More on the SFSU/Kenyon controversy
James J. Lippard
From: hafe...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
Subject: evolution/creation controversy at SFSU
To: lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Message-id: <931208233...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu>
Genie Scott suggested I forward this information to you. Please pass it on to
any one who might be interested. Thanks. John Hafernik
Some Information Relevant to the 1992/1993 Science vs
Creationism Controversy
(Prepared by John Hafernik)
The Past
In 1980/1981, the Department of Biology had its first Creationism
Controversy. This controversy centered on the presentation by Dr.
Kenyon of creationism, then called "scientific creationism," in
Biology 337 Evolution. At that time, Dr. Kenyon challenged anyone
on the faculty to a debate on the merits of evolutionary theory
versus "scientific creationism." There was much discussion in
faculty meetings as well. Eventually the faculty voted (none
opposed, seven abstentions) not to alter the description of
Biology 337 to include creationism. The precedent set, in the
context of the 1980 discussions, was that the Department did not
support teaching creationism.
When the controversy arose anew in the fall of 1992, I acted in a
way that was in line with the views of the faculty expressed in
1980.
The Present
The present controversy began when students in Dr. Kenyon's
Biology 100 class complained to me that he included unscientific
material (creationism) in his lectures. They also complained
about other aspects of Dr. Kenyon's class.
Some points to keep in mind are as follows:
1. The Department of Biology, through its chair and biocouncil,
is not saying that there should be no place for the discussion of
Dr. Kenyon's philosophical views within the University's
curriculum. No one is attempting to restrict the expression of
his views in his personal professional endeavors. What is being
said is that students in an introductory general studies science
class should learn the ways of science. To mix science and the
views of oneUs religion together does students a disservice.
2. The University Guidelines for Academic Freedom and
Responsibility include the following statement: "Students have the
right to the instruction promised them in official University
publications." In this case instruction in science and not
religion. Students are entitled to truth in advertizing.
3. The topic of evolution, as used in the course description of
Biology 100, is not generally considered synonymous with the topic
of "origins" as used by Dr. Kenyon and the Academic Freedom
Committee. "Origins" is a more politically correct term used by
creationists for special creation.
4. "Intelligent design" as used by Dr. Kenyon is a concept
historically associated with "creationism."
5. If there is a dispute as to what constitutes science or
appropriate application of scientific standards, the dispute
should be resolved by those who are most knowledgeable, peers
within the discipline.
6. Decisions about the specifics of the class schedule for the
Biology Department must be made by the Department not by a
committee composed of faculty members from other departments, nor
by upper level administrators.
The Published Record
In their book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of
Biological Origins (first edition 1989, second edition 1993)
Percival Davis and Dr. Kenyon present their views of evolutionary
biology, point out difficulties they have with modern theory, and
present the intelligent design paradigm as a scientific
alternative. This book provides a written account of Dr. Kenyon's
views on the topics he covers in his Biology 100 lectures on
"origins." In my discussions with Dr. Kenyon, he suggested I
read his book to learn more about his objections to modern
evolutionary theory and about the scientific support for the
"intelligent design paradigm." Although the words God, Creator,
and creationism are never used in the work, it has been
extensively criticized by biologists and philosophers of science
as: (a) presenting a religious view, special creation/intelligent
design, as science; (b) presenting an inaccurate and distorted
view of evolutionary biology, genetics, and other areas of
biology; and (c) being seriously flawed in its philosophical
underpinnings.
Background Information
The AAUP: Creationism and Academic Freedom
1. At its 1981 annual meeting, the AAUP endorsed a resolution in
opposition to an Arkansas law that called for "balanced
treatment" of "creation science" and evolution in public schools.
The resolution includes the following:
a. "This legislation by requiring that a religious doctrine
(sometimes disguised) be taught as a condition for teaching of
science, serves to impair the soundness of scientific education
preparatory to college study and to violate the academic freedom
of public school teachers."
b. "Members of college and university faculty in Arkansas and
elsewhere should be able to teach and criticize freely in accord
with professional standards".
c. In the March-April issue of Academe, devoted to the issue
of creationism, Matthew Finkin writes that the resolution allows
that "The idea of special creation can be treated extensively in
courses in religion, anthropology, intellectual and social
history."
d. In the same issue of Academe John Moore clearly shows why
the claims of "scientific creationism" do not meet the test of the
professional standards of science.
