SSHRC and Intelligent Design

February 8, 2009 BC Humanists 1


SSHRC and Intelligent DesignSSHRC and Intelligent DesignDoes Canada’s granting agency for science education

research support Intelligent Design?

SSHRC: Social Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilCanada’s granting agency for science education researchScience education is education and therefore a humanity


Dr. Brian AltersDr. Brian Alters

• McGill UniversityMcGill University• Tomlinson Chair in Science Education Tomlinson Chair in Science Education • director and founder of the Evolution director and founder of the Evolution

Education Research CentreEducation Research Centre• Written many books on the subjectWritten many books on the subject • expert witness for the plaintiff, in the expert witness for the plaintiff, in the

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District


Kitzmiller DecisionKitzmiller Decision““The overwhelming evidence at trial The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID (Intelligent Design) is a established that ID (Intelligent Design) is a religious view, a mere re-labelling of religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory”.creationism, and not a scientific theory”.

• Judge John Jones IIIJudge John Jones III• 20 December 200520 December 2005


Brian Alters’ proposalBrian Alters’ proposal

• ““Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution's intelligent design theory on evolution's intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policy makers”administrators and policy makers”

• The proposal was turned down.The proposal was turned down.


SSHRC committee decisionSSHRC committee decisionMarch 8, 2006March 8, 2006

• ““It (i.e., the grant selection committee) judged that the It (i.e., the grant selection committee) judged that the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents, and policy effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents, and policy makers”.makers”.

• ““Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct”.theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct”.

• ““It was not convinced , therefore, that research based on It was not convinced , therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results”.these assumptions would yield objective results”.

• ““In addition, the committee found that the research plans In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit”. evaluation of their merit”.


What is “Intelligent Design” and What is “Intelligent Design” and why is it detrimental?why is it detrimental?

Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that ascribes gaps in Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that ascribes gaps in our scientific knowledge to a creation by a higher our scientific knowledge to a creation by a higher intelligence (This is God) that is beyond the human intelligence (This is God) that is beyond the human intellectual capacity to comprehend.intellectual capacity to comprehend.

• There is no empirical evidence to support it.There is no empirical evidence to support it.• There are no published articles in peer reviewed journals.There are no published articles in peer reviewed journals.• It distorts scientific evidence to support its claims (fraud)It distorts scientific evidence to support its claims (fraud)• It is a credo that embraces ignorance and stifles scientific It is a credo that embraces ignorance and stifles scientific

investigation.investigation.


Artists’ rendition of Intelligent Design in the classroom


Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design

• to replace Evolution as description of natural to replace Evolution as description of natural world and bring religion to the classroomworld and bring religion to the classroom

• is not even good theology. It has no reason to is not even good theology. It has no reason to exist other than to corrupt science and exist other than to corrupt science and science educationscience education

• Implicit in the intelligent design conjecture is Implicit in the intelligent design conjecture is a a redefining of science and how it is redefining of science and how it is conductedconducted

• is fundamentally and absolutely detrimentalis fundamentally and absolutely detrimental


The Second SentenceThe Second Sentence

• ““Nor did the committee consider that there was Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution and not proposal that the theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct”.Intelligent Design was correct”.

• Did the committee really mean to imply that Did the committee really mean to imply that Evolution and Intelligent Design were equally Evolution and Intelligent Design were equally equivalent and alternate scientific theories?equivalent and alternate scientific theories?

• It appears that they did.It appears that they did.


Meet the PressMeet the Press

• ““there is a growing belief among scientists that there is a growing belief among scientists that certain phenomena in the natural world may not be certain phenomena in the natural world may not be easily explained by current theories of evolution”.easily explained by current theories of evolution”.

• ““there are features of the natural world including there are features of the natural world including the rapid development of complex organs that the rapid development of complex organs that Evolution has some trouble accounting for”.Evolution has some trouble accounting for”.

• ““that Intelligent Design cannot be easily dismissed that Intelligent Design cannot be easily dismissed as mere “religious dogma” or “theocratic garbage” as mere “religious dogma” or “theocratic garbage” being foisted upon the world by conservative being foisted upon the world by conservative Christians in the U.S”.Christians in the U.S”.


More PressMore Press

• ““Credible people are trying to see areas where Credible people are trying to see areas where they (evolution and intelligent design) might come they (evolution and intelligent design) might come together and not necessarily be in conflict. There together and not necessarily be in conflict. There is a possibility of synthesis”.is a possibility of synthesis”.

• ““would have yielded predictable results that dump would have yielded predictable results that dump on the religious right”.on the religious right”.

• ““Intelligent Design, stripped of any religious Intelligent Design, stripped of any religious connotations, is an honestly debated issue among connotations, is an honestly debated issue among scientists”.scientists”.


