I decided to look through the Kansas Board of Education science standards
(http://www.kcfs.org/compare.html) to see just what was changed by the BOE,
and see how this compared with Phillip Johnson's rhetoric
(http://www.eppc.org/library/conversations/04-evolutioncurriculum.html).
Here are a few notes I've made.
Johnson: "The new guidelines covered natural selection, mutation, genetic
drift, and all of that. But the educators' draft had essentially said, These
processes explain evolution at the micro level that we observe and also
evolution at the macro level; they explain how man and his universe came to
be. By contrast, the board majority drew a sharp distinction between
micro-evolution--e.g., what occurs when insects become resistant to a
particular insecticide, or changes are produced in domestic animals through
breeding--and the origins story of how living things came to be in the first
place. The gist of their final version was that you can't infer the latter
from the former."
Johnson misleadingly equates macroevolution with the origin of life.
Easterbrook, in his article, also talks a lot about the origin of life. In
fact, neither the original draft standards nor the BOE's final version
mention anything about the origin of life.
Johnson: "Well, natural selection is not, many of us would argue, an
information-creating mechanism. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find
many people who believe that it is and that this can be demonstrated."
This is rubbish. The mainstream scientific community has no problem at all
with the idea that natural selection (together with random mutation) can
create information. And our own Tedd Hadley has cited a paper which
demonstrates it happening in practice.
Johnson: "That is basically what happened in Kansas."
Johnson's summary mentions only the issues of macro-/microevolution and
creation of information. But the BOE's changes went far further than that...
Johnson is misinforming by omission. Clearly, he knows that the wider
audience (non-YECs) will have more difficulty accepting these other changes,
so he keeps quiet about them. The BOE also made substantial changes to the
sections on geology and astronomy, in order to support their YEC agenda.
Johnson says nothing about that.
Johnson: "Of course the Republicans said, Local control good; national
regulation bad."
To imply that the participants in the dispute were split along party lines
is highly misleading. The victorious candidates in the recent BOE elections
were also Republicans (if I'm not mistaken).
Also, I note that creationists/ID proponents are quite happy to accept
higher level regulation when it suits them; for example, when state
legislatures have required the insertion of disclaimers into textbooks. To
represent this as a matter of local versus national or state control is
disingenous.
Johnson: "Whether you can extrapolate the one from the other has been
discussed for a century in scientific circles, and some leading scientists
have expressed great skepticism as to whether micro processes can add up to
macro ones."
Johnson fails to name any of these alleged "leading scientists". Even if he
really can find a few, he is giving a false impression that there is
substantial opposition to "macroevolution" (in the creationist sense of the
word) among mainstream scientists.
Johnson: "The irony is remarkable. A group of specialists almost all of whom
are non-believers-- that is, scientific materialists, either atheist or
agnostic--and who believe that science compels such a conclusion say to the
public that science is neutral on the God question. This has been figured
out, I can assure you, by the people in Kansas and lots of other people.
They consider that the scientific elite is simply lying through its teeth
about this issue."
Although I'm in agreement with Johnson that science is not neutral on the
God question, I think it's outrageous to say that those who think otherwise
are "lying through [their] teeth". Although Johnson cagily puts these words
into the mouths of Kansans, rather than his own, I think this makes it clear
how he feels about theistic evolutionists.
Johnson: "Further on that, because it is such a crucial point: my colleague
Michael Behe in his well-known book Darwin's Black Box says he has nothing
against common ancestry; there may be common ancestry from the first
bacterium up to present-day organisms (or there may not be; he accepts that
as a possibility). What he says is that you need an information source to
produce the irreducible complexity, and the materialist mechanism can't do
that. There has to be an intelligent designer guiding the process. Is Behe a
theistic evolutionist or a creationist? Is he a friend of science or an
enemy of science? In these terms, the answer is that he is an enemy of
science. Why? You could very easily call his view theistic evolution. What
makes Behe a heretic, rather than a member of the team, is that he says
there is evidence of the need for intelligence. You see, that crosses the
faith/reason boundary and brings the intelligent designer into the realm of
things that can be seen by evidence, that objective observers can evaluate,
instead of the realm of purely subjective belief. That is why he is on my
side rather than their side, whereas somebody else whose position sounds
superficially the same would be clearly on the other side."
