[Evolidaho] Fwd: [AIBS-Evolution-l]Evolution education update: November 2, 2007

[Resources for teaching evolution]

----- Original Message -----
From: Holly Menninger <hmenninger at aibs.org>
Date: Friday, November 2, 2007 1:45 pm
Subject: [AIBS-Evolution-l]Evolution education update:  November 2, 2007
To: evolution-l at aibs.org

> Greetings Evolution Advocates,
>
> AIBS has recently updated two important policy resources related
> to the
> teaching of evolution:
> 1. The State News on Teaching Evolution Web site - a list,
> organized by
> state and date, detailing recent challenges to evolution
> education
> (http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/evolution_state_news.html)
> 2. A brief fact sheet summarizing recent developments in
> evolution
> education in each state
> (accessible at http://www.aibs.org/public-
> policy/teaching_evolution.html)
> Here's this week's update from the National Center for Science
> Education:
> Dear Friends of NCSE,
>
> Judgment Day is nigh -- a special documentary about Kitzmiller
> v. Dover
> will be aired on PBS on November 13, 2007.  Meanwhile, in
> Florida, the
> applause continues for the inclusion of evolution in the state science
> standards, while in the United Kingdom, the Association for Science
> Education issued a firm statement on science education, "intelligent
> design," and creationism.
>
> JUDGMENT DAY:  INTELLIGENT DESIGN ON TRIAL
>
> Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a special two-hour
> documentaryabout the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, in which teaching
> "intelligent design"
> in the public schools was ruled to be unconstitutional, is to air
> nationwide on PBS at 8:00 p.m. on November 13, 2007. 
> "Judgment Day
> captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful
> scientific message
> at its core," explains Paula Apsell, NOVA's Senior Executive
> Producer.  "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for
> many people,
> least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of
> biologicalscience.  We felt it was important for NOVA to do
> this program to heighten
> the public understanding of what constitutes science and what
> does not, and
> therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science
> curriculum in
> our public schools."
>
> In addition to the documentary itself, there is a generous website,
> featuring interviews with Kenneth R. Miller on evolution,
> Phillip Johnson
> on "intelligent design," and Paula Apsell on NOVA's decision to
> produce the
> documentary; audio clips of Judge John E. Jones III reading
> passages from
> his decision in the case and of various experts (including
> NCSE's Eugenie
> C. Scott) discussing the nature of science; resources about the
> evidencefor evolution and about the background to the Kitzmiller
> case; and even a
> preview of the documentary.  Teachers will be especially
> enthusiastic about
> the briefing packet for educators; further resources for educators,
> including a teacher's guide, a two-session on-line course, and a
> number of
> lesson plans, are to be released shortly.
>
> For information about Judgment Day, visit:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
>
> For the preview, visit:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/preview/i_3416.html
>
> For the briefing packet for educators (PDF), visit:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/media/nova-id-briefing.pdf
>
> UPDATE ON EVOLUTION IN THE FLORIDA STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS
>
> Support for the inclusion of evolution in Florida's draft
> science standards
> continues to amass.  Writing in the Orlando Sentinel
> (October 25, 2007),
> Mike Thomas quipped, "We are moving toward intelligently
> designed science
> curriculum in public schools.  And by that I mean we are leaving
> intelligent design out of classrooms.  By golly, Florida is
> evolving."  The
> standards are presently open for public comment for sixty days; Thomas
> reported, "Of 1,400 respondents to date, more than 80 percent support
> evolution."  A spokesperson for the Florida Department of
> Education told
> Thomas that the draft standards are based on "[w]hat research
> says should
> be in the standards" and that nothing would be deleted from the
> standardsin the absence of a research-based argument for the deletion.
>
> Following previous editorials in Florida Today, the Tallahassee
> Democrat,and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Orlando
> Sentinel (October 27, 2007)
> opined, "It's taken seven years, but Florida is on its way to
> developing a
> science curriculum for the new millennium -- one that requires
> teachersopenly and vigorously to teach about evolution," adding,
> "it's important
> that the state Board of Education and Gov. Charlie Crist fully endorse
> these changes to ensure Florida's children can compete in the
> increasinglytechnology-driven global marketplace."  Noting
> that evolution is one of the
> so-called Big Ideas of the science standards, the editorial
