Steve Reuland has already posted about this, but since I have just finished grading lab reports (which makes me even more annoyed than usual at attempts to dumb down science education), I’m going to take a stab at this letter from a member of SC’s "Education Oversight Committee", too.
Karen Iacovelli (which I’ll abbreviate as “KI”), the letter’s author, begins by supposing that the science community does not want SC students to learn.
It has appeared from the onset of first attempts to revise the standards that a well-rehearsed group of opponents do not want South Carolina students to venture beyond what is currently prescribed.
[…]
Simply put, do we want our students to engage in intelligent debate?
Sure. But at the level we are teaching in high schools, there really isn’t a whole lot of scientific debate out there. In introductory courses, we teach the foundations, while the scientific debate lies on the fringes.
Perhaps in the “evolution debate”, we might let students discuss the relative importance of different the various mechanisms of evolution? Somehow, though, I do not think that this is what KI has in mind.
So, I began with Darwin himself. In an 1858 letter he wrote to a colleague, Darwin lamented that “evolution will be grievously too hypothetical.” I concluded reasonable doubt from there, but was unaware of the lies and more damn lies that lay ahead.
Aside from the fact that this Darwin quote is misquoted and out of context, the date alone tells us something. “On the Origin of Species” was published in 1859. Darwin’s proposed a rather radical idea, and it would take a long time for all the details to be worked out. Is it any wonder that Darwin would admit that he didn’t have all the answers?
What this has to do with modern evolutionary theory I can’t fathom.
I want the Board to understand why I voted to revise the biology standards to include critical analysis, and why I believe we will utterly fail in our intellectual and ethical obligations to our students if we deny them an expanded learning environment, where the goal is, indeed, critical thought and intelligent debate.
Sounds good, right? But why single out evolution? All scientific theories are constantly being evaluated by scientists. (Scientists do this every time they conduct an experiment, if you want to get technical.) A basic understanding of the scientific method already includes critical analysis (how does KI think something becomes a “theory”, anyway?) – so why single out evolution for special treatment unless you have some sort of axe to grind?
Online I went, ordering books and more books, reading both sides of the issue, asking lots of questions, receiving interesting answers and becoming more frustrated and confused. Was it really my purpose as a mere creature of the EOC to decide if evolution is valid science?
Apparently you seem to think so, KI. And it’d really help if you listed some of the evolution or biology books you read.
Books mentioned by name in the letter:
- James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (the title should give this one away)
- Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (creationist/ID book)
- John Wilson / William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent (creationist/ID book)
- What The Bleep Do We Know? (seems to me to be a bizarre choice, but … haven’t read this one, but it doesn’t seem to be very relevant)
So much for studying “both sides”…
There on the internet were thousands upon thousands of pages of intelligent, scientific debate regarding the science or nonsense of evolution.
Now, how much of that debate is actually scientific? You can find darned near anything on the internet, but that doesn’t make it scientific.
KI goes on and starts rambling at this point about a conspiracy of scientists (she calls it the “internal thought police” at colleges). She’s essentially making excuses for running to the Discovery Institute (the Intelligent Design group) for speakers when South Carolina scientists wouldn’t do.
Thirty-nine years later in an interview at Berkley, Townes called upon all scientists and students to “explore as much as we can.” It was those 5 words that convinced me that everything else I had read by self-anointed experts in the field of high school biology and evolution was nothing more than scientific arrogance.
Must … resist .. urge … to … point … out … counting … mistake …
Now, these “self-anointed experts” you have read. Did any of them happen to be, perhaps, biologists? You know – peoiple who have studied the field?
I am saddened by the efforts of some university professors to personalize this issue, using, especially Senator Fair as a target.
Well, I can certainly see why science types are a bit peeved at Fair, what with his constant attempts to water down science education. (S.909 ring a bell?)
KI’s about to go off the deep end again…
Is censorship at work? I must also ask if basic First Amendment guarantees of free speech are not only being blatantly violated on university campuses, but will be violated should The State Board of Education deny free speech to high school biology students.
So … not wanting to teach bull at the expense of science is now a free speech issue? What next, equal time in chemistry class for atom-deniers?
What happens when a student conducts the same kind of search I did on my computer and locates, not hundreds, but thousands of books and articles that contradict what he is taught in the classroom?
A good opportunity for a learning experience, I think. There’s plenty of bull on the internet. Hopefully, the student will have learned enough about the workings of science to tell science from bull.
What do opponents of critical analysis intend to do? Burn all of the books, except the ones they choose? Ban internet searches? Because that is what the opponents of revised biology standards are asking us to do with every written opinion that opposes their view of science.
A more accurate phrase would be “opponents of bull masquerading as critical analysis”. Regardless, we don’t oppose banning internet searches or books. True, we don’t want to waste money buying every high schooler a copy of “Of Pandas and People”, the creationst turned intelligent design textbook, but we don’t think it should be burned.
And let’s talk about Intelligent Design. Even those outside of science know that Intelligent Design has no “scientific model” by which to measure, falsify, apply, analyze and tweak against the ongoing abundance of new scientific discovery. Intelligent Design has never been on the table for any discussion in regards to our state science standards.
Ahh … that explains why the Discovery Institute was involved! Thanks for clearing that up, KI, and also for reminding us that creationism / intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. Now would you please tell Mike Fair?