries would probably do a much better job producing crops that was much better adopted to the natural conditions like local pests and that they could export for cash. The problem is a lack of a marked and distribution for what they produce. More free trade should solve most of the problems. What these people need is money to buy food and condoms. A large family is an insurance policy when conditions are bad. If we concentrate on improving the economic conditions in the developing countries, family sizes would most likely be reduced as well. Less support to mad dictators would probably also help.

A theist could say that "god" has lifted a finger and provided the tools to help the starving children. An Atheist could say that someone was not looking for the right answer.

Other Comments by Mikado

25. Comment #29832 by hogi on April 5, 2007 at 4:34 am

mikado,

according to a majority of economists (watch the film 'we feed the world') free market and mad dictators are a minor problem compared to european food supplies for africa. the argument goes something like this:

1) europe produces a ridiculously high surplus of food, while keeping the price extremely low (with billions of subsidies, of course)
2) africa experiences a major famine
3) europe is eager to help plus it want's to sell the huge surplus
4) european food, both sold on the market and sent as free help, dominates african markets
5) the famine is stopped
6) african farmers can't make their living because of the low food prices (as europe continues to sell its cheap surplus)
7) the agricultural sector in africa is weakened
8) the next famine is about to come soon...

Other Comments by hogi

26. Comment #29834 by fonex_86 on April 5, 2007 at 4:36 am

Mikado,

Have you read/watched Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel? It addresses the question of why are there such huge gaps (economic, social, technological, etc) between the various civilizations. I would reiterate its points here were it not for the fact that I have almost forgot them, having watched them 2 years ago.

NoLongerHaveBelief,

I am an ex-theist, with full recollection of what I used to believe, so I daresay I somewhat qualify. I asked my mentor at the local Bible Study, and he replied, "those children suffer because of sin; our sins have corrupted the land, and now they must pay the price for it." Believe it or not, I swallowed it whole -- until I left the Bible Study, and started thinking for myself.

In my opinion, those (theists) who realize the folly in such answers would have their faith significantly shaken, and their rationality awoken, which is probably why we don't see it happening very often -- they already know that too much consideration into these matters might shake their faith, hence the delightful ignorance.

Like they say, "Ignorance is bliss" -- to which I add, "yeah, until the shit reaches your nose."

Other Comments by fonex_86

27. Comment #29881 by Red Foot Oakie on April 5, 2007 at 10:09 am

 avatar"Most respond by teaching neither evolution nor creationism, leaving students with the impression that the two are of equal merit, he says. Others tiptoe around the issue, acknowledging that people of some faiths believe in creationism."

If it weren't for the finely honed passive-aggressive techniques of the theists, they probably wouldn't get half the victories they do.

I've noticed this a lot in the past decade- believers can't win the arguments so they make it so awkward to bring up the subject that people tiptoe around them, careful not to offend lest it start another spat.

It's a fairly effective strategy. I think that's one of the reasons they hate Dawkins and other skeptics- they live for the spats.

Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie

28. Comment #29895 by Stand on April 5, 2007 at 11:24 am

What is a post-Darwinist?

Other Comments by Stand

29. Comment #29996 by Veronique on April 6, 2007 at 3:26 am

 avatarOh Philip 1978,

I did come across an article of Francis Collins. You were right, I was gobsmacked. Gosh!! I still can't get his words under my belt.

I don't understand this obession with geocentricity that religion subscribes to. Universality is so much more satisfying and mysterious and, after all we do live in the 21st century not in the bronze age. It is, after all, an enormous space place that our litle blue dot inhabits that the very mediocre writers of spurious histories of 'god' did not understand.

Thank you for your advice; I came across Collins article before I read your post. Sob, I had to make a reply although I doubt that he would have read the comments to his article.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

30. Comment #30073 by antcowan on April 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm

in a case like this I suggest to teach flying spaggetti monster along with creation,id,evolution in schools.

Other Comments by antcowan
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: