Philosophy in the science classroom: How should biology teachers explain the relationship between science and religion to students?

This review explores Thomas Lessl's "Demarcation as a classroom response to creationism: A critical examination of the National Academy of Science's Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)." Lessl's work examines philosophical debates about the relationship between science and religion from the perspective of communication dynamics between science teachers and audiences skeptical about evolution. His essay raises a number of important points that might help educators craft statements that are less likely to alienate religious students and to entrench any pre-existing opposition to evolutionary science. However, in this review, I raise a number of criticisms of Lessl's account of the problems with the approach taken by the National Academy of Science. I argue that many of the criticisms of NAS's approach to demarcation are not well-supported, and even were they to be strong criticisms, they do not justify skepticism toward evolution or science in general. Ultimately, I argue that addressing Lessl's concerns means creating space for more intellectually rigorous and satisfying discussions of science and religion, but this is not appropriate in a biology classroom that merely wishes to introduce evolution. Addressing these concerns requires making more space for philosophy in the curriculum.

The Study That Made Rats Jump for Joy, and Then Killed Them: The Gap between Knowledge and Practice Widens When Scientists Fail to Engage with the Ethical Implications of Their Own Work.

Much contemporary behavioral science stops short of considering the ethical implications of its own findings. This generates a contradiction between methods and discoveries, and hinders translation between updated scientific evidence for animal sentience and corresponding political and legal changes. A recent and particularly illustrative example in rodents is described here.

Neo-Darwinists and Neo-Aristotelians: how to talk about natural purpose.

This paper examines the points of disagreement between Neo-Darwinian and recent Neo-Aristotelian discussions of the status of purposive language in biology. I discuss recent Neo-Darwinian "evolutionary" treatments and distinguish three ways to deal with the philosophical status of teleological language of purpose: teleological error theory, methodological teleology, and Darwinian teleological realism. I then show how "non-evolutionary" Neo-Aristotelian approaches in the work of Michael Thompson and Philippa Foot differ from these by offering a view of purposiveness grounded in life-cycle patterns, rather than in long-term evolutionary processes or natural selection. Finally, I argue that the crucial difference between Neo-Darwinian and Neo-Aristotelian approaches regards the question of whether or not reproduction deserves the status of an "ultimate" aim of organisms. I offer reasons to reject the concept of an "ultimate" aim in evolutionary biology and to reject the notion that reproduction serves a purpose. I argue that evolutionary biology is not in the position to determine what the "ultimate" explanation of natural purpose is.