Yesterday, the Texas State Board of Education heard testimony on its proposed standards for teaching science. Links to the full text of the standards and panel reports on them are available from the Texas Education Agency's website. Today's Dallas Morning News reports on testimony of some of the nearly 90 people who had registered to speak at the hearings. The focus was primarily on how evolution should be taught. As summarized by the paper:
College professors, science teachers and pro-evolution groups urged the board to drop a rule that requires the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory to be taught in science courses, while conservative groups aligned with a sizable bloc of board members said the rule has worked well and hasn't forced religion into those classes as critics charge....
Revisions recommended by a panel of experts this week call for changing the "strengths-and-weaknesses" standard to "strengths and limitations." Another recommendation calls for middle school students to "discuss possible alternative explanations" for scientific concepts.
.jpg)
Posts
20 comments:
This is serious. Texas needs to step and embrace science, and need to accept the guidance of scientists, not theologians, to know what to teach in science class.
From some of the comments to the article it looks like there were very few creationist/ID supporters at the meeting. Hopefully that's a good sign, though the composition of the board may mean it doesn't make a difference.
Or, even better, Texas can continue to insist that education is not about mindless indoctrination into naturalistic metaphysics pretending to be science.
Well, since Texas added "Under God" into their own pledge for children to recite by rote daily, I guess what you're saying is Texas insists education is about mindless indoctrination into mysticism pretending to be patriotism.
Surprised you think it's too much of a stretch for scientists to determine what fields are actually scientific.
Stop pretending any of these ID proponents really cares about indoctrination. They wholeheartedly support it, as long as it's of their own views.
Why not listen to ALL the scientists - especially those critical of evolution. Let them speak of the weaknesses of the theory.
Let the students decide for themselves. Less political correctness = better science!
"Why not listen to ALL the scientists - especially those critical of evolution. Let them speak of the weaknesses of the theory"
Because there are always scientists motivated by interests other than science.
In the early 80's, if you'd listened to "ALL" the scientists you wouldn't be able to tell kids not to smoke due to certain tobacco scientists.
And who disagrees with global warming? The Association of Petroleum Geologists.
That you can happen to find a few scientists who subscribe to ID is not impressive.
It is also a shame that the Texas board is loaded with an excess of creationists, two of whom have a textbook they'd like to market.
Why don't we let children decide for themselves what is good science? Easy - they're children.
We don't let them decide for themselves whether the germ theory of disease is better than demon theory (HOW DARE those atheistic scientists contradict the Bible with their naturalistic metaphysics masquerading as science!). We teach them the germ theory of disease because it has been well-established by the evidence.
We don't let children decide for themselves whether atomic theory is better science than elementalism (Everybody not deluded by atheistic naturalism KNOWS that the world is made up of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water...). We teach them atomic theory because it is supported by the best evidence we have available.
We don't let children decide whether evolutionary science is better science than other paradigms (like ID or direct creationism) because evolutionary science is supported by the best evidence that we have available - and has been for more than a century and a half.
If you want to overturn the dominant paradigm of a scientific discipline, it says quite a lot about the quality of one's arguments when you want to convince children (who notably lack critical thinking skills most never develop until college) or take the debate to the public (which has an appalling grasp of science), instead of taking it to peer-reviewed scientific journals, international symposia, or experimental laboratories.
Unless somebody can give me a good reason why we should 'teach the controversy' over whether the holocaust happened, or over whether people of different skin colors are inferior to each other, then there's no reason to 'teach the controversy' here. It's just as well-settled, and based on just as solid of evidence.
--MD
To compare critics of Darwinism with holocaust deniers and racists simply shows an inability to draw intellectually coherent distinctions. Part of this inability draw coherent distinctions arises from the fact that it is difficult for materialist fundamentalists to acknowledge that there are serious scientific -- not religious or philosophical but scientific -- problems with both Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Insisting that these problems aren't there don't make them go away.
And insisting that those problems aren't there certainly doesn't make for good science education. At the core of all good science and good science education is the idea that scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Even if that evidence upsets deeply held beliefs.
Fundamentalism -- including materialist fundamentalism -- is the enemy of science and all free thought.
"...there are serious scientific -- not religious or philosophical but scientific -- problems with both Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Insisting that these problems aren't there don't make them go away"
Insisting that "these problems" exist doesn't make them any more real. Publish your science. To date evolutionary theory is as well or better supported than many of the fundamental theoretical frameworks used in science inclucing germ theory, atomic theory, gravitation theory, etc.
If you wish to substantiate these "serious scientific problems" you will have to publish a lot of science.
If the so-called christian (creationists)on the Texas BOE insist and carry the day, they will only end up in court and lose again. Until you publish your science and have it withstand the scrutiny of the world-wide scientific community they will keep losing.
