P
prometheus the supremo
Guest
Creationism debate continues to evolve
PETER MCCABE FOR THE TORONTO STAR
Glossary: What it all means
Evolution: The theory, popularized by Charles Darwin, that all species developed over time through mutations or adaptations that help ensure their survival, allowing them to pass those traits on to their offspring.
Creationism: The view that all things on earth were created directly by God, as described in the Book of Genesis.
Intelligent Design: The theory that nature is too complex to have developed through random mutation and natural selection, so it must have had some form of intelligent being directing its development.
Intelligent design creeping into Canadian schools, academic warns
Apr 02, 2007 04:30 AM
Stuart Laidlaw
Faith and Ethics Writer
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."
PETER MCCABE FOR THE TORONTO STAR
Glossary: What it all means
Evolution: The theory, popularized by Charles Darwin, that all species developed over time through mutations or adaptations that help ensure their survival, allowing them to pass those traits on to their offspring.
Creationism: The view that all things on earth were created directly by God, as described in the Book of Genesis.
Intelligent Design: The theory that nature is too complex to have developed through random mutation and natural selection, so it must have had some form of intelligent being directing its development.
Intelligent design creeping into Canadian schools, academic warns
Apr 02, 2007 04:30 AM
Stuart Laidlaw
Faith and Ethics Writer
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."
