Search results

The name DGGTB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie; German Society for the History and Theory of Biology) reflects recent history as well as German tradition. The Society is a relatively late addition to a series of German societies of science and medicine that began with the »Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften«, founded in 1910 by Leipzig University's Karl Sudhoff (1853-1938), who wrote: »We want to establish a ,German' society in order to gather German-speaking historians together in our special disciplines so that they form the core of an international society...«. Yet Sudhoff, at this time of burgeoning academic internationalism, was »quite willing« to accommodate the wishes of a number of founding members and »drop the word German in the title of the Society and have it merge with an international society«. The founding and naming of the Society at that time derived from a specific set of historical circumstances, and the same was true some 80 years later when in 1991, in the wake of German reunification, the »Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie« was founded. From the start, the Society has been committed to bringing studies in the history and philosophy of biology to a wide audience, using for this purpose its Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie. Parallel to the Jahrbuch, the Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie has become the by now traditional medium for the publication of papers delivered at the Society's annual meetings. In 2005 the Jahrbuch was renamed Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, reflecting the Society's internationalist aspirations in addressing comparative biology as a subject of historical and philosophical studies. - The name DGGTB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie; German Society for the History and Theory of Biology) reflects recent history as well as German tradition. The Society is a relatively late addition to a series of German societies of science and medicine that began with the »Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften«, founded in 1910 by Leipzig University's Karl Sudhoff (1853-1938), who wrote: »We want to establish a ,German' society in order to gather German-speaking historians together in our special disciplines so that they form the core of an international society...«. Yet Sudhoff, at this time of burgeoning academic internationalism, was »quite willing« to accommodate the wishes of a number of founding members and »drop the word German in the title of the Society and have it merge with an international society«. The founding and naming of the Society at that time derived from a specific set of historical circumstances, and the same was true some 80 years later when in 1991, in the wake of German reunification, the »Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie« was founded. From the start, the Society has been committed to bringing studies in the history and philosophy of biology to a wide audience, using for this purpose its Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie. Parallel to the Jahrbuch, the Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie has become the by now traditional medium for the publication of papers delivered at the Society's annual meetings. In 2005 the Jahrbuch was renamed Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, reflecting the Society's internationalist aspirations in addressing comparative biology as a subject of historical and philosophical studies.

The scientific and public discussions over the last 200 years were shaped by findings from the field of evolutionary biology. Back in 1877, when Ernst Haeckel asked for the inclusion of evolutionary biology into class, he was met with fierce resistance (see Hoßfeld, 2010, p. 56). As Lässig (2010, p. 199) argues, knowledge is socially shaped. The aim of this study is to reveal the development of the significance as well as presentation of evolutionary biological contents in biology class within the SOZ/GDR and to embed it into the context of the respective prevailing political and social developments. Relevant curricula and schoolbooks as the most precise codification of the curricula fixed contents (see Neuner, 1989, p. 411) were used as raw material. For most subjects the history of schoolbooks is barely studied (see Pöggeler, 2003, p. 37). Therefore, as basis for this study, only one primary descriptive thesis about evolutionary biology in class (Rommel, 2006) could be used. Based thereupon an analytical framework will be introduced which follows a multidimensional approach of research by containing aspects of the three reference systems design, subject didactics and subject discipline. Product oriented separate and group analyses were used to evaluate the sources. This was carried out under the primacy of interdisciplinarity via analysis by content. The feedback of sociocultural changes on school books will be clarified in the concluding discussion. It will be shown that evolutionary contents occupied a significant position in biology classes within the SOZ/GDR and that the expression of those contents followed divergent approaches and preferences. The classification of teaching and learning material as an informational, pedagogical and political issue (see Stein, 1991) is taking place in the same context.

Creationism is based on a fundamental belief in the inerrancy of the bible and negatively affects science education because creationist proponents insist on the inclusion of supernatural explanations for the appearance of species, in particular the origin of humans. This detrimental effect on education is particularly relevant in the United States, where almost 70% of the population rejects the idea of naturalistic evolution and the majority of American students struggle to meet the college-readiness benchmarks in science and math. This dissertation provides a comprehensive look at the issue from historical, judicial and educational perspectives. Twenty-four legal cases in the United States regarding anti-evolutionary strategies were analyzed in detail. Strategic trends were identified ranging from the statewide banning of evolution in public schools to the required teaching of Creation Science. The exact effect of creationist political activity was discerned through the analysis of state science standards and textbook adoption processes, which illustrated the creationists' ability to lobby for a diminished coverage of evolution in science standards and textbooks. It was found that despite attempts made by scientific and educational agencies to provide guidelines such as the Next Generation Science Standards, the majority of American state science standards continue to be sub-par and one of the major flaws of these standards is the overall attempt to weaken the coverage of evolution throughout the standards. A similar loss of quality occurs in textbooks since publishers engage in self-censorship in order to avoid controversial topics such as evolution in order to prevent their books from being rejected. An examination of the free-choice learning materials revealed that creationist proponents are very active and successful in producing books, films and museums for the sole purpose of promoting creationism. Moreover, a brief look at the creationist movement in Germany provided a powerful comparison to the United States and elucidated the key components necessary for a creationist movement to exist and flourish, namely the presence of fundamentalist willing to fight to get anti-evolutionary materials introduced into science classrooms. This study provides new insights into the creationist phenomenon, present not only in the United States but also increasingly present in European countries such as Germany. Understanding the detrimental link between creationism and science education will help the science community realize that this topic needs to be continually readdressed and that it is imperative that these creationist trends are not dismissed as inconsequential.