Would the AAUP now take the position that it's okay to teach
creationism as science in a general studies biology class in a
public university, as long as it's taught by a tenured professor?
I don't know, but it seems they would have to assess their
previous stance.
2. In July-August 1993 issue of Academe, Cass Sunstein Professor
of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Law School and Department
of Political Science discusses Academic Freedom issues on
University campuses. In his article, he points out "Subject
matter restrictions are part of education. Irrelevant discussion
is banned. Students cannot discuss the presidential election, or
Marx and Mill, if the subject is math. Schools are allowed to
impose subject matter restrictions that would be plainly
unacceptable if enacted by states or localities." Professor
Sunstein does not specifically address the issue of teaching a
religious belief as science, but the parallel to the point he
makes seems clear.
Legal Rulings
1. Judge William Overton in his 1982 ruling overturning the
Arkansas equal time law made the following points:
a. Creation science is not science but a religious belief. It
is not science because it does not meet the essential
characteristics of science. These characteristics of science are:
1) It is guided by natural law;
2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3) It is testable against the empirical world;
4) It conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily
the final word; and
5) It is falsifiable.
b. "The emphasis on origins as an aspect of the theory of
evolution is peculiar to creationist literature."
c. "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology...Any
student who is deprived of instruction as to the prevailing view
of scientific thought on these topics will be denied a significant
part of science education. Such a deprivation through the high
school level would undoubtedly have an impact on the quality of
education in the State's colleges and universities including the
pre-professional programs in the health sciences."
d. "The application and content of the First Amendment
principles are not determined by public opinion polls or majority
vote...No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs
of government, of which public schools are the most conspicuous
and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others."
Judge Overton is clear Rcreation scienceS is religion and not
science. In public institutions, students are entitled to be taught
science in science classes. Teaching religion is not appropriate
under the Constitution. Science, the leading journal of science in
the United States, published Judge OvertonUs decision in full as a
major article.
2. In 1987 the Supreme Court overturned a Louisiana Law requiring
that "creation science" be taught on an equal basis with
evolution science (sic) whenever evolution is taught in the public
schools. The court found this statute unconstitutional because
the statute had no clear secular purpose, but rather was designed
to promote one particular religious view. The decision appears,
to the layman, to be narrower in scope when compared to Judge
Overton's ruling. The lower court used Judge Overton's decision
in striking down the Louisiana law without trial. Justice Powell
in his concurring opinion makes some interesting points based on
previous court decisions. "[C]oncepts concerning God or a supreme
being of some sort are manifestly religious... These concepts do
not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as
science or philosophy." 'Creation ex nihilo' means creation from
nothing and has been found to be an 'inherently religious
concept'. The argument that creation from nothing does not
involve a supernatural deity has no evidentiary or rational
support. To the contrary, 'creation out of nothing' is a concept
unique to Western Religions."
The case brought against the statute included an Amici Curiae
brief filed by 72 Nobel Laureates et al. refuting the claim that
"Creation Science" was science.
Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion relied, in part, on
testimony from Dr. Kenyon that "Creation Science" is a strictly
scientific concept that could be presented without religious
reference and that it was accepted as valid by "hundreds and
hundreds of reputable scientists."
3. In 1987, an exercise physiology professor at the University of
Alabama referred to his religious beliefs in his exercise
physiology course. He also organized an optional after-class
meeting for his students and other interested persons wherein he
lectured on Evidences of God in Human Physiology." His lecture
included the notion that man was created by God and was not the by-
product of evolution. The University told him to stop expressing
his religious views in class or in class meetings associated with
his class. He sued citing infringement of his First Amendment
rights. In 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit ruled, and the Supreme Court allowed to stand,
that the University of Alabama could instruct a faculty member
that he could not interject his religious beliefs into class
lectures. In that decision, the court made the point that "free
speech does not grant teachers a license to say or write in class
whatever they may feel like, and ... the propriety of regulations
or sanctions must depend on such circumstances as the age and
sophistication of the students, the closeness of the relation
between the specific technique used and some concededly valid
educational objective, and the context and manner of
presentation."