SSHRC positionSSHRC position• ““SSHRC recognizes the theory of evolution as one SSHRC recognizes the theory of evolution as one

of the cornerstones of modern science”.of the cornerstones of modern science”.• Expressed “regret for the inaccurate decision letter”.Expressed “regret for the inaccurate decision letter”.• ““Committee was not convinced that Alters’ Committee was not convinced that Alters’

proposal met the necessary threshold conditions of proposal met the necessary threshold conditions of quality of approach and methodology”.quality of approach and methodology”.

• ““In future, committee views are expressed clearly In future, committee views are expressed clearly and unequivocally in letters to applicants”.and unequivocally in letters to applicants”.

• ““SSHRC’s focus has been to ensure the impartiality SSHRC’s focus has been to ensure the impartiality of the peer-review process, not to enter debates on of the peer-review process, not to enter debates on the issues”.the issues”.


What’s wrong with the SSHRC What’s wrong with the SSHRC position?position?

• No explanation regarding the 3 sentences about No explanation regarding the 3 sentences about Intelligent Design.Intelligent Design.

• Unwittingly backed ID’s “Teach the Controversy” Unwittingly backed ID’s “Teach the Controversy” campaign by its seemingly impartial stance within campaign by its seemingly impartial stance within the so-called debatethe so-called debate..

• Refusal to give Alters a corrected statement after Refusal to give Alters a corrected statement after admitting the statement to Alters was inaccurateadmitting the statement to Alters was inaccurate

• no indication the obvious problems facing science no indication the obvious problems facing science education proposals are being met. education proposals are being met.


Clearly and Unequivocally?Clearly and Unequivocally?• It (i.e., the grant selection committee) judged that the It (i.e., the grant selection committee) judged that the

proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents, detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents, and policy makers.and policy makers.

• Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct.theory of Evolution and not Intelligent Design was correct.

• It was not convinced , therefore, that research based on It was not convinced , therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results.these assumptions would yield objective results.

• In addition, the committee found that the research plans In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit.evaluation of their merit.


Clearly and Unequivocally?Clearly and Unequivocally?

• • •

• The committee found that the research plans The committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit.evaluation of their merit.


The Peer Review ProcessThe Peer Review Process

• No science or science education expertise on the No science or science education expertise on the committeecommittee• LiteratureLiterature• SociologySociology• HistoryHistory• Political philosophyPolitical philosophy• Feminist studiesFeminist studies

• SSHRC chose not to seek an outside opinion by a SSHRC chose not to seek an outside opinion by a qualified refereequalified referee

• Committee chose to ignore Alters’ expertise Committee chose to ignore Alters’ expertise


What is the problem at SSHRC?What is the problem at SSHRC?

• It is most likely the non-science culture It is most likely the non-science culture within SSHRC and its accredited within SSHRC and its accredited researchers.researchers.

• Can this be determined?Can this be determined?


Dr. Philip SadlerDr. Philip Sadler

• Harvard University.Harvard University.• Member of the board, Member of the board, Evolution Education Evolution Education

Research Centre.Research Centre.• director of science education at the Harvard-director of science education at the Harvard-

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.• ““If he (Alters) was trying to answer the question as If he (Alters) was trying to answer the question as

to whether all this popularization (of ID) had had to whether all this popularization (of ID) had had an impact, he just saved the government $40,000. an impact, he just saved the government $40,000. He found the evidence without doing the study”.He found the evidence without doing the study”.


Taking Sadler seriouslyTaking Sadler seriously

AssumptionsAssumptions• Pool of potential committee members divided intoPool of potential committee members divided into

• Science expertScience expert

• Non-committedNon-committed

• ID advocateID advocate

• ID statement only if ID advocate on committee but ID statement only if ID advocate on committee but not a science expert.not a science expert.

• Committee members chosen at random.Committee members chosen at random.• ID statement was not improbable.ID statement was not improbable.


Academican Pool analysis

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

probable outcome

pro

bab

ilit

y/ac

adem

icia

n

max. ID

min ID

Science


SummarySummaryPro IdPro Id

LikelihoodLikelihood

IDID neitherneither ScienceScience Non-Non-

sciencescience

10%10% 19.75%19.75% 45.90%45.90% 34.36%34.36% 65.64%65.64%

50%50% 38.30%38.30% 49.81%49.81% 11.90%11.90% 88.10%88.10%

90%90% 56.17%56.17% 42.03%42.03% 1.80%1.80% 98.20%98.20%

US Gallup poll:44% Creation 36%, God guided evolution 14%, scientific evolutionVirtually unchanged since 1982


T.C. MitsT.C. Mits

• Potential SSHRC committee members are no Potential SSHRC committee members are no more knowledgeable about science than the more knowledgeable about science than the celebrated man-in-the-streetcelebrated man-in-the-street

Lillian R. Lieber

T.C. Mits


ConclusionsConclusionsAn An overwhelming majorityoverwhelming majority of SSHRC’s pool of of SSHRC’s pool of potential adjudicators are not sufficiently versant potential adjudicators are not sufficiently versant in science to judge on matters between Evolution in science to judge on matters between Evolution and Intelligent Design!and Intelligent Design!

