Joel,
See my comments below.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Joel Duff" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 2:02 PM
Subject: ID in Ohio, proposed changes to curriculum
> Hi
> I did attend the event in Cleveland though I don't have time for a full
> report at this time. What I would be interested in is some advice for how
> to deal with the currently proposed curriculum changes. I am in the
> position to make are real contribution to the final wording of the Ohio
> standards. I would like to post a few of the proposed changes here for
> discussion and refer you to the full list that can be found on-line at:
> http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm
>
> This coming Monday and Tuesday there will be some dialogue in Columbus on
> Monday between Miller/Kraus and Wells/Meyer. From hearing Miller/Kraus
last
> Saturday and knowing how Wells/Meyer represent themselves, I suspect there
> will be much more heat than light at this confrontation. I won't be able
to
> attend but I know several that will be there.
>
> Thanks,
> Joel
>
> Below are some of the proposed amendments to the current curriculum for
> those that have not seen them (I've only picked out some of the more
> controversial ones, see the web site for the entire list):
>
> ___________________________
>
> Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #21, page 66. Know how
life
> on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4
> billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth, only
> single-celled micro-organisms existed, but once cells with nuclei
developed
> about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms
> evolved.
>
> Modified indicator. Know that according to evolutionary theory, life on
> earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms shortly
after
> the time when the earth first became habitable. During most of the history
> of the earth, only single-celled micro-organisms existed, but once cells
> with nuclei developed, increasingly complex multicellular organisms
> developed. Know that evolutionary biology, as a historical science, forms
a
> tentative reconstruction of events and processes that have already taken
> place.
>
>Schneider's comments: Since the first sentence begins with evolutionary
theory, the second should follow. But by substituting "developed" for
"evolved," the revisers of the second sentence have gutted the notion of
teaching evolution, i.e., descent with modification, as the reigning
explanation for the history of life. As for the added sentence,
evolutionary biology is much more than a historical science; it is that to
be sure but only in part. It is also a testable science: evolutionary
connections can be established in the laboratory now, and students should
not only be taught that but should learn of examples. So the added sentence
is a falsification of the facts. The emergence of domains and new classes,
etc. is of course a reconstruction, but it is based on an enormous amount of
evidence, a fact which the added sentence does not convey. Rather, the use
of the word "tentative" (true in itself) looks like it was designed to
create the impression that this reconstruction is only a "guess," that dirty
word anti-evolutionists love to use, or to cast doubt on the validity of any
historical reconstruction.
_________________________
>
> Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #22, page 66. Know
> historical scientific developments occurred in evolutionary thought (e.g.,
> Darwin, Mendel, Lamarck).
>
> Modified indicator. Know historical scientific developments that occurred
in
> evolutionary thought, including alternative theories that have been
> considered (e.g., Paley, Darwin, Lamarck, Mendel, Behe).
Schneider's comment: In their desire to sneak Behe in (using Paley as his
blocker), they have confused the subject matter. Mendal did not present an
alternate theory to evolution; his work was later recognized to provide an
explanation for the changes in organisms that Darwin observed but was unable
to explain. Paley, as George Murphy noted, offered a theological
explanation, and Behe's work is not theoretical. ID proponents like to
speak of ID as a theory, but that is a misuse of the term--a point you
should hammer home to the board. And when has Behe's "theory" "been
considered"? If it has been considered by anyone, it has been by
evolutionists, and they have found considerable evidence to undermine its
explanatory value. The revision leaves the false impression that Behe's
hypothesis has the same standing as, say, Lamark's, which had a much longer
history, was embraced and defended by a number of prominent naturalists, and
could still be said to be a viable model for cultural evolution.
>
> ________________________
>
>
> Current draft indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences #24, page 66. Understand
> that natural selection provides the following mechanism for evolution:
some
> variation in heritable characteristics exists within every species, some
of
> these characteristics give individuals an advantage over others in
surviving
> and reproducing, and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely
than
> others to survive and reproduce. The proportion of individuals that have
> advantageous characteristics will increase.
>
> Notes. Again no modification is suggested, since this basically describes
> microevolution. None of the original indicators states the Darwinian
> argument that natural selection over long periods time results in
> macroevolution.
>
> New indicator. Grade 10, Life Sciences (insert after #24, page 66). Know
> that some scientists support the theory of intelligent design, which
> postulates that the influence of some form of intelligence is a viable
> alternative explanation for both the origin and diversity of life. Compare
> and contrast the evidence that supports the design hypothesis with the
> evidence that supports the evolutionary hypothesis.
Schneider's comment: again, there is the same confusion of language. ID is
NOT a theory. A theory is a tested, established, and not yet falsified
explanation. ID has yet to reach this stage; it is at best a hypothesis.
The revisers recognize this in their second sentence with the phrase "design
hypothesis" but they falsely characterized evolution as a "hypothesis" when
it is a paradigm with a well-established theory. You should call them on
their confusing and inaccurate use of terminology. I note in my dictionary
that the word "postulate" means (1) "claim," (2) "assume without proof to be
true, real, or necessary," and (3) "to take as self-evident or axiomatic;
assume." I would argue that they have chosen an appropriate verb, but it's
probably what they do not intend to mean. If it is what they intend to
mean, then ID has no place in a science classroom as a "viable alternative
explanation." It has yet to establish its viability, and until it does it
belongs in a course in contemporary culture that deals with the controversy
but not in a science course.
Hope this helps.
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
>
> __________________________
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 09 2002 - 20:42:13 EST