Reaction
Science writer Sally Lehrman wrote an editorial in the Boston Globe on August 9, 2007 in which she stated that Explore Evolution "claims to teach students critical thinking but instead uses pseudoscience to attack Darwin's theories." Discovery Institute fellow Stephen C. Meyer objected in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, which was published on August 16, 2007.
University of Minnesota faculty member PZ Myers wrote a preliminary review after examining a copy of Explore Evolution. Myers had a negative impression of the book. Myers wrote,
In general, the book presents the subjects superficially, cherry picks examples, and sets up shallow hypotheses that bear little resemblance to what scientists actually think about the subject, and then shoots down the examples in such a way as to cast doubt on entire disciplines. It's a dirty, dishonest book in a slick package. It's gonna sell like hotcakes to every lazy, stupid teacher who wants to substitute vacuous crap for an honest and serious examination of a difficult and important subject.
Myers feels that, "The biology part is shallow, useless, and often wrong, and the critiques are basically just warmed over creationist arguments." Myers also points out that Explore Evolution is only 150 pages which compares unfavorably with the 1,146 pages of Kenneth Miller and Joseph S. Levine's popular high school textbook, Biology: The Living Science
National Center for Science Education Public Information Project Director Nick Matzke suggests that Explore Evolution is a major signal at the vanguard of the fourth stage of the creationism–evolution controversy:
- Round 1: Fundamentalists ban evolution (1920s-1960s). Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) concluded this round.
- Round 2: "Creation science", which was invented in 1969, and ended as a serious legal strategy by Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), although there were earlier defeats such as Hendren v. Campbell (1977) and McLean v. Arkansas (1982).
- Round 3: Intelligent design, invented about 1987, ended as a serious legal strategy by Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005).
- Round 4: Attack evolution and imply creationism and/or intelligent design without making explicit statements. This is the strategy used in Explore Evolution in 2007.
That the book's strategy has been formulated in an attempt to avoid repeating previous court defeats is acknowledged by the Discovery Institute:
State school boards in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Minnesota along with local boards in Wisconsin and Louisiana have adopted science standards that encourage critical analysis of Darwinian Theory. To date, not a single lawsuit has challenged such standards.
This is consistent with the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, "Stand up for science" and "Critical Analysis of Evolution". Matzke also notes that there is little that is new in the book or its associated teaching materials.
John Calvert, managing director of IDnet, believes that although Explore Evolution is "enormously important," he is skeptical about its chances for success. Since 2005, IDnet has tried to bring critical analysis of evolution into the classroom. However, a setback in Kansas in February 2007 to change science standards in the wake of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision left Calvert pessimistic:
John Timmer of technology site Ars Technica also reviewed the book, writing that its version of inquiry-based learning (IBL) "assiduously avoids suggesting that any conclusion can be reached at all", and as such it "makes a mockery of the use of IBL in the sciences", making the analogy that teaching gravity in this manner would lead students to the conclusion that "the force of gravity is random or unmeasurable". He also summarises the book's use of classic creationist arguments, noting that the book maintains "plausible deniability" by not explicitly mentioning either creationism or intelligent design. He also criticises the book for "logical inconsistencies" in its argument and its "divide and conquer" approach to the lines of evidence for evolution, particularly the idea "that the fact that any one of them supports evolution was just a lucky fluke". Ultimately he surmised that the book "doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it" and "will leave their students with a picture of modern biology that is essentially unrelated to the way that science is actually practiced".
Read more about this topic: Explore Evolution: The Arguments For And Against Neo-Darwinism
Famous quotes containing the word reaction:
“Children, randomly at first, hit upon something sooner or later that is their mother’s and/or father’s Achilles’ heel, a kind of behavior that especially upsets, offends, irritates or embarrasses them. One parent dislikes name-calling, another teasing...another bathroom jokes. For the parents, this behavior my have ties back to their childhood, many have been something not allowed, forbidden, and when it appears in the child, it causes high-voltage reaction in the parent.”
—Ellen Galinsky (20th century)
“An actor must communicate his author’s given message—comedy, tragedy, serio- comedy; then comes his unique moment, as he is confronted by the looked-for, yet at times unexpected, reaction of the audience. This split second is his; he is in command of his medium; the effect vanishes into thin air; but that moment has a power all its own and, like power in any form, is stimulating and alluring.”
—Eleanor Robson Belmont (1878–1979)
“The excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction.”
—Plato (c. 427–347 B.C.)