A letter from a Welsh librarian published today on the New Humanist magazine website exposes a new tactic by a British affiliate of the Discovery Institute for insinuating Intelligent Design textbooks into school libraries. The letter is reprinted here:
This morning I received through the post a "review copy" of a "textbook" titled Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism, from Hill House Publishers. The publicity sheet accompanying it states the book "promotes enquiry-based based learning, encouraging students to participate in the process of discovery, deliberation and argument that scientists use to form their theories... The textbook is ideally suited for use in the classroom and for teachers who wish to increase their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory."The publicity sheet is produced by an organisation called "Truth in Science", based in Cambridge, UK. Intrigued, and suspicious, I Googled them along with the title of the book, to be directed to a website accompanying the book hosted as part of a "program" called The Centre for Science and Culture, hosted by the Discovery Institute. According to the website, the CSC, amongst other things, "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory" and "supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design". The Discovery Institute describes itself as a "nonpartisan public policy think tank", but in fact promotes a heavily right-wing libertarian agenda with Christian fundamentalist leanings.
Immediately all became clear. The "textbook" is in essence a vehicle for smuggling in the idea of intelligent design by the back door. The claim that it ‘increase[s] ... understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory’ is, to put it politely, verging on the disingenuous.
As both a school librarian entrusted with helping teachers shape the minds of young citizens and promote critical enquiry, and as a citizen concerned with the quality of public education in this county, I am worried that this book, which will have undoubtedly been sent to other schools, might be taken at face value and find its way into libraries and classrooms.
I’d therefore be grateful if you could help spread the truth about this book, both to illustrate one of the underhand ways in which proponents of intelligence design – who include, it appears from the publicity sheet, some scientists holding senior posts in respectable academic institutions – seek to propagate their beliefs, and to assist librarians, teachers and others interested in promoting a proper understanding of science and society.
New Humanist magazine is helping to publicize this backdoor tactic for sneaking Intelligent Design pseudo-science into schools. This reporter is doing the same. Let's hope that there are many more school librarians out there as sharp-eyed and conscientious as the writer of this letter.
Photo Credit:
1) Explore Evolution textbook (photo from New Humanist magazine)
If you enjoy my articles, you can click on "Subscribe by email" to receive notification when new ones are posted.
Feel free to link to this page.
Comments
GASP!! Publishers sending promotional copies of their books to LIBRARIES??? Who could've ever dreamed of such a clandestine evil scenario??
*sigh* C'mon Hugh, you're normally very rational and fair. Instead of a smear campaign based on rhetoric of conspiracy, how about a level-headed critique of the books arguments and making it available for interested readers to check out? There are far dumber things found on library shelves every day.
It's the misrepresentation of the book as science instead of pseudo-science that's evil, JM. If you really want to know what's wrong with Creationism or ID as science, google "An Index to Creationist Claims" which answers every ID argument you can probably think of.
Let's put it this way JMS, would you want copies of "The God Delusion" in your church library? Then why should a public school whose business is teaching children, among other things, science, need books on psuedoscience?
It's not a perfect analogy, I mean science is based on evidence vs just a belief system, but you get the point.
It's well and good for them to realize what it is before putting it in their libraries. But what's wrong with it being in school libraries, after all? Religious materials belong in libraries, and as long as it's catalogued with religious apologetics or the like, no problem.
Pseudoscience is not to be banned from libraries, certainly. Free speech, free press, just say no to banning books.
Just keep that tripe out of the science classrooms, please.
Glen Davidson
tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Is there a Bible in the library? Or any other religious books? Or any books about the Bermuda Triangle? Or any books by Immanuel Veliskovskiy (anybody else remember "Worlds In Confusion"?)? Keep the book, and make sure it is filed near one of the books listed - but whatever happens, do not let it get cataloged or filed as a science book, because it's not.
Intelligent design creationism is a pseudoscience, per the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and esentially every other actual science organization in the country.
In the end they probably would need to catalog it to avoid the appearance of censorship, I'm sure that's why the DI's affiliates went with this plan. That doesn't mean we have to like it. It also, like you said, doesn't mean it has to be in the science section. Keep it in the religion section, or fiction.
"In the end they probably would need to catalog it to avoid the appearance of censorship"
They don't, teaching creationism/intelligent design in state schools in UK is illegal and not very popular hence the 'strengths and weaknesses' pitch from this group. This group are having to resort to underhand tactics because the public support simply isn't there for them here, church attendence in the UK has been falling for decades across the country and fundamentalist Christianity is about as popular as swine flu.