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
James J. Lippard
but I should say that my posting things on behalf of others does not
necessarily indicate my agreement with it. I think it is pretty clear
from some of my past discussions regarding naturalism and science that
I question the first paragraph of Scott's letter where she argues that
science, by definition, requires natural explanations and that this
is sufficient grounds for excluding creationism from science classrooms.
I do think that science strongly prefers natural explanations, and that
it may make sense to restrict what we call science to natural explanations.
If we take the latter position, though, then it is possible that in any
given case there is no true scientific explanation. (To deny this is
to maintain, a priori, that there is nothing non-natural.)
I have a few comments on what I just posted for John Hafernik.
In article <9DEC1993...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1993 15:33:19 -0800 (PST)
>From: hafe...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
>Subject: evolution/creation controversy at SFSU
>To: lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Message-id: <931208233...@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu>
>1. The Department of Biology, through its chair and biocouncil,
>is not saying that there should be no place for the discussion of
>Dr. Kenyon's philosophical views within the University's
>curriculum. No one is attempting to restrict the expression of
>his views in his personal professional endeavors. What is being
>said is that students in an introductory general studies science
>class should learn the ways of science. To mix science and the
>views of oneUs religion together does students a disservice.
It's not entirely clear to me what, exactly, Kenyon was teaching,
or that it was religion.
>2. The University Guidelines for Academic Freedom and
>Responsibility include the following statement: "Students have the
>right to the instruction promised them in official University
>publications." In this case instruction in science and not
>religion. Students are entitled to truth in advertizing.
I agree with this, but again, it is not clear to me what exactly
Kenyon was teaching that is religion.
>3. The topic of evolution, as used in the course description of
>Biology 100, is not generally considered synonymous with the topic
>of "origins" as used by Dr. Kenyon and the Academic Freedom
>Committee. "Origins" is a more politically correct term used by
>creationists for special creation.
This last sentence sounds like a crock. Is _Origin of Species_ about
special creation? Is Robert Shapiro's _Origins_ about special
creation?
>4. "Intelligent design" as used by Dr. Kenyon is a concept
>historically associated with "creationism."
This sounds like guilt-by-association to me.
>The Published Record
>
>In their book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of
>Biological Origins (first edition 1989, second edition 1993)
>Percival Davis and Dr. Kenyon present their views of evolutionary
>biology, point out difficulties they have with modern theory, and
>present the intelligent design paradigm as a scientific
>alternative. This book provides a written account of Dr. Kenyon's
>views on the topics he covers in his Biology 100 lectures on
>"origins." In my discussions with Dr. Kenyon, he suggested I
>read his book to learn more about his objections to modern
>evolutionary theory and about the scientific support for the
>"intelligent design paradigm." Although the words God, Creator,
>and creationism are never used in the work, it has been
>extensively criticized by biologists and philosophers of science
>as: (a) presenting a religious view, special creation/intelligent
>design, as science; (b) presenting an inaccurate and distorted
>view of evolutionary biology, genetics, and other areas of
>biology; and (c) being seriously flawed in its philosophical
>underpinnings.
Each of these reasons seems to me both legitimate and individually
sufficient for the action taken. I would be interested in seeing
the evidence, though. (a) seems particularly subject to interpretation.
>The AAUP: Creationism and Academic Freedom
>
> a. "This legislation by requiring that a religious doctrine
>(sometimes disguised) be taught as a condition for teaching of
>science, serves to impair the soundness of scientific education
>preparatory to college study and to violate the academic freedom
>of public school teachers."
This is irrelevant to the case at hand, which involves neither
legislation nor a legal requirement that some doctrine be taught.
> b. "Members of college and university faculty in Arkansas and
>elsewhere should be able to teach and criticize freely in accord
>with professional standards".
This is highly relevant to the present case, especially the last three
words.
[deletion]
> d. In the same issue of Academe John Moore clearly shows why
>the claims of "scientific creationism" do not meet the test of the
>professional standards of science.
I'm sure this is right, but it is not at all clear to me that Kenyon
was teaching what is known as "scientific creationism." Where's
the evidence?
