Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

[Zinkovich]

"August 24, 2006 Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List By CORNELIA DEAN Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students. The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. "There is no explanation for it being left off the list," Ms. McLane said. "It has always been an eligible major." Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing. If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field. "If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process," he said. That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution. One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter. An article about the issue was posted Tuesday on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Dr. Krauss said the omission would be "of great concern" if evolutionary biology had been singled out for removal, or if the change had been made without consulting with experts on biology. The grants are awarded under the National Smart Grant program, established this year by Congress. (Smart stands for Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent.) The program provides $4,000 grants to third- or fourth-year, low-income students majoring in physical, life or computer sciences; mathematics; technology; engineering; or foreign languages deemed "critical" to national security. The list of eligible majors (which is online at ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0606A.pdf) is drawn from the Education Department's "Classification of Instructional Programs," or CIP (pronounced "sip"), a voluminous and detailed classification of courses of study, arranged in a numbered system of sections and subsections. Part 26, biological and biomedical sciences, has a number of sections, each of which has one or more subsections. Subsection 13 is ecology, evolution, systematics and population biology. This subsection itself has 10 sub-subsections. One of them is 26.1303 — evolutionary biology, "the scientific study of the genetic, developmental, functional, and morphological patterns and processes, and theoretical principles; and the emergence and mutation of organisms over time." Though references to evolution appear in listings of other fields of biological study, the evolutionary biology sub-subsection is missing from a list of "fields of study" on the National Smart Grant list — there is an empty space between line 26.1302 (marine biology and biological oceanography) and line 26.1304 (aquatic biology/limnology). Students cannot simply list something else on an application form, said Mr. Nassirian of the registrars' association. "Your declared major maps to a CIP code," he said. Mr. Nassirian said people at the Education Department had described the omission as "a clerical mistake." But it is "odd," he said, because applying the subject codes "is a fairly mechanical task. It is not supposed to be the subject of any kind of deliberation." "I am not at all certain that the omission of this particular major is unintentional," he added. "But I have to take them at their word." Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. "It's just awfully coincidental," said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University. Jeremy Gunn, who directs the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the change was not immediately reversed "we will certainly pursue this." Dr. Rissing said removing evolutionary biology from the list of acceptable majors would discourage students who needed the grants from pursuing the field, at a time when studies of how genes act and evolve are producing valuable insights into human health. "This is not just some kind of nicety," he said. "We are doing a terrible disservice to our students if this is yet another example of making sure science doesn't offend anyone." Dr. Krauss of Case Western said he did not know what practical issues would arise from the omission of evolutionary biology from the list, given that students would still be eligible for grants if they declared a major in something else — biology, say. "I am sure an enterprising student or program director could find a way to put themselves in another slot," he said. "But why should they have to do that?" Mr. Nassirian said he was not so sure. "Candidly, I don't think most administrators know enough about this program" to help students overcome the apparent objection to evolutionary biology, he said. Undergraduates would be even less knowledgeable about the issue, he added. Dr. Krauss said: "Removing that one major is not going to make the nation stupid, but if this really was removed, specifically removed, then I see it as part of a pattern to put ideology over knowledge. And, especially in the Department of Education, that should be abhorred."

It is pretty obvious this was NOT a clerical mistake. The one major removed out of THOUSANDS happened to be the most controversial one by sheer coincidence? Please.

With this latest move, who knows what the anti-evolutionists will try to do next? Any guesses? How about general opinions or comments?

(Article link: )
Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List - New York Times


Edit: My God I screwed up the title. Can some moderator out there fix it?

[Jern_Sandyer]

I agree. Clerical mistakes happen, but if they are not fixed then you know it is something/someone within the system that has changed it because they don't agree with it. Maybe some Bureaucratic interference?

[Fleamo]

If it was changed, there should be a reason given. If there is no reason given, it should go back. If there is a reason given, we should be able to find out who ordered the change. And then make them put it back.

I personally like it when scientists can be scientists and not be played upon by bureaucrats.

[Fonceai]

Strange.

They won't allow schools to teach Creationism, but you can't go to college for Evolutionism.

Hopefully this will be fixed.

[Zinkovich]

It's been changed back and an apology has been given. Just find the federal aid website and go to the PDF of their catolog of majors and find something like "Ecoogy and Evolutionary Studies, Other". Thank God this didn't take long to fix.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Fonceai Strange. They won't allow schools to teach Creationism, but you can't go to college for Evolutionism. Hopefully this will be fixed.

There is no such thing as Evolutionism. There is no more "ism" about it than Gravity or the theory of germs.

[Fonceai]

It was a crude word for Biological Evolution.

[Pooeypants]

Sorry, but I'm just trying to discourage people from using said word.

[Fonceai]

Why? I can't make a new word? Evolutionism. Evolutionology. Darwinism?

A HA!!

Darwinism.

Right?

