Texas Board to Block Teaching Evolution’s Shortcomings
The Houston Chronicle reports that the Texas State Board of Education has tentatively decided drop its 20-year-old requirement mandating that science teachers address both “strengths and weaknesses” of the scientific theory originated by Charles Darwin in the 19th century, capping a heated debate on the topic.
In Texas, the theory of evolution now has no faults and teachers who know better have no recource but to bite their tongue in the classroom. This falsehood rightly incenses many Americans, for a variety of reasons:
“It’s outrageous that our highest elected education officials voted to silence teachers and students in science class,” said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Free Market Foundation. “Despite being overwhelmed by e-mails and phone calls to keep strengths and weaknesses, the divided State Board of Education ignored constituents and sided with a small group of activists.
“This decision shows that science has evolved into a political popularity contest. The truth has been expelled from the science classroom.”
Expelled, indeed. The reasoning from the winning side has but a single, razor-sharp focus – the complete elimination of creationism from the American education system:
Kathy Miller, president of the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, has argued that the word weaknesses “has become a code word in the culture wars to attack evolution and promote creationism.”
Miller is certainly right in what she says. Evolution’s many weaknesses are exploited in the ongoing battle over what should be taught in America’s schools. However, what’s not said – ever – is that it was the liberal, evolution-only, there-is-no-God side that started the culture wars in the first place. Now, after decades of liberal radicalism on the streets and in the courtrooms, the left frequently attempts to take the legal high ground, as Miller does in this case.
Yet the fact is that the theory of evolution is just that. While that may incense many people on the left and some on the right, the truth is what it is. Darwin’s idea of radical mutation is far, far from proven and the skeletal record is in many ways just that – skeletal.
For pro-evolution advocates to say straight-faced that their idea is the complete definition of a natural law is ludicrous as relates to the origins of life on this planet. Few people question the validity of natural selection to work changes in species over time. It’s readily observable in experiments with fruit flies, in addition to being intellectually obvious. But natural selection has nothing to say about where life came from. Woe to the rare objective scientific researcher who actually cares enough about the truth to consider every possible bit of evidence. That, you must understand, is not allowed.
Expelled, the movie, is an excellent documentary about the scientific censorship that has taken place in this country over the last 50 years in regard to the research, publication, and teaching of intelligent design. I highly recommend it. Save for an unfortunate ramble through the briar patch of Nazism and eugenics, it’s certainly thought provoking and worthy of 90 minutes of your time. If nothing else, an important take-away is that anti-God political forces are actively limiting scientific research and debate in this country using every means, fair and unfair, available to them.
That’s unacceptable. Even if evolutionists turn out to be 100% correct with one of their Darwinistic sub-theories – something that’s highly unlikely – the completely cynical act of using the country’s political and legal processes to stifle scientific research debate and force America’s young people to be educated exclusively in their dogma is anti-America, anti-truth, and anti-rational in the extreme. Science is about seeking the truth. But the left seeks to put blinders on all of us, researchers included.
The irony is, of course, that the new radical liberalism is supposed to be all about individual truths, rights, and freedoms. The truth is that the freedoms the left promises are fantastic chimeras that disappear the moment you use that freedom to disagree with them.
Sadly, the intellectual fascists of the left, who can allow no other views than their own to be put forth, have one another battle in the war for America’s soul.
Before I comment I should note that “theory” and “fact” need not be distinct concepts within the realm of science, something creationists (and let’s call a spoon a spoon) disregard either out of ignorance or pure cynicism.
Evolution is one of the most solid theories of science. It is central to our understanding of biology on several levels, but becomes absolutely essential to the understanding of the molecular level of biology. Though there are still debates amongst evolutionary biologists on various topics of evolution, NONE of them concern whether evolution happens or not, but rather what the exact mechanisms are and what the historical sequence of events was. These debates (that happen within all the branches of the sciences) are far above the level of elementary or even high school. Evolution is taught to primary and secondary students at a level where the things being taught are very solid science indeed, not controversial in the least. The only “controversy” is that brought up by religious groups, masking their motives in words about “scientific rigor”, a rigor they invariably lack when attempting to “debate” actual scientists.
