Nic Tamzek

[cross-posted to t.o. and AE]

The release of this *can't* be accidental. I don't think the DI has ever published a random "let's restate our same old arguments for no explicit reason" article like this. But "Media Advisory on Evolution Controversies" is a particularly oblique term methinks.

And any mention of the Stevolutionists is conspicuous by it's absence.

Perhaps they've been getting a few skeptical calls from press people?

http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/inde...7&program=CRSC
===============
Media Advisory on Evolution Controversies

Discovery Institute
Press Release
February 19, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Mark Edwards, 206-292-0401 x 107 medwards@discovery.org

As you report on controversies over evolution and intelligent design, here are some facts you might find useful:


1. There is a growing scientific controversy over Darwinian evolution.

a) Today there are critics of Darwinian evolution within the scientific community, including biologists at mainstream American universities. In 2001, more than 100 scientists including scholars at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian signed a public statement announcing that they were "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [A complete list of these scientists can be found in A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.]

b) Because of the scientific critics of Darwin's theory, it is misleading to present the modern controversy over Darwinian evolution as a simplistic battle between "science" and "religious fundamentalists." Accurate reporting on this issue should do justice to the complexities of the real situation, not resurrect stereotypes from the fictional movie Inherit the Wind.


2. It is constitutional and legal for teachers to teach about the scientific controversies surrounding Darwinian evolution.

a) The courts have frowned upon raising religious objections to evolution in science classrooms, but these legal restrictions are irrelevant to discussions of scientific controversies over evolution.

b) According to law professor David DeWolf, co-author of the leading law review article about how to teach the evolution controversy legally, there is absolutely no constitutional problem with acquainting students with scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory currently being made by scientists. [See David DeWolf et. al., Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech? Utah Law Review (2000)].

"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
- U.S. Supreme Court, Edwards vs. Aguillard Ruling (1987)


3. The failure of biology curricula to discuss the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwin's theory is attracting increased criticism from educators, scientists, and the general public.

a) According to biology professor Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, Darwinian evolution has become "the exceptional area that you can't criticize" in science education, something he considers "a bad precedent." In his view, we need to "teach it more, and teach it critically."

b) According to a 2001 Zogby Poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans (71%) believe that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it."

c) Recent scientific reports have shown that some of the most common scientific proofs for Darwin's theory that are cited in high school and college textbooks are now widely known to be flawed, notably Haeckel's embryos and the Peppered Moth experiments [see linked NY Times' articles].


4. Federal education policy as articulated by Congress now calls for an balanced approach when teaching about controversial scientific topics such as evolution.

a) In the Conference Report to the landmark No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress clearly advised states to provide for the balanced treatment of controversial scientific issues like evolution. According to Congress, "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society." (This language originally came from Sen. Rick Santorum , R-PA, and is sometimes called The Santorum Amendment.)

b) U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (Dem-WV) expressed the sentiments of many lawmakers when he declared that "it is important that students be exposed not only to the theory of evolution, but also to the context in which it is viewed by many in our society. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors?" [Congressional Record, June 13, 2001]

5. Darwin himself would have likely agreed to a 'teach the controversy' approach.

In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."


Conclusion
Can teachers discuss the scientific controversy over Darwinian theory? Yes, in fact, good education demands it.

About Discovery Institute

Discovery Institute is non-profit, non-partisan policy and research organization on issues from transportation to technology to tax policy. In science education, it supports a "teach the controversy" approach to Darwinian evolution. Its Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 affiliated biologists, biochemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, most of whom also have positions with colleges and universities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org.

Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org
===============

S2Focus

The NCSE scientist list contains over 220 scientists named "Steve", while the DI list contains only one***.

The NCSE list contains all of the world's physics, chemistry and medicine Nobel Prize-winners named "Steve" (both of them!), while the DI list claims one "Nobel nominee".


***The solitary "Steve" on the DI's list is a philosopher, not a scientist, and really shouldn't count.

Valentine Pontifex

Glenn Branch of the NCSE is reporting that it is now 244.

And they are full of it for the Nobel nominee. Nobel nominees are not announced for a period of fifty (50) years. The nominators are, but the rules of being a nominator, not allowed reveal who they nominated though some have done so anyways. (In short anyone who says they nominated someone either lied to when they said they nominated someone or lied to the Nobel Prize people when they said they would not reveal who they nominated.) Furthermore, a number of people nominated for Nobel Prizes is thousands of people each year. (I think the DI is hoping people think this like say like an Oscar nomination which only five get nominated.)

The NCSE list has a few close calls by admission, nothing so blantant as including a philosopher -- a profession that utterly no one to my knowledge calls a "science."

Writer@Large

And at this point, my irony meter exploded.

--W@L

S2Focus

For the lurkers here, what I found at the official Nobel Foundation web-site (www.nobel.se) confirms this:

(from www.nobel.se)

Confidential Nominations
According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize.


I knew that the DI was a sleazy outfit, but I didn't fully appreciate just *how* sleazy(!)

Valentine Pontifex

S2Focus,

It is even worse than that:

http://www.nobel.se/help/faq/nominations.html

Valentine Pontifex

Lets make it even worse for the DI people. Even if the nominations were public it would not be that much of an honor. The following is from the official site for the Physiology or Medicine Nobel Prize:

http://www.nobel.se/medicine/article...-ringertz-rev/

Now if 2,500 people each year can officially nominate someone for just one category of Nobel Prize each and every year -- and those nominators are not the same each year -- it is not that much of an honor to say that you have been nominated per se.