I agree with Johnson here. I'm just including this passage for Steven
Crawford's benefit, as he seems unclear about what the ID position is. ;-)
Johnson: "Finally, for many problems it is hard to find the right answer.
This isn't one of them. This one is easy. The right answer is, "Teach the
controversy." That is what should be done in education at all levels, as
appropriate for the sophistication of the students. "
This sounds very reasonable. But it's vague. What does "teach the
contoversy" really mean? Presumably, to Johnson, it means teaching both the
mainstream arguments and the ID arguments, and leaving the children to
decide which are valid. But is it reasonable to expect children to be able
to make such a judgement without guidance? And isn't it the role of the
teacher to give such guidance? We don't expect children to decide for
themselves which mathematical theories are correct. (They may be asked to so
as an exercise, but the teacher will explain the correct answer afterwards.)
Furthermore, I think it's crazy to expect the average child to be able to
understand the arguments of Behe and Dembski, for example, which are very
deceptive, concealed by layers of equivocation and obfuscation.
"Teach the controversy" could also mean teaching the two sets of arguments
and explaining one some of those are valid scientific arguments and some are
not. I think this might well be a useful exercise in the case of YEC
arguments. In the case of the ID arguments, I have my doubts about whether
even the teachers will understand the issues clearly enough to do so.
Anyway, for the purpose of explaining the difference between science and
pseudoscience, it would probably be better to take a less controversial
example.
Johnson: "They should learn about the information-creation problem, the
natural-selection problems, the micro/macro problem."
Whatever you may think about the "natural-selection problem" (whatever that
is) and the "micro/macro problem", anyone who claims that the
"information-creation problem" should be taught in science classes is
dangerous. There *is no* information-creation problem. The idea is absurd.
Johnson: "I think that having a term other than "evolution" for what they
call micro evolution would be very useful. Words help you to think. The term
"evolution" is accordion-like. When the scientific establishment asks, "Has
evolution occurred?" they want to define evolution as any variation. So of
course it occurs. It occurs any time a baby is born. The gene pool is
altered. So they say, Evolution is a fact. That befogs the issue. Not even
the most biblical-literalist, fundamentalist- creationist doctrine holds
that there is no variation. Rather, it holds that God created certain basic
types with a capacity to vary well beyond the scope of what we observe as
micro evolution. If you talk about that as evolution, you're totally missing
the point."
Johnson's complaint about the lack of a clear definition of "evolution"
rings particularly hollow in this context, since the original standards gave
a clear definition of the term and also distinguished between macro- and
microevolution. But the BOE deleted the passage! Here it is:
"Benchmark 3: Students will understand* major concepts of biological
evolution.
Indicators: The students will understand:
1. That the theory of evolution is both the descent with modification of
different lineages of organisms
fromcommon ancestors and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to
environmental challenges and
changes (modified fromFutuyma, et al., 1999).
10 2. That biologists use the theory of evolution to explain the Earth's
present day biodiversity.
Example: Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are
documented in the fossil record.
The fossil record provides evidence of simple, bacteria-like life as far
back as 3.5 billion years ago.
Example: Macroevolution has been defined as evolution above the species
level; the evolution of higher
taxa and the product of evolutionary novelties such as new structures (Mayr,
1991). Macroevolution
continues the genetic mechanisms of microevolution and adds new
considerations of extinction, rate and
manner of evolution, competition between evolving units, and other topics
relevant to understanding
larger-scale evolution."
Finally, I'd like to list a small selection of the changes made by the BOE,
which show that their effect extends far beyond biological evolution.
[Deleted text is shown in square brackets.] {New text is shown in curly
braces.} My own comments are added.
"A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect and
civility, and teachers should not
ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view
or belief. In doing this,
teachers display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas,
skills, and experiences of all
students. {No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current
science theory should be
censored.}"
This addition seems to give carte blanche to teachers to teach any
pseudoscience they like, since there is no requirement that the analysis be
valid or approved by any scientific authority.
"[Patterns of Cumulative Change: Accumulated changes through time, some
gradual and some
sporadic, account for the present form and function of objects, organisms,
and natural systems. The
general idea is that the present arises from materials and forms of the
past. An example of cumulative
change is the biological theory of evolution, which explains the process of
descent with modification of
organisms from common ancestors. Additional examples are continental drift,
which is part of plate
tectonic theory, fossilization, and erosion. Patterns of cumulative change
also help to describe the
current structure of the universe.]"