Should it be illegal to teach anything? Wow! Also, why are you evolutionists so afraid of dissenting opinions that you would even prevent books being offered for private consumption? Why not gather in the center of town hall and publically burn any books that question evolutionary science or those who write them.
Hugh,
Francis Crick argues for "Directed Panspermia" to explain the origin of life (i.e. aliens seeded the planet with biological life); this is every bit as pseudo-scientific as ANYTHING claimed by I.D. (which, I shall continue to remind you and your readers is NOT the same thing as "creationism"...though I'm sure the hollow rhetoric will continue). Should Crick's work suggesting this notion be catalogued as "religion" or "science fiction"? If not, then why should a book that critiques Neo-Darwinian theory, without mentioning or even appealing to any religion or holy book be?
Anti-ID paranoia is so unflattering for people who are supposedly "free-thinkers" and "bright"...
And lest anyone believe that creationists are the only ones engaging in subterfuge and academic dishonesty, I refer you to my recent post:
www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m12d16-Some-NeoDarwinists-trash-TLS-Book-of-the-Yearwithout-having-read-it
Hello Ray. You ask, "Should it be illegal to teach anything?" Well, that depends on how you want to teach it, doesn't it? You can teach ABOUT fascism in a history or political science class but should you be TEACHING fascism to the class? Can you imagine teachers telling their students...
Hmm... This looks to be a long answer. Tell you what, Ray. Check out my article for today (Dec. 18th). Your question gets the honor of being the subject of an OpEd piece.
Let me put this as simply as possible. On one side there is one scientific theory on the diversity of life on earth, with scientific evidence to back it up. On the other side, two closely related unscientific failed hypothesis based on assumption, speculation, and a story in an old book (whether admitted to or not). which do we want to teach our kids as science?
Do we have a flat-earth geography book in the science section? An astrology book or "astronomy of the firmament" book? Maybe a book on how the hand of God is what holds us down to earth? After all, gravity is only a theory. Why would we list a book about the psuedo-science of intelligent design in the science section?
Steve-n-SA,
You're being either disingenuous or intentionally ignorant when you claim that ID is based on "an old book". It's convenient to believe that because it keeps one from having to actually address ID on its own merit (something anti-ID'ers seem quite bent on doing...see my article mentioned below).
Modern ID began with an agnostic's critique of Neo-Darwinian claims about life's origin (can you name the book?); to charge ID with being based on Scripture one has to be monumentally naive or uninformed (and wikipedia and talkorigins.org articles, while sometimes helpful, do not count as firsthand sources for understanding ID anymoreso than Answers in Genesis counts as firsthand sources for Neo-Darwinism).
"Should it be illegal to teach anything?"
Yes otherwise education would become a ridiculous free for all.
"Wow! Also, why are you evolutionists so afraid of dissenting opinions that you would even prevent books being offered for private consumption?"
The book has not been banned from being offered for private consumption I'm sure it can still be acquired from the group promoting it, to stock this book in a school library would give the impression that there is some kind of scientific controversy over the theory of evolution when there is in fact an overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of it. No one is afraid of 'dissenting opinions' what creationists want is a free ride, they want to by pass the review process that every other piece of science including evolution has had to go through.
"You're being either disingenuous or intentionally ignorant when you claim that ID is based on "an old book"."
I did not say that it was based solely on your bible, but also speculation and assumption. The assumption that living things, especially the human body and mind are too complex to have come about naturally, they had to be designed. The speculation that certain parts are "irreducibly complex". There is no scientific evidence for either. The involvement of the bible is kept carefully obscure so they could try to get around the 1st Amendment issue, but where it shows is in the way it begs the question "Who's the designer?" If it was an alien race, that alien race would have needed to evolve or have a creator, so the assumption that is meant to follow is that it's God.
And by the way, no matter how you want to disparage it, it's not neo-Darwinism as if some religion, it's evolution, and has gone far beyond what Darwin originally conceived, thanks to several other sciences
Creationism apologist James-Michael Smith tells another creationist lie: "Modern ID began with an agnostic's critique of Neo-Darwinian claims about life's origin..."
Nope. Modern intelligent design creationism began with a born-again lawyer (not a scientist) responding to the US Supreme Court prohibition against teaching "creation science" in public schools in 1987. Everybody who has been following this controversy knows about the intelligent design creationism founders' meetings in 1992 at Southern Methodist University, in 1993 at Pajaro Dunes, in 1996 at the former Bible Institute of Los Angeles and culminating in the 1998 "Wedge Strategy." It's readily obvious that intelligent design is 100% religiously motivated. (Read the first sentence of the "Wedge Document" - does it sound like it's about science or religion?)
