|
|
9486 in the collection
Debate over biology is brewing
Read the article and then read the explanations by Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science.
By Gary Scharrer
AUSTIN-- After feuding for months over how to teach school children to read, the State Board of Education soon will shift to a topic that could become much more controversial ? the science curriculum.
Science, after all, involves biology. And biology is built on the theory of evolution, raising fears among some observers that social conservatives on the 15-member panel will try to shade textbooks with religion.
"The issue is ... whether or not creationism will be taught alongside evolution as science, which will absolutely undermine our kids' science education and their ability to compete for the best colleges and jobs of the 21st century," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based organization that advocates religious freedom and individual liberties.
Those fears amount to hogwash, says board Vice Chairman David Bradley, R-Beaumont.
"I hate to take the air out of their balloon. They're going to be very disappointed if they come for a fight," said Bradley, a leader among the board's social conservatives. "The only thing that this board is going to do is ask for accuracy."
It's been 11 years since the state of Texas last updated standards for the science curriculum for its public schools. Things change. Pluto, for example, lost its status as a planet two years ago, but students in Texas still see it listed in textbooks as one of nine planets in the Earth's solar system.
"So that changes how we look at the solar system and how we teach students about the characterization of planets," said Anita Givens, a deputy associate commissioner at the Texas Education Agency.
The State Board of Education recently finished a three-year rewrite of standards for the English language arts and reading curriculum. Some called the process tortured, with revisions slipped under members' hotel room doors in the early morning hours just before a final, 9-6 board vote.
Bradley and the board majority faulted English teachers for forcing too much of their own ideas into a proposal the board had tentatively approved two months earlier. That's why board members had to salvage a final document with a last-hour cut and paste job, he said.
"I don't think this will happen again because they got spanked," Bradley said. "Science teachers should work with the board on their process and not try to do an end run around this elected body and steal the process."
English and reading educators vigorously deny hijacking the process, saying the curriculum facilitator hired by the board decided to use a teacher work group's revised the document.
David Hillis, a distinguished biology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, predicted some board members would try to "replace real science with religious instruction." He warned that the "intelligent design" theory preferred by evolution skeptics, which holds that living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection, has no scientific support or basis.
"We should rely on scientists to establish the science standards, not non-experts with a particular religious or political agenda to promote," Hillis said.
Board members say it's unlikely that intelligent design will even be considered. Bradley said a fight pitting evolution against creationism simply will not materialize.
"It's all going to be in the Texas anti-Freedom Network's mind. They are working themselves into a frenzy," he said.
More likely is a fight over whether to keep an existing requirement that teachers present both the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including evolution.
Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said that standard is clear and worth keeping.
"We want our children to be able to think and understand the strengths and weaknesses of any theory. Some ultra-radical groups have not evolved to the point where they realize that the 'theory of Evolution' is just that ? a theory," Mercer said.
"Any real scientist understands there are major weaknesses in evolution," said Mercer, who has a degree in biology from the University of Texas at Austin. "If we truly believe in intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses."
Bradley said he doesn't foresee any successful effort to remove the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement from the science standards.
"There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong," he said. "Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven. Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions."
It may sound like a good idea to require teachers to point out the weaknesses of scientific theories, but Hillis contends that when it comes to evolution, "its main purpose is to introduce religious ideas and anti-science ideas into the science classroom."
"The fact that biological populations evolve is not in question," he said. "Evolution is an easily observable phenomenon, and has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt. The 'theory' part of evolutionary theory concerns the experiments, observations, and models that explain how populations evolve."
"At this level of introductory instruction, it is ludicrous to think about teaching what some people disingenuously call 'weaknesses.'" Hillis said. "We teach what is known and has been supported by a huge body of scientific research."
============
by Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
President, Texas Citizens for Science
http://www.texscience.org
The valuable May 31 article by Gary Scharrer in the San Antonio Express-News is highly relevant and revealing, but some comment is necessary to fully understand the context. This I provide below.
First, the radical religious right Creationists on the State Board of Education (SBOE) are not going to try to require that in public schools "creationism will be taught alongside the theory of evolution" or "replace real science with religious instruction." These inaccurate statements are meant to be alarmist so readers and supporters will be motivated, but inaccuracy does us little good. Both statements describe things that are now plainly illegal and won't be attempted by the SBOE Creationists. I think the real issues are dangerous enough that we will be sufficiently motivated without having to resort to hyperbole.