There is no more reason to introduce the “weaknesses” of evolution than the “weaknesses” of Newtonian gravitation or the “weaknesses” of tectonics in geology. Evolution is targeted simply and only because of religious motivation, and therefore discontinuing the practice of trying to separate evolutionary theory as a “special” or “less solid” theory is a sound decision.
Because groups like the Discovery Institute have been stopped by the courts in their plans to have Intelligent Design/Creation Science taught in the schools they now want teachers to be able to present alleged weakness of evolution in school biology classes. Like all good science you must put these alleged weaknesses to the scrutiny of science. As of this date none of these alleged weaknesses have been able to standup to this scrutiny. If you want to find out what motivates groups like the Discovery Institute read “The Wedge Strategy” which is their corporate mission statement. You can find it on line.
I completely disagree, Claudia .. Why not be honest about every theory’s weaknesses? If our children can’t learn to think critically of currently accepted theories, how will they ever challenge them to learn more truth? Isn’t that what science is about?
I’m not anti-evolution, but why dogmatize it unless you’re specifically trying to discount someone else’s ideas?
“Evolution is targeted simply and only because of religious motivation.” One finger points, three point back.
I don’t really want to get into this debate, but something about this post caught my eye. What’s up with this quote that you quoted?
“It’s outrageous that our highest elected education officials voted to silence teachers and students in science class”
How exactly does removing the mandate that both strengths and weaknesses be taught silence teachers? Can’t the teachers teach still teach the weaknesses if they want to, and can’t students still bring up questions they have? They’ve been given more freedom, not less, right? Either I’m missing something, or this statement is purposefully deceptive, and should not be tolerated regardless of your view on this issue.
And this one:
“This decision shows that science has evolved into a political popularity contest. The truth has been expelled from the science classroom.”
Yes, that’s exactly what the decision seems to me. Teachers are now forbidden from teaching the truth. Poor teachers.:)
By the way, I believe in creationism (but also believe creationism and the theory of evolution are not entirely mutually exclusive), but honestly my view on the issue has nothing to do with my frustration with the pro-creationism argument here. I think it’s a shame that we so often resort to deception in order to support or point of view.
It is unfortunate that this issue has become a political football on both sides because the simply truth is that Velda is right and Claudia, as a scientist, would probably willingly endorse it were it not for the ideological side-effects of such an admission.
The truth is that students these days are shockingly ignorant of the scientific method, especially including the limits that responsible scientists place on truth claims. Evolution, like any scientific theory, does not answer all questions (e.g. the source of the evolutionary process itself) nor does it exist without counterevidence. It is an axiom of the scientific method that “all theories float on a sea of anamolies”.
The fact that many scientists like Claudia seek an exemption to skepticism and responsible self-limitation of truth claims on behalf of evolutionary theory is likely because they fear that including evolutionary theory in to the normal limits of scientific method and, even worse, specifically teaching students about those limits would open the door to their ideological enemies among the religious right to exploit those limits in ways that the scientists would find intellectually and/or ethically bankrupt.
I am sympathetic to the concerns of the scientists because there is little doubt about the anti-scientific ends sought by the so-called “religious right” in regards to the issue of teaching evolution and “intelligent design” in the schools. But I think many scientists severely err when they seek to convert scientific theory into unquestionable dogma in a desperate effort to insulate their body of knowledge politically.
Since when did science teach “dogma”? If you have a real grasp of the scientific method, you realize that theories are revised whenever evidence contradicts the theory. Dogma is changed only when it becomes an embarrassment, like the geocentric model of the solar system.
Should we be “skeptical” about what is called fact regarding chemistry, physics, math, etc.? Isn’t an alternative answer based on personal beliefs just an excuse not to know the correct answer?
“The fact that many scientists like Claudia seek an exemption to skepticism and responsible self-limitation of truth claims on behalf of evolutionary theory is likely because they fear that including evolutionary theory in to the normal limits of scientific method and, even worse, specifically teaching students about those limits would open the door to their ideological enemies among the religious right to exploit those limits in ways that the scientists would find intellectually and/or ethically bankrupt.”