And to get back to "Signature" - nobody's mentioned that it was published by HarperOne - not a science publisher, but a religious publisher. Any guesses why?
Paul Burnett: "Creationism apologist James-Michael Smith tells another creationist lie: 'Modern ID began with an agnostic's critique of Neo-Darwinian claims about life's origin...'"
James-Michael was not lying. He was referring to geneticist Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," which, as anyone acquainted with the history of the modern ID movement will know, was arguably the book that launched the movement.
Paul Burnett: "Read the first sentence of the 'Wedge Document' - does it sound like it's about science or religion?"
I recommend reading whole thing, along with Discovery Institute's response to hysterical, paranoid criticisms of the document. Since no links are allowed in comments here, I can only refer you to Discovery Institute's website, where you'll need to search by title for for "The Wedge Document."
A question for Mr. Kramer: Although "Explore Evolution" is not about intelligent design, what would be wrong with allowing books on ID into school libraries?
Another question for Mr. Kramer: Why are defenders of Darwinist dogma so hot to censor criticisms of their dogma?
Hello Jim. Did you read the teacher's letter? The problem is that the book was misrepresented as a science textbook. Science is not agenda-driven, or if it is, the agenda is the increase of knowledge of the natural world, not attacking good science in order to promote your own bias. Questioning theories is perfectly valid but all ID proponents do is throw up dust and offer red herrings. Every example of "irreducible complexity" offered up so far has been shown to be explainable through the natural selection model. The ID hypothesis itself lacks the scientific characteristic of falsifiability (predicting testable results) and attempts to quantify them such as Behe's "specified complexity" have been shown to be unsound.
Incidently, there's no such thing as "Darwinist dogma." There's only the theory of evolution through natural selection and, since it IS falsifiable and thus, alterable if and when new observations require it, it ain't dogma.
I did read the teacher's letter, Hugh. It's complete rubbish. The misrepresentation here is the teacher's.
Are you willing, Hugh, to say that the theory of evolution might be substantially wrong? If not, then you defend the theory from a dogmatic, not a scientific, mindset.
By the way, the just-so stories that have been spun to falsify Behe's concept of irreducible complexity are persuasive only to those - such as you - who are already persuaded that Darwinian theory provides a complete explanation of life's complexities. No one has actually shown in a detailed, testable way that Darwinian mechanisms were sufficient to bring irreducibly complex biological systems into being.
Also, "specified complexity" is a concept that Dembski, not Behe, has developed at length. If you'd like to learn how intelligent design can be falsified, you should read some of Dembski's work.
Another question: Since Darwinists admit to no biological features that can't be explained by "the natural selection model," exactly how could their theory be falsified?
Sorry for confusing Behe with Dembski, JM. I forgot which said what.
Again, it's not "Darwinism". It's the theory of evolution through natural selection and it's evolutionary biologists, not "Darwinists". Terms like that are intended to denigrate, not describe.
As to how evolution theory could be falsified? Easy-peasy. Here's one way: The model predicts that ancestral forms will be found in older geological strata than modern ones. All you need to do is find a fossil modern horse in rock layers below Eohippus or a rabbit in Pre-Cambrian rock, etc., etc. The theory makes other predictions too. Just find an exception. Irreducible Complexity ain't it. The very existance of the examples you assert to be "just-so" stories belies the irreducibility part of IR... and they fit within the predictions of the evolution model quite nicely. Your incredulity over them doesn't make them "just-so" stories either.
You've also got me confused with JM, Hugh.
I'm curious: Why do those who believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection regard "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" as terms of derision? In my view, those terms simply pay tribute to Darwin's seminal contributions to evolutionary theory. Those terms have also been routinely used by such evolutionary biologists as Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Eldredge, and Miller. Surely those men don't intend to insult themselves or evolutionary theory by using those terms.
If you're satisfied that imaginative story-telling about the presumed creative powers of Darwinian mechanisms has falsified the concept of irreducible complexity, then there's no point in my trying to dissuade you. Personally, I find Behe's replies to his critics more persuasive than the criticisms (which quite typically attack a straw-man version of IC).
To be continued....I'm running out of characters.
The fossil record has already yielded "ancestors" that are younger than their "descendants," yet evolutionary biologists don't argue on that account that ToE has been falsified. They're quite adept at explaining away recalcitrant or disconfirming evidence. (I have in mind the therapod dinosaurs that are said to be the ancestors of archaeopteryx - dinosaurs that appeared in the fossil record millions of years AFTER archaeopteryx appeared.)
