Debating Darwin: Should evolution be taught as the only truth? at the 2007 Battle of Ideas conference hosted by the Institute of Ideas.
The debate over creationism has sprung up as the latest flashpoint in the battle between secularism and religion. While the US has seen extended conflict over the theory of evolution - from the 1925 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to the recent Dover, PA court case "new challenges to Darwinism under the guise of intelligent design (ID) have arisen in the UK. Concerns centre on school science education, from Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation to the controversial teaching packs distributed by the anti-evolution group Truth in Science. The rise of 'Islamic creationism', modeling itself on ID, adds to concerns that Islam poses a special threat to secularism in Britain. Although the Royal Society and much of the scientific establishment have denounced the teaching of creationism, a recent MORI poll revealed that over 40% of the public believe that creationism or ID should be taught alongside evolution in school science classes.
While few seriously endorse the literal biblical story of creation, ID on the other hand claims to highlight Darwinism's shortcomings on scientific grounds. Evolution is 'just a theory' after all. Surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should 'teach the controversy'? Science is about questioning received truths rather than establishing certainties for all time. Does this not permit a more flexible approach to science education, where debate is encouraged? Further, the sheer complexity of evolutionary theory leads ID advocates to claim it is best to cultivate a critical eye in pupils, rather than have them take as truth a misunderstood Darwinian theory.
Is science, or 'scientism', just as fundamentalist as religion, arrogantly claiming to know everything, or are doubts such as these a reflection of scientists' failure to make the case properly for what science does have to offer? Is this merely another case of the 'balance fallacy' the mistaken belief that even falsehoods should be given air time?- IoI
Bio
Simon Conway Morris
Simon Conway Morris is Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He has worked as a Research Fellow at St John's College, and has lectured at the Open University. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1990, and has received medals from the National Academy of Sciences and the Geological Society of London. He worked for the Natural Environment Research Council between 1998 and 2002. Simon is renowned for his insights into early evolution and his studies of palaeobiology.
Steve Fuller
Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK. He received his B.A. summa cum laude (History and Sociology) from Columbia University (1979), MPhil. (History and Philosophy of Science) from Cambridge University (1981), and PhD (History and Philosophy of Science) from University of Pittsburgh (1985). He is the founder of the research program of social epistemology - which is the name of a quarterly journal he founded with Taylor & Francis in 1987, as well as his first book Social Epistemology
Steve's work has appeared in 15 languages, and he has been a visiting professor in the US, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Japan and Israel. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts, Fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council, and is listed in Who’s Who in the World. In 2007 Warwick University awarded him a 'higher doctorate' (DLitt) for distinguished contributions to scholarship.
Alex Hochuli
Alex Hochuli is a masters student in European studies at King's College London and editor of the Battle of Ideas and Institute of Ideas websites.
He assists in the development of the IoI's communications and new media, and with the Debating Matters Competition. Alex is a Battle of Ideas committee member and is on the editorial team of the 2007 Battles in Print.
He occasionally writes articles for spiked and reviews for Culture Wars. Alex co-edits the Manifesto Club freedom blog, Speaking Our Mind, and is a regular guest on news discussion programme Up Front on internet talk TV channel 18 Doughty Street.
Alex is a recent graduate in International Relations and History from the London School of Economics (LSE) with a special interest in religion and secularism, co-producing the IoI and Bishopsgate Institute series of debates on secularism in early 2008. He also has a keen interest in issues relating to the media and the internet, particularly with regard to censorship and free speech.