Second, David Bradley, R-Beaumont, is, of course, being duplicitously disingenuous when he says that "the only thing this board is going to do [during science standards revision] is ask for accuracy." The intention of the SBOE Creationists is to ask for misrepresentation of science, not for accuracy. What Bradley and his colleagues actually plan to do is damage evolution instruction by trying to get the new science standards to mention alleged but false "weaknesses" of evolution, in order to weaken evolution content, confuse students and make them think science is less accurate and reliable than it really is about biological origins, and intimidate teachers to avoid or minimize the subject (as many of them do now in Texas, to their shame and Texas' gain...of a majority of citizens with blighted biology educations). The evolution "weaknesses" come straight from the Discovery Institute--an organization whose only discovery is how well modern marketing techniques work to confuse public officials, keep teachers fearful and students ignorant, and create a climate of misunderstanding, ignorance, and controversy that damages science education--their true goal. The DI has briefed several of the Creationists SB members so that they are all on the same page--you don't think Bradley, Don McLeroy, Teri Leo, and Cynthia Dunbar thought this subterfuge up by them alone, do you? This comes straight out of the DI playbook, as does the misnamed "Academic Freedom" bill that has been introduced in several state legislatures, as it will in Texas next January. The bill was written by the DI and far from promoting academic freedom, it promotes the freedom to teach pseudoscience in science classrooms, which is their true goal.
Bradley says the Board had to "salvage" the final ELAR standards when the ELAR teachers tried to force their own ideas into those standards! He says this won't happen again because the Board "spanked" the ELAR teachers for being too pushy and concerned about the standards which it is their job to implement. Wow. What a concept: the state experts on ELAR wanting to be sure that the standards they will be forced to use to do their job are written with input from them. But no, that's too much for David Bradley, who knows better about ELAR and what is needed.
Then, in his next sentence, Bradley threatens the science teachers, who are next up for standards revision. ?Science teachers should work with the board on their process and not try to do an end run around this elected body and steal the process.? What Bradley is asking is for science teachers to be complicit in the corruption of their own science standards by working with religiously-motivated ideologues who have a long-standing antipathy to science. Why would science teachers want to do that? We certainly would want to work with the elected State Board of Education on this issue, but at the same time we expect the members of the State Board to respect our expertise on science topics and not try to use the power of their public offices to maliciously force pseudoscientific and antiscientific materials into the science standards that favor their sectarian beliefs. But that is exactly what they have repeatedly tried to do in the past and what they intend to do later this year if they can, so why should science teachers "work with the board" on this process and expect fair and competent reciprocity? We can't from the seven radical religious right Creationists, so we will have to oppose those Board members just as the ELAR teachers did. In a perfect state, we would rely on scientists to establish the science standards, not non-scientists with religious and political agendas to promote, but this is not a perfect state. This is Texas.
Third, the article is correct when it suggests that there will be a major fight over Science TEKS Process Skill 3A, the one that says that students are "expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." This anti-scientific language was inserted into Texas science standards in 1986 as a compromise with Creationist SBOE members, who at that time wanted the biology textbook requirements to state that Creationism must be taught in addition to evolution, the so-called "balanced treatment" ploy. The majority didn't want to explicitly mention Creationism, so a compromise was reached. The language remained in the standards when the TEKS were established.
Process skill 3A is notoriously anti-scientific with regard to scientific theories, which have no so-called "weaknesses," since scientific theories are not accepted and taught until an immense amount of reliable and corroborated evidence is available. The "weaknesses" language has been used ever since--the last time in 2003 in a major effort by the Discovery Institute to corrupt the evolution content of biology textbooks--by Creationists to damage and disparage instruction in evolution, the origin of life, and other topics objectionable to religious Creationists. They have always failed, because the rule requires that "scientific evidence and information" must be used to perform the "strengths and weaknesses" analysis, so for historical but discarded scientific theories historical information is used, and for weaknesses of modern theories--such as modern evolutionary biology--no such evidence or information exists. Again, if there were weaknesses in some explanation, it would not be part of the scientific theory and certainly would not be taught in high school. There is only time in high school biology to teach what scientists consider the most accurate and reliable scientific information and explanations science possesses.
One might argue that evolutionary theory is incomplete, which is true, but this is a strength, not a weakness, since it spurs research and inquiry. It appears that scientific theories will never be "complete," yet scientific theories have been extraordinarily successful in providing us with accurate and reliable knowledge that allows a modern, technological civilization to exist and continue. Scientific theories are strong and do not contain any weaknesses to "analyze, review, and critique." Furthermore, the intent of those who support rule 3A is clear, since the rule is only applied to the scientific theory of evolution, not to the rest of science, all of which is theoretical and should--if the rule was actually followed--be subject to the same critical scrutiny. But in practice, only evolution gets that focus by SBOE members, so it's pretty obvious what is going on.