> concluded by
> proposing, "Let's add one more big idea.  In Florida,
> science should win
> out over politics when it comes to educating children."
>
> Subsequently, Education Week (November 7, 2007) reported that
> "[a]s of last
> week, an estimated 3,000 people had weighed in online. ... In an early
> count of online comments submitted so far, a majority of
> respondents agreed
> with how evolution was presented in individual Florida
> benchmarks."  But
> the support for evolution was, unsurprisingly, not unanimous;
> one comment
> quoted by Education Week recommended, "Do some research of creation
> science. ... Evolution 'facts' have been disproven."  While
> applauding the
> inclusion of evolution in the draft standards, NCSE deputy
> director Glenn
> Branch warned, "I expect to see some of kind of organized effort [by
> opponents] to deprecate the standards," citing such efforts elsewhere.
>
> After the public comment period is over, on December 14, the writing
> committee is expected to review the public comments, although it
> is not
> obliged to revise them in response, and then to forward a final
> version of
> the standards to the state board of education for
> approval.  Jane
> Pfeilsticker, a member of the committee, told the Bradenton
> Herald (October
> 28, 2007), that the committee was "100 percent" agreed that
> evolution ought
> to be included, adding, "I do teach evolution, and I also teach Sunday
> school ... I do not feel or see a conflict."  And high
> school biology
> teacher Brian McClain, a member of the committee, was quoted by
> EducationWeek as saying that not discussing evolution "would be
> comparable to
> teaching earth science without talking about plate tectonics, or
> chemistrywithout the periodic table."
>
> For Mike Thomas's column in the Orlando Sentinel, visit:
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-
> miket2507oct25,0,3076905.column
> For the Orlando Sentinel's editorial, visit:
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-
> ed27107oct27,0,3352578.story
> For the story in Education Week, visit:
> http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/11/07/11evolution.h27.html
>
> For the story in the Bradenton Herald, visit:
> http://www.bradenton.com/local/story/183339.html
>
> For the website and blog of Florida Citizens for Science, visit:
> http://www.flascience.org/
> http://www.flascience.org/wp/
>
> For the opportunity to comment on the draft standards, visit:
> http://tools.fcit.usf.edu/ScienceReview/
>
> And for NCSE's coverage of previous events in the Florida, visit:
> http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=FL
>
> THE ASSOCIATION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION ADDS ITS VOICE FOR EVOLUTION
>
> The Association for Science Education -- a professional
> association for
> teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000
> members -- recently issued a statement on science education,
> "intelligentdesign," and creationism, reading in part:
>
> ***
>
> it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for
> sharing a
> platform as a scientific "theory".  It has no underpinning
> scientificprinciples or explanations to support it. 
> Furthermore it is not accepted
> as a competing scientific theory by the international science
> community nor
> is it part of the science curriculum.  It is not science at all.
> Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be
> presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific
> idea.  As
> such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education
> of young
> people in school.
>
> ***
>
> The statement also cautions against presenting "intelligent
> design" as a
> case study of a controversy in science, commenting, "Intelligent
> Design ...
> cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial
> science," and
> recommends that "it should not be presented as an alternative
> scientifictheory" if it is presented in religious education classes.
>
> The statement cites the Interacademy Panel's statement on the
> teaching of
> evolution, to which the Royal Society of London and the National
> Academiesof Science are signatories, as well as the recently
> issued guidance to
> British teachers on the place of creationism in the science classroom.
>
> For the Association for Science Education's statement (PDF), visit:
> http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/homepage/notes_news/oct2007/ScienceEduc_IntelliDesign_Creationism.pdf
>
> For NCSE's coverage of previous events in the United Kingdom, visit:
> http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=UK
>
> Thanks for reading!  And as always, be sure to consult
> NCSE's web site:
> http://www.ncseweb.org
> where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and
> threats to it.
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <evolution-l at aibs.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <evolution-l-unsubscribe at aibs.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/attachments/20071102/3524aa58/attachment.html