First off, is there really only one period in that paragraph? Secondly, WHAT? I am trying to follow all of the posts on this topic, but if there is a statement in there somewhere I am having trouble finding it. If there is a fear, it isn’t likely to be of their “ideological enemies.” What boggles my mind is why they have to be enemies at all? If you like blue and I like red, I’m not sounding the war trumpet and marching into battle over why red is better. This whole conspiricy can be resolved if we could only fall back upon or constitutional doctrin, seperation of church and state. I realize that I have been a broken record on this point, but honestly, those laws were established to avoid this very situation. If Americans’ cannot choose what they want to believe or be taught, then we have not come as far as we think. Schools should teach, Religion should preech.
Yeah, bobxxx, because that whole freedom thing is so overrated anyway.
Yes, Nate. Schools should teach. One of the things they should teach is the difference between theory and dogma. Converting science into dogma by prohibiting any teaching of its legitimate limits is bad teaching, especially given the shockingly credulous ignorance students and way too many adults already have about anything that comes cloaked in the garb of “science”.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Enough periods for you yet?
@Rusty
>> Should we be “skeptical” about what is called fact regarding chemistry, physics, math, etc.? Isn’t an alternative answer based on personal beliefs just an excuse not to know the correct answer?
IMHO? It is vitally important to know the accepted answer… and then to challenge it. Challenging the ‘answers’ and trying to prove or disprove them, at least to some extent, is terrific mental exercise at any age and in just about any subject.
In my experience, where there are facts to rely on, people come back to the truth with stronger understanding, more creativity, and an intense curiosity to learn more about what they don’t understand.
nate, you apparently don’t believe that there are scientists who are going beyond their bounds and saying that their preference for red means that religious believers shouldn’t like blue better. Bobxx’s comment gives evidence to the contrary.
What are the weaknesses in evolutionary theory that need to be taught?
What other theory is there that explains the same phenomena with anywhere near equal rigor?
Does the TX statute prevent the teaching of anything or does it simply remove a requirement to teach something?
Is that something of generally dubious value as taught in TX classrooms?
(1) That there are some questions that lie outside the scope of the theory (e.g. the origin of the evolutionary process itself).
(2) That there are major empirical gaps in the evidence for the macroevolutionary predictions of the theory.
None in the scientific realm. That does not mean we should teach students to ignore the weaknesses, however.
It removes a requirement to teach something that is important for any well-educated person to understand — that scientific theories have weaknesses as well as strengths. Leaving this out implies that scientific theories are the same as facts whenever some critical political mass wants to declare them so. That mis-educates students for a purely political end and should be something that liberals as well as conservatives should oppose.
What it is and what it addresses are explicit in every biology text I have seen. Additionally there is generally an explicit formulation of the scientific method and the type of questions it can address.
Can you be more specific here. This is often claimed but when the claimed gaps are presented it usually amounts to, “not every transitionary fossil has been found.” If you are speaking about a more serious objection could you make it more clear for me?
True, but it does put them outside the realm of what belongs in a science class with limited time to spend on actual science.
Am I incorrect in assuming that the TX statutes still require teaching of the scientific method. If so then the weakness of all theories (and things that are considered by many to be observable facts) should be covered there. Additionally in any well taught class there is time for students to question the material being taught. Any teacher worth their salt will also offer time outside of class for questions that he/she does not have time to address in class.
Again proper teaching of scientific method and the relevant definitions should cover this.
Which is why I propose discussing them outside of a science classroom but nonetheless in a mandatory class.
Given the importance of the issue both socially and educationally (and its importance in avoiding creating students who are easy prey for the likes of CPSI), I’m sure we can find the time to do it right. A pro forma mention of the uses of scientific theories (with no explicit attention to the non-uses) has clearly been inadequate given the widespread ignorance that persists among Americans in spite of what you claim is already pervasive in biology texts.
“Which is why I propose discussing them outside of a science classroom but nonetheless in a mandatory class.”
Do you think this should be a mandatory class on religion or a mandatory class in philosophy?
As I said elsewhere, a philosophy class covering critical issues of epistemology, ontology, and philosophy of science.
The basics of these areas are essential to well-informed citizens and they are almost entirely absent in any coherent form in current secondary school curriculum.
As philosophy is a relatively recent addition to secondary education I’m sure someone will include this question in their curriculum.
