Re: Op-ed by TO semi-regular: Say no to 'Origins of Life' bill (Utah)

dabuckna@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snippage>
> This suggested policy is a realistic, practical and legal way for local
> and state boards of education to achieve a win-win with regard to
> evolution teaching because it states clearly that evolutionary theory
> is the _only_ approved theory of origins that can be taught in the
> science curriculum. Even the NCSE, the NAS, the AAAS, the ACLU, and
> Americans United for the Separation of Church and State should find the
> policy acceptable:
>
> "As no theory in science is immune from critical examination and
> evaluation, and recognizing that evolutionary theory is the only
> approved theory of origins that can be taught in the [province/state]
> science curriculum: whenever evolutionary theory is taught, students
> and teachers are encouraged to discuss the scientific information that
> _supports_ and _questions_ evolution and its underlying assumptions, in
> order to promote the development of critical thinking skills. This
> discussion would include only the scientific evidence/information _for_
> and _against_ evolutionary theory, as it seeks to explain the origin of
> the universe and the diversity of life on our planet."
>
<more snippage>
>
> If science is a search for truth, no scientific theory should be
> allowed to freeze into dogma, immune from critical examination and
> evaluation.
>
> David Buckna

I wholeheartedly agree with you that students should be taught
accurate, factual, current information and critical analytical thinking
skills. And evolution should certainly not be immune from critical
examination. Where there are varying views, classrooms should
absolutely have the freedom to illuminate and discuss them.

Where I depart from you is in the public policy. In some ways, your
proposed policy is an improvement over the proposed Utah bill that I
wrote about. Both, however, fail in the singling out of the science of
origins for special treatment.

When I was growing up in the 1960's, the conventional wisdom portrayed
in textbooks and popular science books was that lakes went through an
ecological succession process. They gradually silted in and became
shallower. The riparian zone moved inward with terrestrial species
following behind. Lacustrine species inevitably gave way to aquatic
emergents and then to riparian plants as the basin filled in.
Ultimately, the lake would be replaced by a wetland and then by a dry
forest. Unfortunately, it was not true. It was not until graduate
school that I encountered literature showing that lakes and wetlands
can have long term stability. Similarly, as an undergraduate, I was
taught a particular model of ecological processes (e.g. nutrient
cycling, species diversity trends) in terrestrial forest succession.
Again, in graduate school I was exposed to studies yielding alternative
findings. Ecological succession is a field of study where there is
genuine debate and where scientists hold broad ranges of opinions.
Like evolution, it is also an area where much of what is taught in the
classroom is outdated and oversimplified.

In my column, I objected to the singling out of origins education for
special treatment in public policy. You replied, "Why single out the
topic of origins of life/evolution for special treatment in education?
Because, unfortunately, many teachers and professors who teach
evolution, teach it as FACT. What you have in the public schools, for
the most part, is evolution as dogma..." Well, I was taught various
models of ecological succession as fact. Is there any reason why
ecological succession should not also be included in a policy regarding
science education and critical analysis? Can you point to any school
board that has been approached by interest groups demanding policies
requiring equal time or critical analysis of competing models of
succession? Are there people demanding textbook stickers saying that
the lake-to-forest model of succession is only a theory, not a fact?

There are none, to the best of my knowledge. The people who are
clamoring for curriculum policies and stickers do so only for origins
education. As I said in my column, when they do this they betray a
religiously motivated political agenda. They are not interested in
improving the analytical skills of children or improving science
education. No, they want to brand evolution, and only evolution, as a
topic so delicate that it requires special government intervention.
Indeed, an amendment to the Utah bill to expand it to encompass a broad
range of scientific ideas failed, underscoring the hidden agenda. By
mandating special stickers, statements, or curricula, they want the
government to create a cloud of doubt around evolutionary science in
the minds of students in order to protect and advance a particular
religious point of view. Judge Jones addressed this narrow policy
focus extensively in the Dover decision. He observed that a policy
cannot be divorced from the motives of its backers. Curriculum
policies addressing evolution only violate the Supreme Court's Lemon
test because they are religiously motivated and are thus
unconstitutional. The policies are not promoting intellectual freedom;
rather they are tools of an ideological movement.

I have absolutely no qualms about teaching students critical thinking
skills and applying those skills to origins science. I'm all for it.
I have no problems with teachers encouraging students to look at the
scientific evidence for and against evolution. I don't even mind
teachers explaining to students that there are other origins models out
there that people subscribe to, but that these do not conform to the
hypothetico-deductive, methodological naturalism model of science that
we currently embrace. Nor do I think that I would object to a mandated
science curriculum policy that encouraged vigorous debate across the
full spectrum of scientific inquiry. What I don't like is people
trying to use the power of the state to advance religion under the
guise of protecting academic freedom and analytical thinking, when
their objective is just the opposite.

Chris Rohrer

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Horrors! Florida poised to teach evolution as science
    ... Florida's plucky refusal to embrace 21st century education is one ... By accepting evolution as a proven science, ... and letters from religious conservatives who advocate teaching ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Horrors! Florida poised to teach evolution as science
    ... Florida's plucky refusal to embrace 21st century education is one ... By accepting evolution as a proven science, ... Nice try, pinheads, but there's no sin in being a slightly backward ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Creationists_=93expelled=94_from_the_White_House?=
    ... i.e. candidates who are most opposed to evolution ... believes that the scientific theory of intelligent design is going to ... science to support in the switch scam. ... Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: IDer Scours the Quote Mines
    ... science education when they learn only half the story about evolution. ... Teaching students both the scientific strengths and weaknesses is good ...
    (talk.origins)
  • News: Its time for education to evolve.
    ... Meanwhile, in Austin, the so-called State Board of Education was still ... debating the merits of evolution. ... Unlike many questions in science, the answer would be simple: ... "Strengths and weaknesses" is a new buzz phrase that's replaced ...
    (talk.origins)