Customer Reviews

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

What I liked:

The book is a readable, concise summary of the history of anti-evolution activism in the US, and its particular interest in public school science class to peddle its pseudoscience. Other books may be more detailed and technical, but if they predate Kitzmiller v. Dover, they may miss key information. In particular, the "evolution" of the movement, has produced a dominant "species," misleadingly called "Teach the Controversy," which is scripture-free, designer-free, and even lacks a proposed alternate account of species origin. It has nothing to offer but misrepresentations of evolution, the same misrepresentations that are the basis of classic "scientific" creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). Because anti-science activists of all stripes keep changing their tactics instead of conceding, the authors rightly warn that recent court victories are no reason to be any less vigilant.

The authors make it clear that opposition to ID/creationism is not opposition to religion, and that many critics of ID/creationism are devout theists who consider it not only bad science but also bad theology. It's sad that anyone still needs to be reminded of that, but it must be done because anti-evolutionists insist on pretending otherwise. Their scams depend on it.

What I didn't like:

In an effort to be concise, the book unfortunately reinforces the typical misconception that YEC is the only version of creationism other than ID and "Teach the Controversy." It can only help to remind the reader that there are actually many mutually contradictory creationist accounts (e.g. OEC, non-Biblical). Above and beyond the legal difficulties, the irreconcilable differences in alternate creationist accounts, all with their own fatal scientific problems, have forced anti-evolutionists to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

The authors state several times that that today's anti-evolution activism, if not that of the Scopes era, is based more on deliberate deceit than on honest, but mistaken belief. Readers who don't bother to check the references, though, may miss the full impact of that point; even many pro-evolution readers will likely come away with a "what's the harm?" opinion.

Legally, anti-evolution arguments can only be banned from public schools, but morally speaking, they should not be taught anywhere without a full rebuttal. If the reader is impressed by this book but says "teach ID/creationism in Sunday School" he has completely missed the point.

Eugenie Scott and her colleague Glenn Branch - who are both from the National Center for Science Education - deserve ample praise for editing this terse, yet quite insightful, primer that explains what "Intelligent Design" is, and why it shouldn't be taught in our schools. Scott, Branch and several other writers ranging from other scientists to educators and lawyers, not only review the history of the so-called "Intelligent Design" movement from both a legal and educational perspective, but also demonstrate that this "scientific" idea is not scientific, but rather, a cleverly designed revision of "scientific creationism" which thinly disguises its religious origins. In short, "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than a Fundamentalist Protestant Christian religious idea masquerading as science, and one that is still receiving ample financial and intellectual support from the Seattle, Washington-based Discovery Institute. This terse book remains timely and important, inspite of the harsh verdict rendered against Intelligent Design by Republican Federal Judge John Jones in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education trial (He ruled that "Intelligent Design" was a religious doctrine masquerading as science.), because staunch advocates like fellow Amazon.com customer reviewer "The Professor", Michael Behe and William Dembski refuse to acknowledge the intellectual bankruptcy of their pseudoscientific idea (Moreover, distinguished conservative pundits like Charles Krauthammer and George Will echoed Judge Jones' ruling, by concurring with him in published newspaper columns, noting that "Intelligent Design" wasn't scientific.). Eugenie Scott begins this book with a fine overview of the history of the Intelligent Design movement, and explains in clear, concise English why Intelligent Design isn't scientific, using much of the same logic which I have used in my own Amazon.com customer review of the "Intelligent Design" textbook "Of Pandas and People" (It was originally a textbook which purportedly offered a scientific rationale for "scientific creationism"; later editions have shifted emphasis to support instead "Intelligent Design". The history of this book's origins was noted during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education trial, and was an acute source of embarassment for "Intelligent Design" advocates.). Glenn Branch's essay which closes this volume is a well-reasoned, passionate plea explaining how the average citizen can help defeat ongoing efforts to introduce the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in American primary, intermediate and secondary school classrooms. If you don't think that "Intelligent Design" is a serious threat to ensuring first-rate scientific education in American schools, then you must buy this terse book.