[Jern_Sandyer]

Yup, Darwinism is already a word. Atleast according to Word's spell check.

[gallo]

There is such a word as evolutionism, but it does not refer to the modern theories of evolution. It doesn't even refer to Darwin's original theories, i.e., Darwinism. Evolutionism is an historical concept and carries the concept of progress and intrinsic improvement through time. In fact, during Victorian times, when Darwin lived, the word evolution had such a connotation, even to the extent that it carried meaning in social contexts (as per Spencer). That is why Darwin objected to the use of the word as applied to his theories. The only use of any form of the word by Darwin was in the last paragraph of Origin, in the famous "There is grandeur in this view of life,...".

For the above reasons, use of the word evolutionism does not refer to the modern theories of biological evolution. If there were such a class, the proper department would not be science but philosophy.

On the other hand, Darwinism refers to the theories developed by Darwin, and neo-Darwinism the synthesis of genetics and Darwinism.

[Zinkovich]

Except "Darwinism" is not a good word in my opinion, because it connotates that the entirety of the field lies upon the ideas of a single man, Darwin , and gives it a religious connotation it does not have. Heck, that's why you see creationists use it so much, because they know each time they repeat the word the further they have implied/drilled into their reader's head that the theory of evolution is somehow religious in nature, with an unchanging dogma and a figure of worship(Darwin, duh); that way, they also have someone to attack and can bust out the whole "Darwin is racist, so evolution is racist" argument. Sounds ridiculous I know, but I've read creationists use the word to connotate these things both on debates in the talkorigins newsgroup and the many Christian forums I sometimes post in at to offer an alternative viewpoint that is surprisingly unrepresented.

The great thing about languages is that old, unused words can often be comandeered by people and made to mean entirely new things that the word already described fairly well. "Evolution" is a good example of such a word and connotates many of the aspects of the theories and ideas that surroud the ideas of natural selection. It would be difficult to undo the connotation that is attached to the word at this point anyways, so there really is little going back on the use of the word to describe the theory.

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't think anything should be getting Federal Aid. That is what private business is for.

[Pooeypants]

Why would private business fund the study of Evolutionary biology? Should all research be done because of profit potentials?

[Osborn F Enready]

Why do you think Pooey?

How much profit stands to be made from finding the cause of gene related diseases and defects?

Yes, all research has ALWAYS been done for profit potential, just the people collecting state and fed money lie about their reasons, and invest in who uses their ideas for profit.

What research can you name that has NO profit potential?

[xyzer]

I don't think anything should be getting Federal Aid. That is what private business is for.

I agree Osborn..private research is subject to less restrictions and bureaucratic interference!

IMNSHO the whole issue introduced on this thread is a "tempest in a Teapot"! Sure an Evolutioniary Biology should still be on the list. What amuses me is how even though the person in charge of the grant program says it was a clerical error..

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants

There is a flurry of leftist condemnation and criticism of the religious rights interference in academics that might jostle the beliefs of Christians..who it is implied don't believe in evolution !
Is not that a bit over the top? If the boss says it should be on the list then no one will be damaged, will they? Is that a reason for the ACLU to insert its nose into the thing? What absolute nonsense this is...whose civil rights have been violated?

[Jack]

Thanks largely to the internet, stories like this one, which previously might have slipped through the cracks, gets widespread attention. In the wake of the fundamentalist's efforts to get ID introduced into science classes, this issue raised suspicions of another attempt to undermine education in the name of religion. A reasonable explanation was given for the omission and the situation was corrected.

What we don't, and may never, know; a) was the omission indeed intentional, and would have stayed that way had not attention been called to it? b) was it simply a clerical error and all the hubub was over nothing? c) if intentional, was the religious right behind it?

People may have over-reacted and assumed something that wasn't true. But by giving the situation exposure, at least we all were aware of what was transpiring. All information can be valuable, even misinformation. It gives us a starting point from which to determine reality.

[Fonceai]

Amazing how a news update can be turned into an issue about Federal Aid, thanks to a person's need to convert topics to their own agenda.

Federal Aid is hardly free, by the way. It's usually in the form of loans. They simply make it possible to attend college first and pay later, instead of worrying about paying up front. You know... good for those people that come from low income backgrounds that have more potential than their peers.

It's amazing to see how radical opinions are when they come from single people who have yet to experience the kind of life-shaping events that alter perceptions.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Amazing how a news update can be turned into an issue about Federal Aid, thanks to a person's need to convert topics to their own agenda.

I say:
Wow, one doth think that inferrence was made toward me?

What type of aid is it? Federal. Yea, some derail I made there......

Drop the grudge.

[xyzer]

People may have over-reacted and assumed something that wasn't true. But by giving the situation exposure, at least we all were aware of what was transpiring. All information can be valuable, even misinformation. It gives us a starting point from which to determine reality.

Well put Ish!