I had intended to make some comments about this myself but hadn't
been able to find the time. Let me play piggy back on Richard's post
to save myself a little time. :)
At 02:01 PM 8/12/00 +0100, Richard wrote:
>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."
I had a somewhat different observation to make here. Johnson claimed that
evolution was still being taught but is this really the case? All of us have
heard over and over that almost all creationists (now) accept microevolution.
In essence, this is now a part of creationist "theory". So, what we have being
taught is really a creationist interpretation of evolution. To further
illustrate
this point, Johnson went on to say:
Johnson:" In certain ways, I would say that the board's standards actually
beefed
up the treatment of the subject rather than watering it down. For example, they
added new clauses to the educators' draft saying that natural selection can
maintain
or deplete genetic variation but does not add new genetic information."
Is this beefing up the coverage of evolution or is it presenting a
creationist interpretation
of same?
[...]
>Johnson: "That is basically what happened in Kansas."
RW:===
>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.
For me, the most significant thing was the devious tactics employed by
certain board members in getting their changes to the guidelines. I
talked about this some time ago. The situation is clear in the minutes
of the meetings which are available on the web. One wonders what
would happen if some evolutionists on the board employed similar
tactics. It seems Johnson wants to make these guys (and gals) out to
be heros.
[...]
>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."
RW:==
>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.
Actually, I believe Johnson to be correct. But there is a very important point.
The implication is that the controversy surrounds macroevolution itself.
After all, this is what's being left out. But the controversy is really
over whether
microevolution extrapolates to macroevolution.
Actually, I'm not at all opposed to teaching the controversy, provided there is
time. But the real controversy is what is should be taught. Not, as above, a
creationist interpretation of the controversy. By and large, the criticism of
extrapolationism has come from developmental/structural (D/S) biologists.
So, if the controversy is to be taught, then one would have to include a
little D/S biology. Of course, this might be hard to do justice in a high
school
course :). But one should make sure the controversy is clear. It is not about
macroevolution, which would be almost universally accepted by D/S biologists.
It is about how it occurred, whether it can be accounted for by an
extrapolation
of microevolution.
It might also be extremely interesting to use this as an example of how science
works. Compare, for example, the approach taken by a minority group such as
the developmental/structural biologists and contrast it with the approach taken
by many creationist groups. Well, I'm just being mischievous here :), this
really
belongs in philosophy of science.
[...]
Thanks for the time and effort that you obviously spent Richard. I
mentioned earlier what
an impact the minutes of the board meeting had on me. Seeing the details
(before/after)
of the changes is equally enlightening. Phil said he was going to explain
what happened.
Well, to me its very clear what happened. The problem is, IMHO, that so few
will bother
to look.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 12 2000 - 21:04:01 EDT