David Perks
David Perks has taught in state schools for over 20 years and is a passionate defender of academic science education. His critique of the new school science curriculum published in What is science education for? provoked the front page headline in The Times - Science elite rejects new GCSE as 'fit for the pub'. David writes more broadly on education and the relationship between science and society. His interests range from environmentalism to intelligent design. David originated the Institute of Ideas and Pfizer Debating Matters sixth form debating competition
(born Feb. 12, 1809, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, Eng.—died April 19, 1882, Downe, Kent) British naturalist. The grandson of Erasmus Darwin and Josiah Wedgwood, he studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh and biology at Cambridge. He was recommended as a naturalist on HMS Beagle, which was bound on a long scientific survey expedition to South America and the South Seas (1831–36). His zoological and geological discoveries on the voyage resulted in numerous important publications and formed the basis of his theories of evolution. Seeing competition between individuals of a single species, he recognized that within a local population the individual bird, for example, with the sharper beak might have a better chance to survive and reproduce and that if such traits were passed on to new generations, they would be predominant in future populations. He saw this natural selection as the mechanism by which advantageous variations were passed on to later generations and less advantageous traits gradually disappeared. He worked on his theory for more than 20 years before publishing it in his famous On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859). The book was immediately in great demand, and Darwin's intensely controversial theory was accepted quickly in most scientific circles; most opposition came from religious leaders. Though Darwin's ideas were modified by later developments in genetics and molecular biology, his work remains central to modern evolutionary theory. His many other important works included Variation in Animals and Plants Under Domestication (1868) and The Descent of Man… (1871). He was buried in Westminster Abbey. See alsoDarwinism.
"What happened to having a choice of ideas and being tolerant of others belief, or doesn't that apply to a Christian's perception?"
Whatever, there is no room for "Choice of Ideas" or "Being tolerant of others belief" or "Christians Perception" in the scientific arena. An idea, proposition, explanation, theory etc is either correct or incorrect. Asking the right questions by using the scientific method will validate or falsify such proposals. End of
"... And this perpetual motion machine she made today is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster... Lisa! Get in here... In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!" - Homer Simpson
Haven't read all that much about Intelligent Design, but how does intelligent design explain the designer itself?
Even if our whole universe was designed by another kind of intelligence, that intelligence itself should have evolved from something or be created by something.
Seems to make the answer a lot harder than it should be.
I think it's fine that some individuals be motivated to study science with an underlying religious viewpoint. However, there's no reason that a public school teacher should be placed in the position of advocating, refuting, or otherwise explaining any religious beliefs in a science classroom. Sketching how the study of science has changed (evolved?) throughout history seems appropriate, but save the religious indoctrination for Sunday School.
I still havent heard a rebuttal of evolution from anyone who actually has a grasp of it -counterintuitive little sucker that it is. In response to Mare652's point:
"It actually goes against the second law of nature [thermodynamics?] (entropy- anything left to itself becomes more disorderly")
I think you left out the important bit here: 'in a CLOSED system.'
You don't need to be a scientist to know that the earth and the evolution of life on it is not a closed system, ever notice that big fiery ball in the sky outside your window?
Also science isn't about choice -at all. You don't just choose a theory of the rack because it fits with your religion, philosophy, or whatever. I think you may be confusing it with consumerism?
farmerjoe would like us to take praetorians explanation on thermodynamics and open systems as a ray of light. Andy McIntosh, Professor of Thermodynamics at Leeds University,responds to claims by evolutionists that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is no problem for evolution, because the earth is an 'open system' and I Quote, "Scientists like me who believe in ID have no problem with natural selection. It is simply the natural equivalent of artificial selection. But natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase genetic information and cannot build machines which are not there already(either as sub machines or in embryonic form). The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new functional biological structure to be achieved without new machinery already being in place. The 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that in a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is energy 'lost' to the system per unit degree of temperature and it is called the entropy of the system. The principle for energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system since unless there is a machine to use the energy added, there is no benefit". This analogy works well "Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s". Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneous forming of such machinery will not happen". Praetorians ray of light seems more like a shot in the dark.
The question of the soul raised by "Carlos" is completely irrelevant to the scientific discussion. There is no evidence of souls and nothing like a soul is required to explain the human ability to rationalize, adabt and to feel human emotions. In fact there are statisfiing explanations for how all of these evolved.
The point beeing, that things, that are unobserveable can not be subject to scientific research and therefor should not be taught in science class.
OMG (if you will forgive the expression), someone wants science to explain souls? Why not other mythical or imaginary things like ghosts, dragons, and leprechauns?
At least there is a ray of light; thanks praetorian for taking the time to explain some basic concepts to the unlearned so that some day they may actually be able to participate in a dialog. Shortly after that point they will probably realize there is no dialog because there IS NO controversy.
member. 