"Not In Our Classrooms" is a concise (152 pages) and thorough collection of essays explaining why pseudoscience based on religious beliefs has no place in public science education. Eugenie Scott begins by showing the ironic evolution of creationism to "intelligent design" within the fundamentalist community, but the book does not concern itself merely with court defeats incurred by the religious right in the U.S. Including writings from theologians like Ted Peters and noted science writers Nick Matzke, Glenn Branch and Dr. Paul Gross, "Not In Our Classrooms" ends on a positive note, showing how citizens can become involved in protecting the integrity of science education in public schools.

...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.

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.

The orthodox fundamentalist Christians have a problem. If the story of the creation of the Universe as described in Genesis isn't exactly to the letter accurate, then that begins to open to question anything else that is written in the Bible. As such they cannot accept evolution. They have to believe that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago, the dinosaur bones were just put there as a test of faith. The red shift of the light of distant galaxies comes from light that God generated out there somewhere, and not possibly from a universe that's more than 6,000 years old.

If the story in Genesis is wrong, then there may be other errors in the bible. Perhaps it is not the inerrant word of God (even though it was written in a far away language - Aramaic - and translated many times, usually by people with ulterior motives). And if there are other errors, then personal salvation, heaven, and all the rest may be wrong.

There seems to be no way these people can be convinced that perhaps the story in Genesis is allegory. That a day (24 hours of dark and light) had no meaning before there was light, that it could have been an awfully long time, perhaps 13.5 billion years. What's the word for day in Aramaic anyway?

There doesn't seem to be a way to convince these people that there is enough mystery in the universe, enough room for God, without a literal interpretation. What, for instance, was going on a second or two before the big bang?

Oh well, the fundamentalists must keep trying to impose their view. In turn, we must keep showing that there are scientific proofs which perhaps reflect the way God set up the rules of the universe.

This book deals with the current way the arguments against evolution are going. It's very interesting and rather clearly points out the errors, the deliberate mis-information in their teaching.

If the fundamentalists have their way, the rest of science is at risk as well. Indeed the whole scientific method. The world will head back to the world that Islam seems to want to create, a new Dark Ages.

If it IS NOT obvious to you that the teaching of "intelligent design" doesn't belong in public schools in the U.S., you should read this book: it will help you to understand what a big mistake you would be making if you support the "intelligent design" movement and how you are being manipulated.

If it IS obvious to you that the teaching of "intelligent design" doesn't belong in public schools in the U.S., you should read this book: it will help you understand how well-organized and persistent the misguided effort is to undermine science education. The trickiness of the anti-evolution forces is very high. This book will guide you so you may be fooled by phony arguments such as about "fairness". "Intelligent design" efforts are also just one step toward undermining religious freedoms in this country.

People with good intentions are being manipulated by their religous leaders to believe that evolutionary theory and facts are inconsistent with religous truths. The level of manipulation is very high. Most of us are not scientists and may be fooled by carefully constructions scientific-like arguments.

Accepting evolutionary theory and facts DOES NOT make someone an atheist or immoral. As you will find in this book, it is not only possible to be a good Christian and accept evolution, it is the only way to be a healthy Christian and American.

This short book explains the scientific basis of the theory and facts of evolution, how some religous organizations are consciously attempting to subvert the U.S. Constitution in order to play on people's good intentions to make them believe that evolutionary teaching is contrary to healthy religous faith, what legal decisions have been made to date and how you can join in acting to stop this ongoing threat to our nation's future.

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.

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.

Despite the Kitzmiller (2005) decision where expert witnesses for Intelligent Design were clearly shown to have lied on the witness stand and stated that astrology is science, the Discovery Institute continues to try to push religion into public schools.

Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education clearly state that "belief" compared to "evidence" is not science and that science, as taught and modeled in K-12 and university classrooms must be robust, reproducible, falsifiable, testable, peer-reviewed and based on evidence, not belief. The Discovery Institute that promotes Intelligent Design is producing textbooks, DVDs and other media in an effort to push religious belief into public schools -often these books and DVDs are poorly written or produced imitations of existing robust and credible science materials.