It wasn't confusion, Jim. I thought you were JMS using just the first name. After all, you both use the same language (like the Rudyard Kipling reference) and the same kind of argument style (deny rather than refute an answer, or ignore it and then go on to offer the next red herring). It's like you both are getting this stuff out of the same playbook. Are you? Does DI and similar groups offer "How to argue against Darwinists" handbooks?
Incidently, you'd do better if you fact-checked against non-ID sources. Archaeopterix is descended from a therapod dinosaur and therapods did not have to disappear to make room for them. Therapoda is a suborder of the dinosaur family and it branched out into many lineages, including giant species like T-Rex, avians like Archaeopterix and small critters like the troodontid, Anchiornis Huxleyi.
Oh yeah, Jim. Did I also mention the other tactic you both use: the argument from disbelief? Because you or anyone else finds an explanation unconvincing doesn't mean it's wrong. I've yet, for instance, to meet a conspiracy theorist who's ever said, "I guess the evidence means there never WAS a second shooter on the grassy knoll" or "I see. So it IS plausible that the towers came down just from the impact and fires caused by the jet crashes" or "oh well, then there probably ISN'T any worldwide government and scientific community conspiracy to promote a false theory of Global Warming... or Evolution."
Likewise, Hugh, because you find an explanation convincing doesn't mean it's right. Personal credulity has no more epistemic value than personal incredulity. You'll no doubt want to say that the argument for design in the biosphere is an argument from personal incredulity, but that's what poorly-informed critics of ID almost invariably say. Critics who have learned about ID from the design literature rather than from their own imaginations or from one another's misrepresentations of ID are, in my experience, rare.
You write that "Archaeopterix (sic) is descended from a therapod dinosaur." There is, of course, no one who knows this to be true. If you wish to dispel the impression that evolutionary biology has devolved into dogmatism, you (and other defenders of Darwinian theory) should write that "It is hypothesized that Archaeopteryx descended from a therapod dinosaur, and there is some evidence that supports this hypothesis."
I am a librarian. You may believe what you want but it is the responsibility of a librarian to provide as many views on a subject as possible with the limited funds at our disposal. That means that I have materials in my library that might not meet with your approval. I have materials in my library that don't meet with MY approval but the ideas they put forth are backed by people who have made a thorough study of the subject and are (usually) considered to be authoritative. I admit that there are some things in my collection that I consider "crack-brained" but it's not my place to censor. My collegues and I don't buy from flyers. Most of us use at least two reviews that tell us more than whether the reviewer liked the book. Please give us credit for enough intelligence and fiscal responsibility that we are not led like sheep to purchase something without knowing what it's about...and to be openminded about ideas that don't agree with our own.
Hello Sally. The article is not about censorship. It's about an agenda-driven attempt to infiltrate Intelligent Design into school libraries by misrepresenting something as a science textbook that isn't. Science has only one agenda: to increase knowledge of the natural world through the verifiable and transparent scientific methodology. Mummery dressed in a lab coat is still mummery and if there were any real, hard evidence that the most likely explanation for any natural phenomenon was the intervention of an unknown, possibly supernatural agency, it would be trumpeted aloud everywhere and not just by groups funded by religious idealogues and a few paid lackies.
One could also point out, as many scientists have ad infinitum and ad nauseum, that such an explanation doesn't really explain anything. It's not a footstep in the acquisition of knowledge. It's an endpoint; a throwing up of the hands; a surrender. What it ain't, is science.
You've read "Explore Evolution," right, Hugh? That's why you know it's not a science textbook, right?
One thing your comments here make abundantly clear is that you have no interest in "increasing knowledge." Your interest lies in defending Darwinist dogma. The issue is precisely censorship, and you're clearly on the side of the censors.
Why should we be so afraid of something presenting a different viewpoint? Science is to do with observing and studying what we can see now - in regards to what happened in the past the best we can do is make educated/informed guesses. Evolution is only one such guess (or theory) that explains life...can we not be open to others? Why should we believe Evolution is somehow the best or only scientific explanation? Surely, if we were to believe it is the best, we could only come to that conclusion by objectively studying other possible explanations...and what better place to do that than in school? :-)
If you've seen information from the Dover court case, you'd know that Intelligent Design isn't science. Frankly, it's barely disguised Creationism. In fact, the textbook, "Of Pandas and People" had typos in one draft that showed the phrase Intelligent Design was merely a replacement for the term Creationism. I'm not above Christianity as an explanation for science, but how about the possibility that the two can simply co-exist? (And I'm with the librarian, above. The materials don't "infiltrate" the library. They should be there for research purposes, whether we approve of them or believe what they say.)
