|
Editorial Review Product Description
More than eighty years after the Scopes trial, creationism is alive and well. Through local school boards, sympathetic politicians, and well-funded organizations, a strong movement has developed to encourage the teaching of the latest incarnation of creationism—intelligent design—as a scientifically credible theory alongside evolution in science classes. Although intelligent design suffered a serious defeat in the recent Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, its proponents are bound to continue their assault on evolution education. Now, in Not in Our Classrooms, parents and teachers, as well as other concerned citizens, have a much-needed tool to use in the argument against teaching intelligent design as science.
Where did the concept of intelligent design originate? How does it connect with, and conflict with, various religious beliefs? Should we teach the controversy itself in our science classrooms? In clear and lively essays, a team of experts answers these questions and many more, describing the history of the intelligent design movement and the lack of scientific support for its claims. Most importantly, the contributors—authorities on the scientific, legal, educational, and theological problems of intelligent design—speak specifically to teachers and parents about the need to defend the integrity of science education by keeping intelligent design out of science curriculums. A concluding chapter offers concrete advice for those seeking to defend the teaching of evolution in their own communities.
Not in Our Classrooms is essential reading for anyone concerned about defending the teaching of evolution, uncompromised by religiously motivated pseudoscience, in the classrooms of our public schools.
"The book you have in your hands is an excellent resource to deal with the attack on evolution, which is a surrogate, and indeed a wedge, for a wide-ranging crusade against the scientific integrity of the public education system in America."
—Rev. Barry W. Lynn, from the Foreword
"The future of our species probably depends on science education and our understanding of the natural world. If you're concerned about science literacy, read this book."
—Bill Nye the Science Guy®
"…we are in the midst of a struggle to preserve sound science education…It is crucial to resist such pressure, whether it comes from parents, community groups, administrators, or school board members. Reading this book is a good start." —Howard Good, Teacher Magazine
"Not in Our Classrooms makes its case well, underscoring the fatuousness of creationist science on every level: constitutional, educational and scientific…At its core, the evolution "debate" is a local one, and it's at that level that the daily battles happen. Thanks to this collection, winning them might become a little easier."
—Washington Monthly, review in the January/February issue
"In Not in Our Classrooms Beacon Press has provided the indispensable tool for combating this grave threat to science and science education . . . This important book cannot be recommended too highly."
—Voice of Reason: The Journal of Americans for Religious Liberty, review in the No. 4 2006 issue
"This book provides substantial background information and perspective…such information and analysis can only help social justice educators."
—Rethinking Schools, review in the Winter issue
"It is a welcome and recommended addition to a library of materials that strengthen and enlighten science instruction in the era of a narrowly defined theism in the United States today . . . recommended for teachers, citizens, and policymakers."
—National Science Teachers Association
"For teachers, school boards, and citizens who are interested in learning about intelligent design (ID) creationism and counteracting it, this book is a vital resource."—Teachers College Record
Eugenie C. Scott and Glenn Branch are the executive director and the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization in Oakland, California, that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction was named an Outstanding Academic Title of 2005 by Choice.
Since 1992 the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, a minister in the United Church of Christ, has served as executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. ... Read more Customer Reviews (12) 
Interesting Book
I picked this book for one of my classes in school. In the beginning i
choose this book because it was short. It turned out to be an
interesting book to read.
This book is a great book especially for parents, teachers, and
students who are concerned with the future of the science classes in
public schools because of three reasons. First, it helps teachers who
are in control. Second, it helps parents who want to defend the
teaching of evolution in their own communities. Third, it is not
compromised by religiously pseudoscience.
Once the classroom's door is closed, teachers are in control. The book
shows science teachers how they can prepare students properly for
postsecondary science education and gives examples. It also helps them
react under pressure and in what area they need to educate themselves
more in order to guide students' mis-conception about evolutionary
science. It also gives advice, support for teachers.
Parents are always attending public meeting in schools in their
community. They have the right to defend the side they are standing
for. This book has an entire chapter called "Defending the Teaching of
Evolution" to assist parents with special concerns. It brings to the
table all kind of argument that disagrees with parents' opinion. It is
straight forward and very short so parents can prepare them for the
meeting by reading the book in one or two days.
The book dedicated a full chapter to talking about religious analysis
and science. It shows how various religious beliefs have conflict with
intelligent design. All controversial questions are answers and by a
team experts not motivated religiously pseudoscience. They use the
history of the intelligent design movement and the lack of scientific
support for their claims.