Jim51
MD,
Quite correct. The argument that we should "let the children" decide is one of the sillier tactics that creationists have contrived.
Jim51
Such material has been published -- by respectable publishing houses like Cambridge University Press (hardly a hotbed of religious fervor). If you are honestly interested in looking at the publication record, you should go over to the Discovery Institute website. Of course, I am pretty sure that you won't.
Which is all apiece of the fundamentalist mindset -- contrary evidence simply cannot be allowed to be evidence, and the definition of "evidence" will be changed as needed to prevent any disturbance in the soundness of dogma. Hence, any criticism of Darwinism, even if it is published by respected academic publishers, is strangverbotten.
The Cambridge University Press is not a respectable source of scientific data, Mark in Spokane. The assertion that it is shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the scientific process for evidentiary claims-making. The Cambridge University Press is a publishing house - not a peer-reviewed, scientific journal.
Anyone can write a manuscript, suggest its publication to Cambridge University Press, and if the CUP think the work has cultural relevance, the may ask the author for permission to publish it. The content of the work is not reviewed for truthfulness, completeness, or with a critical eye by experts in the field who are intimately acquainted with the relevant data.
If a scientist wants to publish a work critical of evolutionary theory, they must meet the ordinary standards for scientific work. They must conduct experiments or discover new data by observation or research (which the Discovery Institute does not do). They must prepare well-reasoned papers on the basis of those experiments or observations (which the Discovery Institute does not do). They must submit their works to peer reviewed journals where groups of editors will run their papers past the most critical people they can find and the paper must emerge (after revisions) unscathed on the other side.
Until critics of evolution can find evidence which withstands such scrutiny, their claims are in exactly the same boat as other failed hypotheses like holocaust denial. As yet, there are only a ridiculously small number of papers which have made it through this process, the majority of which deal only with the ill-understood workings of cellular biology - and most of those articles amount to nothing more than pointing out something that is ill-understood and then declaring that the problem is unsolvable with a wink and nudge. That's hardly science, Mark.
It is telling that thus far, there have been virtually no major critiques of evolutionary theory from outside (simply revisions from within). The evidence in favor of the generative powers of mutation and selection pressure (whether natural selection or sexual selection) are simply too great.
It has been observed historically, though the fossil record. It has been observed genetically, through homologies across genera and higher orders. It has been observed physiologically, by structural homologies as well. It has been observed directly in the form of a species of insect quite recently. It has been tested in computer models and simulations and been shown to be a potent generator of new data. Major airline design firms like Boeing use evolutionary software to design new aircraft without a single input by an aerospace engineer - and they craft experiemntal airplanes that fly.
Evolutionary theory has been given the test of falsifiability by every biological discipline (as well as quite a few non-biological ones), and has passed with flying colors again and again. The theory faces daily falsification with each experiment, medical treatment, or ecological study that is tried and falsification has yet to occur - even once. The evidence is streaming in on a journal-by-journal basis, and all of it is finding that evolutionary theory is fully consistent with all the data that we have accumulated thus far.
Until a critic of evolution can present a single credible idea that matches the evidence, can withstand the rigors of academic scrutiny, and can show itself to be of publishable quality, they will continue to be relegated to the sidelines of the scientific discourse, which is where ALL failed hypotheses belong.
Oh, and Mark? I've been to the Discovery Institute website. I've even been to the Discovery Institute. If you think that they are involved in a scientific disagreement with evolutionary theory, you might want to investigate them more closely. They have explicitly said on numerous occasions that their goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" and to "replace it with a science consonant Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." That's a philosophical disagreement, Mark - not a scientific one.
Their 'scientific publishing' amounts to only a few articles in peer-reviewed journals, many of which appear in the same questionable journal from Italy and one of which appears in an off-topic journal about fractals. Indeed, the majority of these articles were published without a word in them about evolutionary theory or any of the hypotheses which seek to supplant it. Most of them were published simply as discussions of various cellular functions. It is simply dishonest on the part of the Discovery Institute (or their authors) to claim them as evidence against evolutionary theory or for one of the hypotheses that seeks to supplant evolutionary theory when those conclusions were not presented in the paper or submitted to the peer-review process.
--MD
MD,
I would very much enjoy continuing to discuss this with you, but before I do, I have to insist that you stop drawing comparisons with holocaust deniers. That isn't good faith discussion. You have done it twice now, and I'm not really interested in dialoguing with somebody who makes such a morally blinkered comparison.
Cheers!
Mark -
Then show why it is an inapt comparison. I've given reasons why it is an apt comparison.
Holocaust denial is a hypothesis about how to account for certain data in the historical record. Intelligent Design (what the Discovery institute advocates) is a hypothesis about how to acount for certain data in the biological record.