There is an effort by the scientists and science educators on the science TEKS panels to remove the Creationist-inspired, anti-scientific "strengths and weaknesses" language from Process Skill 3A. I have long advocated that it be removed, most recently in 2003 when I wrote an essay about rule 3A. Before then, I was present at the SBOE meeting in 1986 when the "weaknesses" language was first adopted, and I explicitly warned the chairman of the SBOE, Will Davis, that the language was unscientific and would be used by Creationists in the future to damage evolution instruction in Texas. He told me the language was a compromise and therefore had to be accepted, and that if there was no scientific evidence or information for such weaknesses, scientists should make that case whenever the necessity arose. I replied that, nevertheless, the language was wrong and it would cause unending problems for biology textbook adoptions and standards, which has proven the case.
Since 1986, and most recently in 2003, scientists have indeed made the case that there is no evidence for the bogus "weaknesses" identified by Creationists, most prominently by the Discovery Institute, which is a master of polemics, obfuscation, and disinformation. So far scientists and science teachers have been able to prevail on this issue, but frankly, this is no way to adopt biology textbooks and science standards. Every time the process re-commences, a battle breaks out in Austin in front of the State Board and makes Texas look like a theocratic third-world country ruled by petty and ignorant theocrats and oligarchs. Is this really what Texas and its citizens deserve? The anti-scientific rule 3A language should be permanently removed to end this demeaning public spectacle.
That the circus sideshow is going to continue this year, and further disparage the reputation of Texas in the eyes of the scientifically-educated world, is obvious from the remarks of radical religious right and Creationist SBOE member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio. Mercer's remarks are typically ignorant and extremist: "Any real scientist understands there are major weaknesses in evolution....If we truly believe in intellectual debate, let's discuss those weaknesses....There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong....Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven." The news report says that Mercer has a biology degree from the University of Texas at Austin, so the biology professors there must be cringing with embarrassment to learn what one of their students ended up believing after four years of their instruction. Perhaps Mercer was a student before the current biology professors were employed by UT. Mercer, of course, has no concept of what a "real scientist" understands about evolution, so let me briefly and explicitly explain why he is wrong to make his statements. Also, go to http://www.texscience.org/files/icons-revealed/index.htm for a more complete analysis. An even better essay on this issue is forthcoming.
First, as explained above, there are no "major weaknesses" in evolution or any other scientific theory. Hypotheses may have minor or "major weaknesses," but not theories. The only possible weakness of a scientific theory is its incompleteness, but this is inevitable and is a strength, not a weakness. The various aspects of a scientific theory that are well-understood and accepted by the scientific community are what are taught in lower-level science instruction, such as high schools. If there is scientific disagreement about an explanation of a natural process, which means the current theory is incomplete, this is not the subject of instruction in high schools, whose students need to learn science's most reliable knowledge first before engaging with the legitimate scientific controversies. Legitimate scientific debate about competing hypotheses that wish to extend current scientific theories occurs in university science departments and scientific journals, not high schools. In fact, Creationists such as the Discovery Institute advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism have ignored this proper realm of scientific debate and opted instead to use deceptive marketing techniques to win public officials to their sides and do an end run around normal scientific procedures. Also, the Creationists object to even the existence of evolution as a natural process that pervades the biologic world, a controversy that ended in science over 150 years ago. Teaching this as a current controversy would be the height of mendacity and miseducation.
Second, Mercer's statement that "there are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong" is only true in a historical sense. The modern scientific theory of evolution does not suffer from these historically incorrect hypotheses, since they were tested, found to be wrong, and discarded. Some of Darwin's original ideas have suffered this fate, such as his pangenesis and his acceptance of Lamarckism, but there are many others known to historians of evolutionary biology. There is no problem teaching high school students about these past hypothetical mistakes as "weaknesses" of earlier evolutionary hypotheses, but to suggest, as is Mercer's true intention, that the modern scientific theory of evolution contains such "issues" (and "weaknesses") is nonsense. Mercer is deliberately misrepresenting the true issues and history and conflating two separate concepts (inaccurate historical evolutionary hypotheses and accurate and reliable modern evolutionary theory) in order to confuse readers and listeners and make them susceptible to his duplicitous obfuscation. He wants to win at any cost, even if specious arguments and confusing rhetoric must be used.