>1. Judge William Overton in his 1982 ruling overturning the
>Arkansas equal time law made the following points:
>
> a. Creation science is not science but a religious belief. It
>is not science because it does not meet the essential
>characteristics of science. These characteristics of science are:
> 1) It is guided by natural law;
> 2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
> 3) It is testable against the empirical world;
> 4) It conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily
> the final word; and
> 5) It is falsifiable.
Overton's decision has been criticized by philosophers of science, and
for good reason. (See the critiques by Larry Laudan and Philip Quinn
in Michael Ruse's _But Is It Science?_.) Points 1 and 2 can be
questioned for their appeal to "natural law." Point 4 has to do more
with the practice of scientists than with the content of science.
The importance of point 5 has been exaggerated. (See Imre Lakatos'
criticisms of Popper, as well as Duhem, Quine, and Philip Kitcher's
comments on "naive falsificationism" in _Abusing Science: The Case
Against Creationism_.)
> b. "The emphasis on origins as an aspect of the theory of
>evolution is peculiar to creationist literature."
This is not entirely true. Creationists certainly promote a confusion
of the two things, which are distinct, but there *is* some relation
between them.
> c. "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology...Any
>student who is deprived of instruction as to the prevailing view
>of scientific thought on these topics will be denied a significant
>part of science education. Such a deprivation through the high
>school level would undoubtedly have an impact on the quality of
>education in the State's colleges and universities including the
>pre-professional programs in the health sciences."
Kenyon does teach evolution, doesn't he? If so, this is irrelevant.
> d. "The application and content of the First Amendment
>principles are not determined by public opinion polls or majority
>vote...No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs
>of government, of which public schools are the most conspicuous
>and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others."
>
>Judge Overton is clear Rcreation scienceS is religion and not
>science. In public institutions, students are entitled to be taught
>science in science classes. Teaching religion is not appropriate
>under the Constitution. Science, the leading journal of science in
>the United States, published Judge OvertonUs decision in full as a
>major article.
As Taner Edis has pointed out on the SKEPTIC mailing list,
taking this line makes impossible the most devastating criticism
of creationism--that it IS falsifiable, and HAS been falsified.
(At least, this is true of individual creationist arguments and
theories, e.g., young-earth arguments, flood geology, impossibility
of beneficial mutations, etc.)
Bruce Salem
>In article <9DEC1993...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>|> 1. Judge William Overton in his 1982 ruling overturning ...
>|>
>|> a. Creation science is not science but a religious belief. ...
>|> These characteristics of science are:
>|> 1) It is guided by natural law;
>|> 2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
>|> 3) It is testable against the empirical world;
>|> 4) It conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily
>|> the final word; and
>|> 5) It is falsifiable.
>
>in a *definition* of science. [The fact that they seem to
>*follow* from the remaining three points in practice, and
>thus valid aspects of science does not make them definitional].
Would you agree that regularities could be found in nature which
could be stated to be "laws" can be known to the mind of Man?
Would you agree that each additional characterization of order
must be consistant in some way with the rest?
These questions are like the postulates in 1) and 2) .
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Stan Friesen
|> 1. Judge William Overton in his 1982 ruling overturning ...
|>
|> a. Creation science is not science but a religious belief. ...
|> These characteristics of science are:
|> 1) It is guided by natural law;
|> 2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
|> 3) It is testable against the empirical world;
|> 4) It conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily
|> the final word; and
|> 5) It is falsifiable.
Hmm, I am a little uncertain about the idea of including #1 and #2
in a *definition* of science. [The fact that they seem to
*follow* from the remaining three points in practice, and
thus valid aspects of science does not make them definitional].
Well, at least I now have more info on Dr. Kenyon's presentations
in the class. It does begin to look as if my guess was right, and
he used inappropriate types of material.
--
sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
The peace of God be with you.
Mark Isaak
>In their book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of
>Biological Origins (first edition 1989, second edition 1993)
>paradigm as a scientific alternative.
Is there anyone who has read this book, and can tell us what Dr. Kenyon's
"intelligent design paradigm" consists of? All other design arguments that
I've seen boil down to baseless assertion; does Dr. Kenyon do better?
--
Mark Isaak "There lives more faith in honest doubt,
is...@aurora.com Believe me, than in half the creeds." - Tennyson