The book is very easy to read and understand. The authors have
achieved their goal very well by convincing their readers with lots of
examples and contra-arguments. They did not only address the problem,
but also give solutions and suggestions. In fact, it narrows down its
audience in each chapter to give them enough information and answers
to what they are looking for. It is a very useful tool to defend the
integrity of science education. I recommend everyone who wants to make
deference and improve the public education to read this book.
Scott & the Rise of Spontaneous Generation...Again
Scott's book is like her debates on the subject--full of emotion and argumentum ad hominem. Her attacks on creationists are so visceral at times that the reader (or the listener of her debates) cannot help but get the distinct impression that Scott is actually at war with herself. Scott defends her actions by stating that she openly "takes this issue personally" for various reasons, but the acuteness of her words against a Creator and creationism borders on slander and religious bitterness, and while her shrill and vocal objections to the 'science of creationism' are many, they are not original, nor remarkable.They do however accomplish one very important task that Scott desperately requires: a smokescreen for her own flimsy defenses of Darwinian evolution, which are based firmly on a foundation of spontaneous generation--an absolute scientific impossibility.
Should Creation Science be required teaching in public schools? This is a difficult question, but considering the alternative is the teaching of many aspects of Darwinian evolution that are obviously non-scientific and non-rational, (namely the origins of life from chance and speciation via mutation), American students are not really getting a science education that promotes critical analysis--they are getting indoctrination from a government institution that openly stifles free thought and free speech.
Evolution is science, ID is religion
This short (152 pages) book contains six articles that cover many of the key conceptual issues raised by ID creationism and provide helpful tips on how to counter creationist attempts to sabotage the public school science curriculum.
Chapter One describes the historical roots of "intelligent design," the latest version of creationism. Federal courts can use historical relationships as evidence in determining whether a given policy is rooted in science or religion, so ID creationism's obvious historical connection to Christian fundamentalism and other religious programs is a heavy burden for them to overcome.
Chapter Two critically analyzes the ID-iots' "critical analysis" strategy and exposes its flaws. This was my favorite chapter, since it dealt with explicitly scientific issues and exposed some of the major errors in some of the most important "scientific" arguments that creationists use today. The alleged inconsistencies in phylogenetic trees that ID-iots harp about are shown to be nothing more than statistical flukes. The ID-iots' argument about an alleged lack of transitional forms leading up to the Cambrian Explosion and between phyla is both out-dated and largely based on taking statements by scientists like Stephen Jay Gould out of context. While Gould did say that transitionals between individual species were rare, the transitionals between major groups are both numerous and in accord with evolutionary predictions. And recent work indicates not only that animal life existed many millions of years before the Cambrian, but also that there are indeed transitional forms linking some of the major phyla. As the authors point out, pretty much all phyla started out in wormlike forms, and most animal life forms even today are still wormlike. Where, exactly, is the problem for evolution in that? Graham Budd's work on fossils showing how Arthropoda sequentially acquired the characteristic features of their clade and Simon Conway Morris' work on the links between mollusk, brachiopd, and annelid phyla provide specific examples of the errors in the creationists' argument.
A common creationist argument about the origin of information in DNA is similarly debunked. First, it is obviously illogical for ID-iots to argue that since no known physical or chemical laws DETERMINE the arrangement of DNA sequences, it is therefore impossible to explain those arrangements in terms of natural causation.Second, recent work by Manyuan Long reviews the mutational processes involved in the origin of new genes -- i.e., information -- and then lists dozens -- dozens!!! -- of examples in which the genes' natural cause origins have already been shown.
The fatal flaws in Behe's argument about irreducible complexity are briefly reviewed.
The much ballyhooed difference between micro and macroevolution is examined. The creationist argument here basically amounts to a mere word-game. Different scientists sometimes use the terms in different ways in different contexts. ID-iots take advantage of that to quote those statements out of context to make it look like there's a major problem. Not only is taking quotes out of context obviously stupid all by itself, but the ID-iots have their own problems in this area as well, since their beliefs about the impossibility of macroevolution seem to be in serious conflict with their concept of "created kind." Specifically, the alleged impossibility of macroevolution is meaningful only if the variability within "created kinds" is relatively narrow; but "created kinds" can encompass essentially unlimited variability.Duane Gish, to take just one very prominent example, argues that one "created kind," -- namely, worms -- includes species from at least two separate phyla, which implies that evolution from one species in one phylum to a different species in a different phylum would be completely unobjectionable.Since phylum to phylum evolution is apparently unobjectionable under Gish's view of "kinds," there doesn't appear to be any principled reason to believe that the scope of macroevolution is not essentially unlimited.