Third, let's look at Mercer's final ignorant statements: "Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven." This banal canard is indulged in by every Creationist who thinks he can get away with it. Scientists have refuted these misstatements repeatedly over the years. Evolution is a fact, if fact is defined as something for which so much reliable evidence exists that it would be irrational to deny it. Obviously, a deity could have created everything with attributes that hid its true created nature, and deliberately and maliciously misled us into inferring from the evidence that evolution was at work when in fact it was not, so evolution would not be a fact in an ultimate sense. But from any empirical and rational point of view, evolution is a fact in a proximate sense, exactly as gravity and continental drift and genes and atoms are facts. All of these facts were discovered slowly by humans after scientific investigation and keen insight, and their existence is not obvious to superficial examination, but today we consider them to be facts. The factuality of evolution is not in question among scientists and educated individuals.
As for theories, they can indeed be proven and have been proven in the popular sense (corroborated in the formal sense, since proof is formally limited to defined systems such as logic and mathematics, so once again Mercer is confusing terms and attempting to mislead listeners). Scientific theories should not be defined as factual, but they are the most accurate and reliable knowledge about nature that humans possess, because they are composed of tested and corroborated hypotheses that have resisted falsification, a necessary attribute of any truthful knowledge statement. Theories are proven in a proximate sense, of course, not an ultimate sense, because if one assumes the existence of the supernatural, obviously any scientific theory--based totally on natural evidence--cannot actually be proven beyond all possible objections. The proper reasoning depends on science's use of methodological naturalism as a working hypothesis, what I term a metahypothesis. If one does not accept methodological naturalism, as is the case with Creationists, then there would always be some doubt, and no scientific theory can be proven or corroborated since there would always be the possibility that a miracle could have created the natural conditions we experience now. But within the established scientific realm of empiricism, reasoning, and methodological naturalism, as is universally adopted in secular American universities, Mercer's statements are nonsense. The University of Texas at Austin is a secular, American university, so it is sad that one of its biology graduates would have such a poor knowledge of science that he would make such ignorant and specious statements. I'm sure the problem lies with Ken Mercer, however, and not the UT Austin biology department faculty.
Ken Mercer and David Bradley's statements are classic over-reaching indulged in by zealots and radicals, and they will soon answer to informed Texas citizens this year and ultimately as well to history. Frankly, it is remarkable that Mercer and Bradley make such confident but ignorant statements about science to the press. In the past, the religious right zealots on the SBOE kept their ignorance hidden, worked in secret behind the scenes, and voted to implement their dirty work without much press scrutiny. Either the press is doing a better job or the religious right radicals are so confident of their ultimate success that they indulge in expressing their pathetic ignorance and malign intent openly without being mindful of the consequences and public reaction. This is really a remarkable situation in Texas today that intentions are so clear and open for all to see, and I think determined Creationists have misjudged the will of Texas citizens and public officials to appease them today. Believe me, in the 28 years I have been involved in opposing aggressive and organized Creationism in Texas, today's environment is the best I have ever experienced. With statements and intentions so well exposed, the entire political, business, and scientific communities have no excuse for not doing something about the current SBOE. This is equally true of the current issue of the Institute for Creation Research and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Everything has been done in the open with full press and public attention. I have been extremely gratified to see the interest in what is happening in this state by the press and by the scientific community. This was not the case in the 1980s.
Readers might be interested to know that I have recently had several meetings with certain individuals and learned several things. First, it appears that the SB broke several state laws regarding open records, prior notice in the Texas Record, and statutory procedures written in their own rules when they adopted their final ELAR document. Second, the final ELAR document--which most SBOE members got an hour before the meeting--was not just a simple cut and paste job, as Bradley and his radical religious right colleagues have claimed; instead, it was edited: items were added to it and removed from it. Third, this final ELAR standards document still has not yet been released publicly, so the ELAR teachers cannot review it and comment on it; it remains a secret, and the longer it remains so, the more suspicious we may reasonably become. Fourth, the Texas Attorney General is now investigating the SBOE for its actions. Fifth, there are rumors about special financial favors given to a SB member in return for votes that help give the radical right faction a majority (there are only 7 in the faction and the SBOE has 15 members); unfortunately, I can't be more specific about this item because it is a rumor, and I have found out to my dismay that rumors in Austin are usually untrue, but I hope the press and AG investigate this one.
The radical religious right members on the SBOE are out of control. As is the case with extremist ideologues throughout history, these individuals have flagrantly over-reached and this will ultimately be their undoing. We are fortunate that Texas has laws that, today at least, require that the political over-reaching be done in full view of the public and press, but the extremist ideologues are betting that most Texans either agree with them and won't mind, or don't know and don't care. We must make an effort now to ensure that the extremist and Creationist SBOE members discover that they are wrong.
— Gary Scharrer with comment by Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
San Antonio Express-News
2008-05-31
http://www.texscience.org
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
|