Unfortunately since most secondary schools don’t even offer a class in philosophy I’m sure we’ll see ID extremists keep trying to put it in science classes where (most of us seem to agree) it does not belong.
Grewgills: You’re assuming that every teacher uses a textbook cover to cover. The whole idea of a curriculum is that it specifies which units are required for teaching, so that a teacher can’t skip over that chapter on the scientific method and limits of what scientific inquiry can potentially answer. Since no one can know what goes on in a classroom every hour of every school day, the school board sets these guidelines to try to insure that certain things are given adequate coverage.
The requirement for teaching scientific method and relevant definitions is already in place in at least CA and HI (the states where I have taught). It is also required that students understand what numbers are and how they interact. It is also required that students can effectively write informatively and persuasively. etc. etc. Unfortunately that something is required to be taught and is in fact taught does not insure that graduates will have that specific knowledge. Surveys of graduates on a broad selection of topics illustrates that quite well. I’m sure reading essays churned out in any of your lower division classes illustrates that for you regularly.
CS,
The requirement is and has been there everywhere I have taught (CA and HI). I would be surprised if it is not in place in most (perhaps even all) states. I would further hazard a guess that the places where that requirement is weakest are the same places where ID is being most strongly pushed.
The TX statute requiring ‘teaching the weaknesses’ of one theory rather than more rigorous teaching of scientific method and relevant definitions (hypothesis, theory, etc) is transparent in its aims. Public statements by members of the school board make that purpose even more transparent.
From the National Academy of Science (via Wiki)
and from AAAS (also via Wiki)
Both of those are solid definitions with some additional information.
What I believe Christine was getting at earlier was that in addition to the theory of evolution there is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution brings together relationships and mechanisms and is supported by over a century of compiled evidences and met predictions (fossil, genetic, etc.). The fact of evolution has been observed in the natural world and in the laboratory and has been shown by genetic markers. Some try to poo-poo this as ‘micro-evolution’ and claim that ‘macro-evolution’ is a different animal without offering any evidence as to why these phenomena would be mechanistically different. Much like someone claiming that it is clearly possible to change the meaning of a word by changing some of the letters but it is clearly ridiculous to claim that you can change the meaning of a sentence by the same method.
Sorry for the grammatical errors and poor flow. I blame the Alabama state curricula and my teachers.
I believe the heart of this matter concerns not religion or science, but rather the law, and by this I mean what one is free to publicly practice. Do we not all desire to possess the freedom of inquiry without censure? The freedom to deconstruct and dissect even a subject and that the establishment has deemed ‘answered.’ Do we still belong to that era in which any inquisitive or dissenting voice must be silenced? Socrates, often referred to as the father of philosophy, believed that to find truth a proposition or hypothesis must be extensively dialogued and relentlessly questioned. Socrates made it his practice to wander about Athens raising questions and analyzing the popular views of his fellow citizens. His method of inquiry, which we now call “the Socratic Method,” ultimately led to his death. Socrates was charged with “corrupting the youth” and was eventually put to death. A true scientist and a true, free, analytical thinker does not place limits on what may be tested or reconsidered. As none of us existed at the time this world was created, we are only able to ultimately label any explanation of origins as theory, be it none the less well supported. So we return again to the law and what is lost by the change in the law. It isn’t evolution or creationism etc., but rather an assurance that our students will be respectfully informed of other theories, will be granted the freedom of inquiry without censure and be enabled to draw their own conclusions. After all, is truth so obscure, so muddy in its make-up, so week, that plying it with any array of questions would render it powerless?
Scientists may choose to censure themselves based on their own moral and ethical principles. This is certainly understandable. Denying others the right to think and study as they wish is, of course, anathema to a real scientist.
smitkat and marc,
If there were a competing theory it should certainly be allowed in, even required in. Absent that and absent even a competing hypothesis for this observed phenomenon after over 100 years what do you propose? What is being pushed by the TX school board, as has been made evident by their own statements, is denial of observed fact and the introduction of a pseudo-hypothesis that would have itself labeled a theory without even having advanced an actual hypothesis. Once again nothing is being forced out of the classroom by this change. If teachers want to teach the ‘weaknesses’ of a given theory they may. What has changed is that they are not required to spend time trying to muddy the waters concerning evolution if they don’t think that it warrants classroom time.
