Creative Evolution

This book by Herni Bergson uses philosophy and psychology to reconstruct a model of evolution that helps us to understand the process change throughout our species and the formation of the human intellect. Bergson takes a look at several different scientists and philosophers such as Darwin, De Vries, and Eimer and shows how these different explanation of the same effect are both correct and incorrect. He attempts to reconstruct a definition of evolution which is applicable to mechanism and teleology. The book does not aim at coming to a definite answer to the topic of evolution, it attempts to draw in several observations, theories, and philosophies into one place to allow for a process to be made which would aid in the discovery process as it applies to evolution.

Why Intelligent Design Fails : A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism

This book goes into great detail describing why creation science and intelligent design is incorrect. The main argument of this book by Young and Taner is that, “A theory that explains everything also explains nothing, because it can not be tested” (Young and Taner 187). They analyze popular arguments of creations past such as the Noah flood in relation to the stratification of fossil evidence. These arguments have been almost entirely debunked by the start of the 20th century. The switch their focus to the motives of the intelligent design movement.  They look at how  intelligent design has grown in popularity and has gained moderate support of the scientific community in the fields of biology and physics. Young and Tanner try to compare the arguments made by intelligent design to the arguments of other pseudoscience claims. Psuedoscience has several distinguishable qualities such as “untestable hypothesis, tries to ‘prove that’, and everyone else is wrong but us” (Young and Taner 187-188).

This is a short article about where the rights of teachers lay. It gives a brief overview of the Tinker v. Des Moines case where a student who was wearing a black armband in religious protest to the Vietnam War. The case went to the supreme court and it was decided that as long as a student is not disruptive and that it did not interfere with other students rights that his freedom of expression applies and that the armband can not be taken away. This applies to teachers as well and was used in a similar case by a teacher who decided to wear a black armband in protest to the war. His case also went to the supreme court and he was found to have the same freedom as his students.

This article gives a short history of the application of evolution research to every day life. The article its self makes no reference to teaching a religious form of creationism or intelligent design. The article makes a great deal of focus on the reasons why it is important to teach evolution. It gives several examples to how a strong focus on the idea of evolution will help a student in their academic career. It concludes with a list of several jobs or areas of study where the concepts of evolution are heavily applied.

Unfortunately JSTOR is giving me problems accessing their database at the moment from off campus so the summary I gave is from memory. Whenever I gain access to the site again I will write a more formal summary which has more application to the material.

John Whitehead is a lawyer and a writer who has worked extensively with the issue of teacher rights relating to academic freedom of speech. Whitehead refers to the case of Tinker v Board of Education where a students first amendment rights were called into question. The supreme court ruled that all students should have academic freedom as long as 1. it does not interfere with the learning environment, and 2. it does not interfere with the rights of others. The case James v Board of Education supported a teachers right to academic freedom through reference to the Tinker case. In both of these cases the act which caused the stir that forced a students rights or a teachers rights into question were religiously motivated. In closing Whitehead argues that, “The time has passed when it can be validly argued that the young must be shielded. Instead, they must be provided with an adequate educational base from which to confront a world that abounds with devastating crises.”

Academic Freedom and the Rights of Religious Faculty – Teacher Rights
Author: John Whitehead
Source: http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri-intro/freedom.html

Evolution, Science, and Society – Impacts of Evolution
Executive Document: Evolution, Science, and Society
Source: The American Naturalist, Vol. 158, No. 4, Supplement: Executive Document: Evolution, Science, and Society (Oct., 2001), pp. s1-s46
Published by: The University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3079007

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952523

This article begins by defining the different levels of creationism belief to evolutionary acceptance. These groups range from flat earthism to old/young earth creationists to materialist evolution. Within these sections of beliefs numerous theories have been listed to show the different levels of scientific involvement in the religious views of creation. Scott notes that the presentation of new codes for teachers regarding the teaching of evolution in schools helps confuse a teacher with warnings. If evolution is no taught in a class room it is seen as a win for the anti evolutionists (scott 276). The article finishes with a prediction for the future of creation and evolution studies.

For the next set of sources i would like to find information on where the future of creation and evolution research is taking us. What kind of data can i find that is making progress towards finding healthy mixture in science education.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/676034?seq=1

In this article Robert Williams gives a detailed account of one of the most influential members of the creationist movement, Henry Morris. Morris makes the argument that creation should be taught alongside evolution given equal time so that the students can make the decision which belief to pursue. He claims that the bible is a book of facts. Williams takes these arguments and explains and refutes them. In Arkansas act 590 5 essential characteristics of science was used against Morris.

1. “Science is guided by natural law.
2. Has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
3. It is testable against the empirical world.
4. Its conclusions are tentative.
5. It is falsifiable” (William 99).

Morris’ creation science was said to fail all of the characteristics of science and that it only serves to promote the advancement of religion. Much of the information contained in this article was pulled out of the first and 12th chapter of Morris’ book on scientific creation however that material is deleted out of the book to be taught in public schools. Those chapters contain all of the information about God and the Bible. It is counter argued that because the “intellectual roots of and justification for scientific creationism lie in conservative evangelical Protestant theology” (William 100).

The article gives a good amount of Creationist arguments for the science behind creation which are then shown to be inappropriate due to the lack of support by the natural laws of science. The next article i would like to find would be one which backs up the views of the evolutionists in a purely scientific way or one that was argued against by creationists.

Minority Report

This document contains all of the changes the minority members of the Kansas Board of Education wished to see. Reading over the document there is a very clear agenda not just for making the standards more science, or inquiry friendly but in fact more intelligent friendly. Several places in there document are several lines added to in some cases even change the meaning of science in the class room to a less methodological naturalistic statement which would allow for a less cause and effect outlook on science.

It is hard to not let my personal views get in the way of the argument presented in this paper but from what i read in this document there is no scientific benefit of teaching creationism and not evolution in this document. It goes to great lengths to refute evolution but it does nothing in the way of proposing a valid alternative. Evolution is a good way of showing, if nothing else, how observations and testing can help form a scientific understanding and hypothesis.

I would still like to find more information from creationists about what would be taught other then evolution if it was outlawed in schools and on tests. Maybe i just don’t understand the creationists point of view correctly. None the less that is my next direction. Find more information regarding the creationists.