Holocaust denial is supported by a small cadre of devoted individuals, most of whom explicitly agree that their dispute with orthodox historical accounts is motivated by a philosophical difference. Intelligent design is supported by a small cadre of devoted individuals, most of whom explicitly agree that their dispute with orthodox scientific accounts is motivated by philosophical difference.
Both holocaust denial and ID proponents routinely fail to get their works published in peer-reviewed journals, fail to make presentations to large international (or even national) symposia of fellow academics to make their cases, or do much of anything in the way of original scholarship.
Both groups find that their ideas are sidelined by their orthodox counterparts within their respective disciplines and for the identical same reasons - that their ideas simply have not garnered the professional respect that comes naturally to any idea which passes through the ordinary channels of knowledge work.
Instead of attempting to pass their few papers and idea through these proper channels, members of both groups attempt to get their ideas into the discussion through alternate channels where the standards of review are substantially more relaxed (like the public, children, or specialty journals which only publish their works).
The comparison seems quite apt.
Should either group manage to field significant contributions to their disciplines in the ordinary manner in which such contributions are made, they will be taken seriously. Until they do, their views will continue to be marginalized, and rightly so - since they have not shown that they can meet the basic levels of evidentiary proof required of even undergraduate studies in the relevant biological or historical sciences.
Indeed, calling the comparison morally blinkered is nothing more than a dodge.
--MD
MD,
Your patience is laudable. And Mark is wrong about me and the DI website as well. I have been to their website. I have read their so-called science, and some of their books. It's pretty poor stuff, and as you say, dwells often on complaints about things as yet not completely understood. In other cases they make extremely specious "points" that would prevent them from making it over a peer review hurdle because those points show thier lack of understanding of current literature and well established scientific knowledge. Sometimes what they say even shows their lack of reading comprehension.
They have been quite explicit about NOT doing any real science and instead pursuing a religious agenda through political means. The Texas BOE issue is another example. The DI people involved in that are not doing any science and will not be publishing it. They are doing politics.
Jim51
MD --
Since you won't conduct the dialogue in a civil manner, there is no point talking. If you cannot see the distinction between holocaust denial and questioning the evidentiary basis of Darwinian naturalism, there is no point in any further dialogue.
Mark -
As you like it.
If you decide to come up with some evidence for your claims, I'm sure the scientific community will be waiting eagerly to have you (or your friends at the DI) present them in a peer-reviewed journal or three.
Until then, don't be surprised when we view your hypotheses as kith and kin to all of the other hypotheses that have failed to muster enough evidence to be taken seriously.
--MD
Mark,
I do not think that MD was being uncivil, although I understand that comparisons are often used to unfairly paint someone with a biased brush. If I may presume, you may feel that the comparison implies an association between you and your views and those of many holocaust deniers. (Holocaust denial is often a stalking horse for anti-semitism, or neo-nazi views.) So I can understand why you might object.
Having said that, I do not think that MD intended it quite like that, and, he was fairly detailed in his explanation of what he meant.
Let me offer a comment on your last post:
“If you cannot see the distinction between holocaust denial and questioning the evidentiary basis of Darwinian naturalism...”
I can see distinctions.
One is denying well documented historical occurrences, the other, well supported and established scientific facts and theories. One is often used as a stalking horse for anti-semitism and the other, for evangelical proselytizing.
I find them both pretty ugly. And while I understand that many people, including myself, would see the former as far worse than the latter, they are both pretty ugly.
Jim51
Well put Jim51. Indeed, the moral angle is entirely irrelevant and shows again the difficulty that people like those at the Discovery Institute (and Mark) actually have here.
The dispute that the holocaust deniers have with orthodox history is not one of historical methodology - it is one of philosophy. The dispute that the DI people have with science is not scientific - it is philosophical.
My comparison was as explicit as I could make it about the scope of the comparison. It was about showing that the DI people and the holocaust denier people are in the same position vis-a-vis their respective disciplines with regard to their truth claims and the reasons those truth claims have not been accepted by their respective disciplines.
Bringing the moral angle into the picture is wholly irrelevant to examining their evidence and finding it without merit, so I find it interesting that Mark (just as do the DI people) conflated the two wholly independent spheres - as if the moral questionability of both the DI and holocaust deniers philosophical positions were in the least bit relevant to an examination of the truth-merits of their claims.
Once again, the conflation of academic research in the empiric disciplines with that of the normative disciplines is unwarranted by any standard - but the knee-jerk equivocation between the two is a hallmark of the evangelical right's views on the former.
--MD
Not that anyone is reading this any comment thread anymore but wanted to say this: It's surprising the ID movement is what turned me to atheism! I started to look into their claims, really did my best to give them the benefit of the doubt and concluded evolution was not only a better explanation but so far as I could see, the ONLY explanation. So I became an atheist and am surprisingly a much happier and nicer person than I ever was as a Christian.
Thank you DI!
-American Atheist
Post a Comment