TE is an oxymoron

Neal K. Roys (nroys@district125.k12.il.us)
Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:46:11 -0700

I'm changing the reference on this topic from "Atheistic Science Teaching:
TE is an oxymoron" to merely, "TE is an oxymoron"

I have been asked to provide the full statement on teaching evolution from
the National Association of Biology Teachers. Phil Johnson sent to me, so
I've included it at the end of this post. Also, the NABT snail-mailed me a
copy.

Phil Johnson's e-mail address:
philjohn@uclink.berkeley.edu

NABT e-mail address:
NABTer@aol.com
(attn: Louise Pittack, NABT Staff)

Sincerely,

Neal K. Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
&
Youth Pastor
Mundelein Vineyard
Mundelein, IL

==============Text of NABT statement Phil Johnson sent me=================
Thanks for your comments. Here is the full statement:

National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)

STATEMENT ON TEACHING EVOLUTION

[Adopted by the Board of Directors, March 15, 1995.]

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
assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of
evolution in nature, and therefore in biology.

Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically-honest manner
requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on
evolution. Modern biologists constantly study, ponder and
deliberate the patterns, mechanisms and pace of evolution, but
they do not debate evolution's occurrence. The fossil record and
the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern
techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy and geology, provide
exhaustive examples and powerful evidence for genetic variation,
natural selection, speciation, extinction and other
well-established components of current evolutionary theory.
Scientific deliberations and modifications of these components
clearly demonstrate the vitality and scientific integrity of
evolution and the theory that explains it.

This same examination, pondering and possible revision have
firmly established evolution as an important natural process
explained by valid scientific principles, and clearly
differentiate and separate science from various kinds of
nonscientific ways of knowing, including those with a
supernatural basis such as creationism. Whether called "creation
science," "scientific creationism," "intelligent-design theory,"
"young-earth theory" or some other synonym, creation beliefs have
no place in the science classroom. Explanations employing
nonnaturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit
reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm
of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.
Evolutionary theory, indeed all of science, is necessarily silent
on religion and neither refutes nor supports the existence of a
deity or deities.

Accordingly, the National Association of Biology Teachers, an
organization of science teachers, endorses the following tenets
of science, evolution and biology education:

*The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of
temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
environments.

*Evolutionary theory is significant in biology, among other
reasons, for its unifying properties and predictive features, the
clear empirical testability of its integral models and the
richness of new scientific research it fosters.

*The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in
diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive
evidence for organic evolution.

*Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary
changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples,
both extant and extinct.

*Natural selection--a differential, greater survival and
reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under
an existing environmental state--has no specific direction or
goal, including survival of a species.

*Adaptations do not always provide an obvious selective
advantage. Furthermore, there is no indication that
adaptations--molecular to organismal--must be perfect:
adaptations providing a selective advantage must
simply be good enough for survival and increased reproductive
fitness.

*The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of
the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it
does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds
to its scientific richness.

*Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics:
producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of
energy, such as from the sun.

*Although comprehending deep time is difficult, the earth is
about 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens has occupied only a
minuscule moment of that immense duration of time.

*When compared with earlier periods, the Cambrian explosion
evident in the fossil record reflects at least three phenomena:
the evolution of animals with readily-fossilized hard body parts;
Cambrian environment (sedimentary rock) more conducive to
preserving fossils; and the evolution from pre-Cambrian forms of
an increased diversity of body patterns in animals.

*Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are
highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the
planet and in the history of life.

*In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an
extensive explanation developed from well-documented,
reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated
observations of natural processes.

*The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory
are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified
and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus,
science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand
nature and natural phenomena.

*Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start
with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as
valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion.
Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of
dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are
characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and
designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research
about natural events.

*Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the
taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion
of the mechanisms and principles of evolution.

*Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology
requires inclusion of evolution.

*Specific textbook chapters on evolution should be included in
biology curricula, and evolution should be a recurrent theme
throughout biology textbooks and courses.

*Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the
scientific foundations of evolution.

*Teachers should respect diverse beliefs, but contrasting science
with religion, such as belief in creationism, is not a role of
science. Science teachers can, and often do, hold devout
religious beliefs, accept evolution as a valid scientific theory,
and teach the theory's mechanisms and principles.

*Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it
inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in
the science classroom.

Opposition to teaching evolution reflects confusion about the
nature and processes of science. Teachers can, and should, stand
firm and teach good science with the acknowledged support of the
courts. In Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down a 1928 Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of
evolution in state schools. In McLean v. Arkansas (1982), the
federal district court invalidated a state statute requiring
equal classroom time for evolution and creationism.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) led to another Supreme Court ruling
against so-called "balanced treatment" of creation science and
evolution in public schools. In this landmark case, the Court
called the Louisiana equal-time statute "facially invalid as
violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,
because it lacks a clear secular purpose." This decision--"the
Edwards Restriction"--is now the controlling legal position on
attempts to mandate the teaching of creationism: the nation's
highest court has said that such mandates are unconstitutional.
Subsequent district court decisions in Illinois and California
have applied "the Edwards restriction" to teachers who advocate
creation science, and to the right of a district to prohibit an
individual teacher from promoting creation science, in the
classroom.

Courts have thus restricted school districts from requiring
creation science in the science curriculum and have restricted
individual instructors from teaching it. All teachers and
administrators should be mindful of these court cases,
remembering that the law, science and NABT support them as they
appropriately include the teaching of evolution in the science
curriculum.

References and Suggested Reading:

Clough, M. (1994). Diminish students' resistance to biological
evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 56, pp. 409-415.

Futuyma, D. (1986). Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Gillis, A. (1994). Keeping creationism out of the classroom.
Bioscience, 44, pp. 650-656.

Gould, S. (1977). Ever since Darwin: Reflections in natural
history. NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Gould, S. (1994), October). The evolution of life on earth.
Scientific American, 271, pp. 85-91.

Mayr, E. (1991). One long argument: Charles Darwin and the
Genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

McComas, W. (Ed.). (1994). Investigating evolutionary biology in
the laboratory. Reston, VA: NABT.

Moore, J. (1993). Science as a way of knowing--The foundations of
modern biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Center for Science Education. P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley,
CA 94709. Numerous publications such as Facts, faith and
fairness--Scientific creationism clouds scientific literacy by S.
Walsh and T. Demere.

Numbers, R. (1992). The creationists: The evolution of scientific
creationism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Weiner, J. (1994). Beak of the Finch--A Story of evolution in our
time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

==============end of statement Phil sent me======================

Sincerely,

Neal K. Roys
Math Teacher
Stevenson High School
Lincolnshire, IL
&
Youth Pastor
Mundelein Vineyard
Mundelein, IL