Chapter Three's essay on religious aspects of the controversy was pretty much a waste of time, except for the limited purpose of showing that standard evolutionary theory has essentially nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God and that most Christian denominations have no fundamental objections to standard evolutionary theory.
Chapter Four's essay about the constitutional analysis that applies to teaching ID was very worthwhile, though it would have been helpful to explicitly address one particular mistake that ID-iots make over and over again. For example, during the Kitzmiller trial, Behe argued that ID should not be disqualified as science simply because it has religious implications, and Behe supported that argument by repeatedly referring to Big Bang theory, which is not disqualified as science even though it has religious implications too. Behe's legal argument, like his arguments about irreducible complexity, is simply stupid. The proper constitutional analysis is not and never was dependent on the single factor of "religious implications," rather the proper standard requires a balancing of religious and secular implications. Big Bang theory has been a richly rewarding theory in science, and that secular factor is enough to counter-balance its alleged religious implications. ID, on the other hand, has been a complete failure in science, so there is no scientific (secular) benefit in ID to counter-balance its pervasive religious implications.Behe and his followers are simply dunces for focusing exclusively on the single factor of religious implications, when proper analysis so clearly requires a multi-factor approach.
Chapter Four's discussion of the "academic freedom" issue was also very interesting.
Chapters Five and Six, respectively, discuss the importance of teaching science properly and ways to combat efforts to sabotage science education.
All in all, a fascinating introduction to many of the basic issues involved in the controversy.
Answers to the I.D. arguments
This book is a useful tool for anyone with a child in school who wants to make sure they are being taught science rather than religion. It explores the history of the creationism/evolution debate, shows the legal cases relevant, and explains what issues the creationists/ID folks keep bringing up. Most of them are laughable, but I'm glad to know about them before I get sprung with them at a PTA meeting. It's sad how well-informed we have to be to beat the ill- and misinformed. I majored in biology as an undergrad and took a class in evolution.Despite that, many of the arguments brought up by the I.D. camp were new to me, so I was glad to read about them in full before hearing about them in a debate.
Praise for the book...
...and a rebuttal to "The Professor"
This book nails the debate on the head of the nail. Ms. Scott and Mr. Branch have done a wonderful job of laying out the factual reasons why I.D. is false as science. But even better, in an attempt to counter-point the books contents, we actually are allowed to see another reviewer lay out the very arguments that have no merit. Normally, I ignore such attempts at blatant falsehoods, but I think in this case it is worthwhile in order to better underscore why - and why the book he attempts to slander causes him to engage in this rather blatant exercise.
The "professor" starts his argument by claiming the book contains misleading and flat-out wrong information by claiming "the oft cited claim that ID has not produced any science or has not published in the peer reviewed literature ". The truth is there is no peer reviewed material available to be found, except wherein it is pointed out that ID has no merit. Further, ID has contributed NOTHING to science. Even the Discovery Institute- where modern I.D. got its start - has publicly admitted it has produced nothing.
The Professor goes on to show how transparent his false argument is by adding: "In my work in the area of cell biology research, we in fact proceed on the assumption that the cell was designed and asked the question "how was it designed, i.e. how does it work" often assuming that the mechanisms we are researching are ingeniously designed." This is a blatant falsehood...nowhere in biology will you find a scientist who will make this claim - it is counter to the basic premise of the scientific method, where EVERYTHING is in question. Such an assumption would never happen, because it demands that you make a conclusion before you examine the phenomena!
I could go on, but the real point is "the professor" makes a number of unsubstantiated claims that anyone with a passing understanding of science can understand to be false. He offers nothing factual, cites to nothing published (because, as I pointed out above, there has been NOTHING of a peer reviewed nature published) and essentially engages in hand waves to support his claims.
He finishes with the claim that ID advocates are in the closet. This is the most transparent of falsehoods: scientists love nothing better than proving other scientists wrong. If there were any merit to ID, you would see many scientists out there showing why.
To close, I apologize to any who find my response outside of the norm for a book review, but I feel very strongly about letting people such as "the professor" spread these falsehoods without some objection. The real bottom line: educate yourself. Learn why science works as it does. Once you do, it becomes rather easy to understand why these people are selling you snake oil.
... Read more |