Again to be clear, no viable hypothesis has been put forward to compete with the theory of evolution. What has been put forward and called a theory is a hodge podge of negative assertions most of which either were examined and found wanting or have since been examined and found wanting. One such is ‘irreducible complexity’ where it is claimed that some structure (the eye, the flagella, etc) is said to be irreducibly complex. What this means is that the structure is said to be a complex array of parts that serve no function apart and so could not have evolved and so must have been designed. In every case put forward to date this has been thoroughly and completely debunked. In the case of the mammalian eye it had been thoroughly studied and evolutionary stages of its development shown in great detail prior to this claim being made. In the case of the flagella there was considerable evidence prior to this claim being made and since these evidences have been compiled and added to in such a way as to make the claim it is ‘irreducibly complex’ laughable, yet the claim is still made by those who want standards like this ‘teaching the weaknesses’ included in program or class learning objectives.
First off: what Grewgills said.
Secondly, much of this “silencing of dissent” nonsense stems from a double fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how scientists think and behave, with fundamentalist religious leaders eagerly reinforcing both mistakes.
Creationists try to use some sort of guilt trip on scientists, saying that not teaching “alternative theories” or “teaching the weaknesses” in the classroom is the shutting down of dissent and preventing free inquiry, both of which go against basic principles of science. They may find themselves mystified as to why this never ever works on scientists. The reason is twofold: On the one hand, the classroom is not a research facility. It’s a good idea to encourage critical thinking in students, and for that reason proper teaching of the scientific method is key, but giving teachers the chance to teach their pet creation myth as if it had any kind of scientific credibility is not free inquiry, it’s bad teaching. New ideas about evolution will not sprout forth from a 5th grade classroom, though a child in that classroom could grow up to to be a new Darwin or Mendel.
The second reason such arguments never work is that freedom of dissent and freedom of inquiry in science bears no resemblance to what creationists think it does. The fact that ideas that have no positive evidence whatsoever or objections that are similarly not grounded in proper science (see grewgills irreducible complexity) are rejected. Anyone is free to offer their ideas, but they must back them up with some sort of evidence, or else they are not science and therefore not invited into the scientific debate. At the very least an idea must offer a way of testing itself to see if it could be true. IDers offer none of this.
The second misunderstanding is almost more ridiculous, at least from the perspective of a scientist. The insinuation whenever this subject comes up is that “scientists don’t want you to know” or “scientists are shutting down debate”. This basically implies that scientists are of one mind on this issue, that they know the truth but are involved in a massive conspiracy to keep it quiet. Seriously, talk to a scientist, any scientist, you’ll quickly see why this is laughable on it’s face. We don’t shut up, most certainly not if the subject is science. Secrecy is absolutely not our strong suit. The notion that you could get the tens of thousands (perhaps more) of biological scientists in the world to quietly toe a party line on a scientific subject is utterly absurd. Given how uniformly virtually every biological scientist defends evolution against creationism Occam’s razor clearly falls in favor of the idea that scientists see no scientific merit in the creation myth and therefore refuse to treat it as science.
I think you misunderstand the criticisms of scientists, Claudia, just as surely as you believe that critics are misunderstanding you.
You’re right that some people outside the field don’t really understand or know the degree of heated debate and true critical reasoning that goes on in scientific discussions, I’m sure. But you are assuming that this lack of understanding fuels all of the criticisms or skepticism, and that’s just not the case.
You repeatedly use phrases like this:
“much of this “silencing of dissent” nonsense stems from a double fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how scientists think and behave”
As though scientists by nature are unerring in their pursuit of knowledge through correct use of the scientific method, and that’s absurd. It’s the other side of the coin of religious believers who will broach no criticism of their religious leaders because these people are ‘good and moral’ and led by God. Just because you have a set of guiding principles doesn’t mean that everyone actually follows them, and even when the group as a whole is pretty committed to calling out those who aren’t acting according to those principles, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be lapses- particularly when a ‘group think’ mentality sets in so that the majority doesn’t even recognize that there’s been a lapse. It’s when theories gain so much traction that the majority of scientists in a field start believing that any competing theories are unserious and unworthy of consideration that there’s the most danger of that occurring. It’s not conspiratorial (I get why you think that’s ridiculous, that a conspiracy like that couldn’t occur), it’s a group error that can (and I believe does) occur. In other words, it’s not a group of scientists who all agree to ignore the principles of science because they have an agenda, but rather a misguided attachment to one particular avenue of exploration which cuts off any that might contradict the prevailing theory.