I've read Judge Jones's Dover decision, Carlo. I've also read some two dozen books by ID theorists. That's why I know that Judge Jones was wrong in that part of his decision where he presumed to judge that ID is not science. His decision to overturn the Dover School Board's ID policy was arguably correct, but no one in the ID community argued in defense of that policy at the trial. Indeed, Discovery Institute - the institutional home of the ID movement - had advised the school board (and its attorneys) that the policy was ill-conceived and that it should not have been adopted.
Jim, Judge Jones sat through days of testimony from professional scientists who work in the fields and are familiar with ID explain why it isn't science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, why you need evidence and research and explanations and that ID had none of those, and that merely attacking the work of others isn't evidence for your own position.
He also listen to ID-ers - sorry, what they assert doesn't begin to rise to the level of theory, or even hypothesis - go on about complexity, the appearance of design in nature, and how evolution can't explain everything.
When both sides were done, he decided that science has more credibility than non-science. He was careful to point out that he was not taking a position as to whether ID might be true, only that it wasn't science, and, further, that a reasonable person could only conclude that it was a form of creationism.
And therefore unconstitutional.
Galapagos Pete: "...Judge Jones sat through days of testimony from professional scientists who work in the fields and are familiar with ID explain why it isn't science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, why you need evidence and research and explanations and that ID had none of those, and that merely attacking the work of others isn't evidence for your own position."
In short, GP, Judge Jones swallowed whole the criticisms of ID by scientists who have no interest in honestly representing it while he ignored the testimony of ID theorists (who are the experts on the subject of ID). Anyone who is well-versed in the design literature would find Judge Jones's decision about the scientific legitimacy of ID chock full of the distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods that are so typical of the things said about ID by its critics. Your remarks exemplify the genre: nothing you've said here about ID is true.
By the way, GP, if your mind is open to reading a response to Judge Jones's decision on the scientific bona fides of ID, google "Whether Intelligent Design is Science: Behe’s Response to Kitzmiller." The essay you'll find there will show you where Judge Jones went wrong in that part of his Dover decision where he presumed to declare that ID is not science.
"In short, GP, Judge Jones swallowed whole..."
Yes, that's clearly the *only* explanation here, because no one on the planet Earth could possibly hold a different opinion about ID than you do unless they're just gullible, right?
"...the criticisms of ID by scientists who have no interest in honestly representing it..."
If they failed to represent it honestly, the ID believers had every opportunity to show this. That they failed to do so indicates that they were unable to do so, because ID isn't valid science, merely a religious belief.
"...while he ignored the testimony of ID theorists..."
Again, yes, he must have simply ignored them, there just isn't any possibility that they're simply wrong.
"...(who are the experts on the subject of ID)."
Which is like saying experts on astrology.
"Anyone who is well-versed in the design literature would find Judge Jones's decision about the scientific legitimacy of ID chock full of the distortions, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods..."
Actually, a lot of people well-versed in design literature, like Eugenie Scott and PZ Myers, found the decision to be sound. It's only the ID believers who were outraged.
"...that are so typical of the things said about ID by its critics."
And will continue to be typical, because, as bored as we all are of having to repeat them, they're still true.
"Your remarks exemplify the genre:..."
Thank you.
"...nothing you've said here about ID is tru [sic]..."
All *I* said about ID is that it doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis, much less that it is a theory, and that is a true statement.
You are on the outside of the science. If you continue to insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar or a fool, outside is where you and you fellow travelers are goin
If PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott are well-versed in the ID literature, then they must be chronic liars given their persistent misrepresentations of it.
The simple idea behind science is to uncover the mysteries that lay before us in this universe. My question is, why have scientists become so narrow minded that they can not look at every possiblity? In truth you cannot effectively prove neo-darwinsm or intelligent design with tests of human manufacture. My mission that i apoint for you is think, without using science and fundamental laws as a barricade for reason and logic. Look at the complexity of DNA, our allignment in the soalr system, and everything else, and THEN come up with a logical as to whether Intelligent design explains it all, or Neo Darwinism explains it all....
Funny how names like "The Discovery Institute" just stick in your mind, As I read your article, I remembered Ben Stein's trip to the same organization in the video-screed 'No Intelligence Allowed'a faux-investigation of mainstream prejudice against academics who support ID. It was riddled with bad mojo.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!