This was one of the original standard's five "unifying concepts and
processes". Note that the BOE could have just deleted the example of
biological evolution, but chose to delete the whole concept of cumulative
change.
"10-3. Identify faulty reasoning [or] {of} conclusions [that] {which} go
beyond evidence and/or are not
supported by data {in a current scientific hypothesis or theory}.
[Example: Analyze evidence and data which support the theory of continental
drift.]
{Example: Analyze hypotheses about characteristics of and extinction of
dinosaurs. Identify the
assumptions behind the hypothesis and show the weaknesses in the reasoning
that led to the
hypothesis.}"
The first paragraph presupposes that there *is* faulty reasoning in a
current scientific hypothesis or theory, and the example attempts to cast
doubt on the validity of scientific hypotheses regarding dinosaurs.
"5. Trace [cultural, as well as] scientific, influences on the study of
astronomy."
It seems the BOE didn't want children to know about the Church's argument
with Galileo, although the BOE itself added the following statement
elsewhere in the document: "Understanding the history, nature of science and
limitations of science is fundamental to scientific learning."
"Example: [Evaluate the benefits of burning fossil fuels to meet energy
needs against the risks of global
warming.] {What temporary changes in the atmosphere are caused by the cars
and trees in our
community.}"
Seems designed to deny the possibility of long-term changes.
"3. [Display open-mindedness to new ideas.] {Learn about falsification.}
Example: [Share interpretations that differ from currently held explanations
on topics such as global
warming and dietary claims. Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of
stated conclusions.] {What
would we accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong?
How many times would we
have to prove the theory wrong to know that it is wrong? Answers: One car of
any color but black and
only one time. No matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it
only takes one proof that it is
false to show it to be false. It should be recognized that in the real world
it might take years to falsify a
theory.}"
Replaces the more general requirement to evaluate the validity of results
with the very limited criterion of falsification, which has been shown to
play only a small part in science. One wonders why the BOE members think
that they are more qualified than their panel of scientists to say what the
scientific method is.
"7. Assess the interrelationships between the rate of chemical reactions and
variables such as
temperature, concentration, and reaction type. {Why body tempeture remains
contant? What about
cold blooded animals?}"
This is one of a number of places where the BOE has thrown in changes for no
apparent reason. (This is from a section on "Physical Science - Chemistry".)
They've also taken the opportunity to introduce a spelling error. Actually,
it looks to me as if this was simply a marginal comment which accidentally
got incorporated into the final document. A bit picky of me to complain,
perhaps, but this is one of a number of badly written or erroneous
additions, which indicate a lack of attention to detail --hardly desirable
in an education standards document.
"[Understand: "Understand"does not mandate "belief."While students may be
required to understand
some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical
problems, they may accept or
reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where
students' and/or parents' religion
is at odds with science. See Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of
Science, National Academy of
Sciences, 1998, page 59.]"
This seems to me like a sensible approach, but it seems the BOE could not
abide the possibility that their religion might be at odds with science.
"5. Sexuality is [basic to healthy] {a serious component of being} human
[development.] {and it demands
strong personal reflection in light of the life-long effects on students.}"
I don't want to comment on the view expressed, but I feel that this is an
inappropriate statement for inclusion in a set of science standards.
"[Natural resources limit the capacity of ecosystems to sustain
populations.]"
The deletion of this sentence seems to indicate some agenda, but I'm not
sure what it is.
"Example: Some [advances that are fundamental and] {concepts have}
long-lasting {effects and} include:
Copernican revolution, Newtonian physics, relativity, geological time scale,
plate tectonics, atomic
theory, nuclear physics, {theory of} biological evolution, germ theory,
industrial revolution, molecular
biology, quantum theory, medical and health technology."
Note how, in its attempt to downplay the importance of biological evolution
and geology, the BOE also undermines every other major area of science.
"{Pollution -- the resulting conditions of something being made physically
impure or unclean. In the
biological world, one organism's waste is food for another. It's when an
ecological imbalance
occurs that you have pollution. Plants, animals and humans can all
contribute to the pollution of our
world.}"
Do I need to comment on this unscientific drivel?
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 12 2000 - 08:58:12 EDT