I see this happening more in regard to AGW than evolution, FWIW- but the underlying caution should apply to all fields, even evolution. The fact that the ID’ers don’t have a place at the table because they’re theories aren’t scientific isn’t really a problem for me (I did have to come to that realization gradually, initially having felt that they were being shut out unfairly- and I’m still not 100% convinced that there shouldn’t be some interface between the scientific theories and the philosophic ones) but I don’t see that anyone who potentially had an actual competing theory could get a fair hearing either.
To me it seems that the seeming requirement for an alternate hypothesis to already be fully formed before it can challenge an existing theory is problematic. I don’t see why science shouldn’t allow negative questions to be raised without an alternative positive theory- that’s how you test for weaknesses. I think you cut off the search for basic theories when you commit to one particular path (even if there’s a pretty good strength of evidence for that path) instead of leaving the forks in the road clear for exploration.
C. Stanley, you’re distinction between the inevitable fact that no group of people are 100% loyal to their principles and the fact that ID has not earned a place at the scientific table is key.
You’re absolutely right that scientists, not being anything other than very geeky humans, are prone to the same weakness and hypocrisy as anyone else. Dogmatism does exist in science, so does exclusion that has more to do with politics or power-plays than it has to do with the data at hand. But the utter refusal to recognize ID as scientific is simply not an example of one of these moments of weakness. One indication of this is how uniform all biological scientists are on this subject. Usually, when you get into a subject within biology where there is dogmatism and power-play (a fine example being the controversy I wrote about in the original post) you’ll readily find a group of practicing scientists who will passionately defend the less widespread explanation. The same cannot be found within ID because its quite patently not scientific and therefore pretty much universally rejected.
As to the problem with negative proofs, there is some merit to the argument. There is scientific merit in discussing how a given set of data contradicts a given explanation for the data, but two things must be kept in mind. Firstly, it is not admissible to say “since theory X cannot explain phenomenon Y then Theory X is wrong”. IDers have pointed to wings, the eye and the flagella using this argument, saying that evolution must not be true because evolutionary theory couldn’t explain that. Of course, advances in scientific understanding have gradually narrowed that wiggle room. Evolutionary theory does not suddenly fall down because every single step is not yet known. Neither does any other theory in science. Negative evidence can lead to a revision of a theory if you can find some data that flatly contradicts a positive assertion within the theory. Evolutionary theory covers quite a lot of different data, so though data could certainly come to light that changes some aspect of it (the current sequence of evolution of various species is under pretty constant revision) throwing the whole theory based on one piece of data would be very very difficult.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the minute you offer an alternative explanation you are 100% required to back said explanation up with positive evidence. IDers offer negative evidence (which isn’t even true) and say that “since evolution can’t be true, then intelligent design must be true”. This is not admissible as a scientific argument. Even assuming that somehow tomorrow evidence came to light that completely destroyed every aspect of evolutionary theory, this in and of itself would not necessarily be evidence for design. Simply put, you can easily prove a man innocent of a crime, but that does not by itself implicate a different man of the same crime.
Firstly, it is not admissible to say “since theory X cannot explain phenomenon Y then Theory X is wrong”.
Of course. I would never say otherwise. But with the wording of the law that sparked this discussion, as I understand it, people are talking about having the need to point out the things that theory X cannot explain- not teaching that the theory itself is wrong on that basis, but just teaching that these so far unexplainable phenomena will either one day have an explanation that’s compatible with the theory or the theory will have to be altered to explain them.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the minute you offer an alternative explanation you are 100% required to back said explanation up with positive evidence.