• Implies a failure of science education in Canada, Implies a failure of science education in Canada, especially in the post secondary education of especially in the post secondary education of students in non-scientific disciplines.students in non-scientific disciplines.

• Cast doubts on ability of SSHRC to administer the Cast doubts on ability of SSHRC to administer the science education portfolio.science education portfolio.


SolutionsSolutions

• Move the science education research Move the science education research portfolio to NSERC.portfolio to NSERC.

• Make it mandatory to consult advice of a Make it mandatory to consult advice of a science expert on all proposals involving science expert on all proposals involving science education.science education.

NSERC: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research CouncilCanada’s granting agency for scientific research


Action?Action?

• NSERC: “will not comment on questions NSERC: “will not comment on questions raised regarding the position or programs of raised regarding the position or programs of other agencies”.other agencies”.

• SSHRC: “SSHRC: “Council is satisfied with the Council is satisfied with the process changes implemented at SSHRC”process changes implemented at SSHRC” (no details given).(no details given).

• Any call to further action must come from Any call to further action must come from the science community.the science community.


Present SituationPresent Situation

• The official position of the SSHRC has left the The official position of the SSHRC has left the committee’s ID remarks intact. Implies ID and committee’s ID remarks intact. Implies ID and Evolution are equivalent scientific theories.Evolution are equivalent scientific theories.

• AIBS: “The SSHRC is the first government grant-AIBS: “The SSHRC is the first government grant-making body to give the appearance that it making body to give the appearance that it questions the importance of evolution”.questions the importance of evolution”.

• Science Education proposals will continue to be Science Education proposals will continue to be adjudicated by academics not versant in science. adjudicated by academics not versant in science.


Final Word from SSHRCFinal Word from SSHRC• ““the decision letter sent to Dr. Alters did not accurately reflect the decision letter sent to Dr. Alters did not accurately reflect

the thinking of the peer-review committee”the thinking of the peer-review committee”• ““SSHRC has committed to review its procedures to ensure SSHRC has committed to review its procedures to ensure

that, in future, peer-review committee views are expressed that, in future, peer-review committee views are expressed clearly and unequivocally in letters to applicants.”clearly and unequivocally in letters to applicants.”

• ““Patrick Walden has expressed himself on this matter Patrick Walden has expressed himself on this matter many times. However with regard to SSHRC, this matter is many times. However with regard to SSHRC, this matter is closed.”closed.”

Dr. Chad GaffieldPresident of SSHRC


Science CommunityScience Community

• Letters have been sent fromLetters have been sent from• Canadian Society for Ecology and EvolutionCanadian Society for Ecology and Evolution• American Institute of Biological SciencesAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences• American Sociological AssociationAmerican Sociological Association

• Royal Society of Canada statementRoyal Society of Canada statement• ““Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and Evolution Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and Evolution

is the only credible scientific position that is defensible. is the only credible scientific position that is defensible. The RSC position in support of evolution has been The RSC position in support of evolution has been consistent: from a scientific point of view, the teaching consistent: from a scientific point of view, the teaching of Evolution is a benchmark for legitimacy. Other of Evolution is a benchmark for legitimacy. Other theories or positions, such as Intelligent Design, are not theories or positions, such as Intelligent Design, are not scientific in basis or nature”.scientific in basis or nature”.

Of Canada’s scientific societies only the CSEE was sufficientlyconcerned that a reputable academic panel of a government grantingagency would give credence to Intelligent Design.

CAP: Canadian Association of PhysicistsDPE: Division of Physics EducationWould not take a position in the Alters/SSHRC/ID affair.It did not wish to become involved in the controversey

Me: Would TRIUMF like to particpate in the Vancouver Evolution Festival?

TRIUMF: It lies outside TRIUMF’s Purview, so I would be surprised if _____,et al would want to wade into the fray, especially since we must deal with a

gov’t with Ministers who are fundamentalists.

Canadian scientific societies and institutions are seemingly reluctant to criticise granting agencies or become involved in controversey. The Canadian way is compromise.


CAP InitiativeCAP Initiative• 2007 Submitted an initiative to have science education 2007 Submitted an initiative to have science education

grants reviewed jointly by NSERC, CIHR, and grants reviewed jointly by NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC (tri-council).SSHRC (tri-council).

• 2008 DPE submitted to CAP council a resolution to 2008 DPE submitted to CAP council a resolution to “vigorously promote its initiative to the tri-council.” “vigorously promote its initiative to the tri-council.” signed by over 100 physicistssigned by over 100 physicists

• Tri-Council has responded, “given the importance of Tri-Council has responded, “given the importance of science education, we will ensure that your science education, we will ensure that your recommendation is included in the tri-council recommendation is included in the tri-council discussions.”discussions.”

Documents

SSHRC and Intelligent Design