In science and positivism, yes, but for those who view those things as only one part of our entire worldview, no. That’s why I mentioned that I still have reservations about discounting ID proponents altogether rather than determining a way for the philosophical discussions to define the boundaries of science (not putting forth a theory as a scientific one, but challenging the scientific theories’ frontiers as they interface with nonscientific philosophies about the origin and processes of the universe.)
Could someone enumerate some of those things?
That is covered by appropriately teaching scientific method. If this is the true goal then strengthen the program learning objectives relative to the teaching of scientific method.
But, again we are speaking about what should happen in a science classroom.
So you want to possibly change the definition of science making it broader and including things that cannot be shown or disproven and possibly even removing the requirement of positive evidence? That or any permutation of that does not seem worthwhile and actually seems quite destructive to the utility of science.
As to discussions on the frontiers of science and philosophy, they are interesting and most scientists have these discussions (as do nonscientists). They do have there place, perhaps in free-form discussions in a science class or more appropriately in discussions and teaching in a philosophy class and of course in many less formal settings.
So you want to possibly change the definition of science making it broader and including things that cannot be shown or disproven and possibly even removing the requirement of positive evidence?
No, not at all. What I’m suggesting is that I think there’s a need for interdisciplinary conversations or debates. You’re right that those types of debates aren’t totally absent, but I don’t think it should be left to just casual discussion or to say the place for that is ONLY in the philosophy classroom. I feel that scientists are becoming too insular, I suppose. It’s very appropriate to say that nonscientific thinking doesn’t belong in science- but increasingly I find that scientific opinions are carrying so much weight in the public square and there’s a growing disdain for other types of thinking.
But, again we are speaking about what should happen in a science classroom.Yes, that was the jumping off point but the conversation also veers in the direction of what types of questions are being asked by researchers, how are theories formulated and sustained, etc. I do agree that there should be a difference in approach between what happens in the research field and how it’s presented to students at elementary through high school level- but I think it’s important not to dumb it down either and as you put it, appropriately teaching scientific method.
If this is the true goal then strengthen the program learning objectives relative to the teaching of scientific method.
Well, I think that’s what most of us were arguing previously in this discussion. The point being that even if the people who introduced this wording had ulterior motives, the goals as stated were not incorrect and only implied a correct and thorough teaching of the scientific method with appropriate questioning. Instead of fighting this because it bears some taint of ID proponents, scientists could accept it and agree on the importance of that and then use vigilance to make sure that it’s not twisted into something else in the way the curriculum is devised and delivered. Or, introduce their own wording which advances the same idea but specifies that this does not mean that ‘weaknesses’ can be defined to mean questioning the theory on a nonscientific basis.
Just a bit of a side note really and this not meant as an argument against the entirety of the evolutionary theory…Harvard Professor Stephen J Gould, upon concluding that the degree of gradualism as suggested by Darwin was virtually non existent in the fossil record, proposed the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. In summation of his own theory Gould wrote the following in a 1977 magazine essay:
“A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare—as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.
“What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”
The problem I find with this theory is it is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. Basically, Gould uses what is lacking or virtually non existent in the fossil record to prove his point, which is of course circular reasoning and contrary to the scientific method.
Again I say, at best any view of the origins of our world can be no more than a well supported THEORY. Any line of questioning that infers a dissent to the evolutionary theory can be, has been, as is often received by science teachers or professors with hostility. Such has been my personal experience and the experience of many others.
In university, I asked my biology professor some questions which he apparently considered most lacking. As a result, this professor during the course of the semester brought in a paper (by Gould) for me to read, made me the object of many disrespectful comments and sarcastic remarks and placed the center of attention on me numerous times while attempting to thwart any further questions of the kind. I was more than happy to go back and forth with my professor respectfully, but he didn’t quite play fair you might say. If he was ever cornered in an argument he simply made a sarcastic remark and sent the class on a five minute break.
I enjoyed my biology class and this professor none the less, but my point is that many students will not go respectfully head to head with a teacher in a science class, because they too are often times singled out as a misfit of sorts. I would like to see a classroom environment where no one is on their soap box and (or in the least) where questions and disagreements on the theory of origins do not create hostility or enemies.
Three things:
1) Yes, that is true.
2) I am not sure the word theory in the context of science means what you think it means.
3) Evolutionary theory does not touch on the origins of our world or even the origin of life.
That depends very much on the line of dissent and how it is presented. When the dissent is often repeatetive, uninformed, and often rude then scientists (and people in general) can get their backs up. It is no longer uncommon on college campuses to have biology students object to evolution being taught at all. The same thoroughly disproven assertions are brought to class semester after semester and too often this is not done respectfully.
Firstly I am curious what that question was. You might even have it answered here. Secondly, regardless of how uninformed the lecturer thought the question was he/she should have been respectful. The response should have been either to answer the question directly or to put the question off until after class if he/she did not think it merited classroom discussion. Any bullying or disrespectful commentary is totally out of bounds for anyone in that position. I do not think the experience that you related is at all typical. Professors and lecturers are used to all manner of uninformed comment and questions, they are there after all to inform and to teach others how to inform themselves.
1) My experience is that this is the typical classroom environment. The only hostility I have seen has come not from teachers, but from students and occasionally parents upset that non-science topics were not given time in science classrooms.
2) Evolution is not a theory of origins of life, it deals only with the development of living things after life came to be. There is no universally accepted model for the origins of life and this topic continues to be hotly debated by scientists (and others). Any creator that defies human understanding and leaves no evidences lies outside the scope of the scientific pursuit of these answers and so is not included in scientific discussions and science classrooms. That is not to say that such discussions are without value, just that they are non-science.
For a second opinion on the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, see http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Creationism/intelligent design and all the variations are a manifestation of the fear that science makes religion irrelevant, an insecurity for which teaching creationism/creation science/intelligent design is their cultural “cure”.
A number of Christians call science “anti-god” when in fact science has very little to do with one’s personal religious beliefs. Darwin himself was quite religious to the end of his life. Another aspect of all this is that since prayer was banned in schools, certain groups of Christians have tried to insinuate their religion into the public school system by other means and have for decades used evolution as their back door. They create moving targets to adjust to scientific arguments – they change the names, or packaging, they try to hide their sources of support-often fundamental religious organizations. Sort of like trying to float like a butterfly. Except the butterfly doesn’t really fly, no matter how often the creationists ‘evolve’ their marketing tactics to have scripture, or a variation of scripture, or even a hint of scripture taught in public schools.
They were caught red-handed in Dover in 2005 when a Republican (and church-going)judge ruled that there was “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
So this really isn’t a scientific argument. It is a socio-political argument that includes the exercise of political power by religious organizations in a secularly governed country and their efforts to undermine the teaching of science, and sometimes even the application and advancement of science. It’s kind of like having the 7th Day Adventists come knocking at your door every year – never mind that it is an unneighborly act of total disrespect for others religious or non-religious beliefs – and they never, ever, stop. They will always try to get that foot in the door. So like these semiannual solicitations at your door, we have an ongoing political battle, sometimes tossed into national politics as red meat for the masses.
Perhaps their efforts and tremendous amounts of money would be better spent feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, etc.
Marcus, what the heck are you talking about?
You have an endless stream of Seventh Day Adventists knocking at your door asking for money? Where do you live?
I’ve never had such a solicitation in my life. And the only time I’ve seen religious groups knocking on doors like that, it was to witness the gospel to try to convert people, not to ask for money. Mind you, I don’t think that’s an effective strategy and I don’t condone the intrusion into people’s homes like that, but I can’t imagine that some group actually goes door to door asking for donations for their religious group (for a noncharitable mission.)
And furthermore, the Seventh Day Adventists, while IMO a bit extreme in their religious views, seem to be pretty grounded in charitable giving- here’s a <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Development_and_Relief_Agency”Wiki link about their Development and Relief Agency, which gets highest ratings from all of the charity watchdog groups.
So instead of spending your time complaining about something that you seem to know nothing about, perhaps you are the one who could find better use of your time.
C. Stanley, thanks for going totally off the subject and missing the entire point about the politics and duplicity of creationism.
BTW, twice yearly is not an endless stream. And if you read carefully, “their” refers to the creationists, not the 7th Day Adventists, with whom I had a marvelous time with at a pot luck many years ago in the small town of Angwin, California.
Hyperbole and deflection.
Nice, but woefully ineffective.