Re: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute

As the following letter so clearly explains, the 'teach the
controversy' is a fallacious argument

<quote>
Dr. Daniel I. Bolnick
Section of Integrative Biology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, 78701 512-471-2824
danbolnick@mail.utexas.edu

Dear Mr. Scott,

Thank you for your reply to the biologists' letter concerning the
TEA's "neutrality" regarding evolution and intelligent design. I have
forwarded your response to my colleagues. I believe I can speak for
most of the faculty who signed the letter (now over 150), when I say
that the work that you and the TEA do to strengthen K–12 education in
Texas is appreciated. It is precisely because we recognize your
efforts that we felt it would be helpful to contact you with our
concerns as professional educators and researchers in the biological
sciences.

I and the other signers of the biologists' letter recognize the
distinction between the policy-setting role of the Board of Education
and the implementation duties of the TEA. As public bodies, both must
be responsive to the public's concerns. However, it is also essential
that these public bodies stand for the highest educational standards
that reflect the current state of scientific knowledge. Listening to
the public is essential, but the public is not always fully informed
or correct when it comes to technical matters like the content of a
science curriculum.

There is an old joke about the tendency of elected bodies such as
school boards to want to compromise: If group A thinks that 2 + 2 is
4, and group B thinks 2 + 2 is 6, the school board will declare that 2
+ 2 is 5. (My favorite historical example is the Indiana State
Legislature's House Bill No. 246, which passed 67 to 0 and redefined
the mathematical constant pi to be 3.2, rather than 3.14159…, at the
urging of a doctor and amateur mathematician Dr. Edwin Goodwin.) There
are times when 2 + 2 simply has to equal 4, and pi does not equal 3.2
no matter what the House Bill said.

Likewise, evolution has overwhelming empirical support, while there is
zero original empirical research supporting intelligent design, and no
credible evidence against evolution.

You write "that anything said will be scrutinized and may be
interpreted as representing a position of the agency or State Board of
Education." The Board's position on science education should be to
provide the best and most accurate science possible, regardless of the
political consequences. There are times when public bodies need to
lead, and this is one of them. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I
urge both the Board and the TEA to exercise such leadership by issuing
statements that unambiguously support the teaching of evolution and
omission of intelligent design in public classrooms. The full weight
of scientific evidence would be on your side. The scientific community
is agreed that evolution should not only be taught, but taught in a
straightforward manner, unqualified by alleged "weaknesses" that are
invariably based on faulty logic or misrepresentations of available
data.

This is emphatically not an attempt to suppress contrary viewpoints.
Rather, it is a professional judgment that the claims of "weaknesses"
in evolution are based on shoddy scholarship. We wish to assure you
that not a single so-called weakness promoted by anti-evolutionists
has passed scientific muster. For example, the Discovery Institute's
recent publication Exploring Evolution: The Arguments for and against
Neo-Darwinism, which was written to facilitate classroom discussions
of "weaknesses," is demonstrably full of factual errors and logical
fallacies. We would be more than happy to help you understand the
flaws in any of the "weakness" arguments that you or members of the
Board are uncertain about.

This is not to say that there are no controversies in evolution. But
the genuine controversies concern esoteric points about how evolution
works, not whether it works. Such debates are a normal component of
active research in any scientific field, and do not signify the
existence of "weaknesses". For example, there is currently a vigorous
debate over whether coding or regulatory genetic changes contribute
more to evolution. Coding changes alter the structure of proteins and
their functions; regulatory changes alter when and where a given
protein is produced. Clear instances of both types of evolutionary
change have been documented, but their relative importance is a
subject of active research. Personally, I would love to see these
kinds of debates taught in science classes, but they do not represent
"weaknesses" in evolution as a whole. The difficulty is that
understanding these topics requires a substantial level of background
knowledge. In the case I just outlined, students must understand how
coding and regulatory genes work, but gene regulation is not covered
until university-level biology courses, so students are not equipped
to investigate this topic until late in their undergraduate careers.
The same pedagogical problem arises for many of the supposed
"weaknesses" of evolution described in creationist sources like
Explore Evolution

In your response to the biologists' letter, you mentioned Process
Skill 3A, which taken on its face, is innocuous and seems to be
admirable pedagogy: "The student uses critical thinking and scientific
problem solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected
to: (A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations
including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and
weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." You correctly
identified 3A as being applied to all science standards from 3rd grade
through the discipline-related standards for high school. From its
ubiquity across the curriculum, we assume that the purpose of 3A is to
encourage students to exercise scientific reasoning, which is quite
appropriate. However, you probably recall that in 2003, during the
textbook adoption hearings, the evolution-related standards were the
only standards to which 3A directly was applied, in an effort to
weaken the coverage of evolution in the books. An attempt to force
textbook publishers to rewrite their textbooks to include non-existent
"weaknesses" almost succeeded. This would have resulted in students in
Texas and nationally being miseducated about evolution. Upon entry to
university science classes, they would have to unlearn the spurious
"weaknesses" they had been taught in high school, which is profoundly
unfair to them.

We look forward to working with the SBoE to rephrase 3A to encourage
critical thinking in all the sciences, without providing a backdoor
for scientifically unsound "weaknesses" that are currently being
promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist
organizations. Dropping the "strengths and weaknesses" language from
the TEKS is an important first step. I and others of my colleagues are
willing to assist the TEA or the TEKS reviewing committees in this
effort. Having science standards that accurately reflect the
scientific community's consensus is essential to the successful
education of Texas students.

In conclusion, biology faculty around the state are deeply concerned
that next year Texas will be a battleground where creationists
(including advocates of intelligent design and "weaknesses" of
evolution) try to water down evolution education. This would harm
public understanding of biology (already poor), weaken the quality of
university-bound biology students, and undermine Texas's ability to
compete in tomorrow's biotechnology-driven economy. I hope that as the
TEKS revisions move forward, both the TEA and the Board adopt firm
stances in support of improving evolution education. I also hope that
the the Board consults more extensively with Ph.D. biologists among
the highly qualified research and teaching faculty at universities
around Texas. Finally, on behalf of all my co-signers, I extend an
invitation to you to discuss details of evolutionary biology with
faculty from any of the universities in Texas. There is a vast reserve
of knowledge about science and in particular about evolution in this
state that is at your disposal as you and the the Board work to
understand the current state of knowledge on this topic. Please avail
yourself of this resource, and take a firm stand in support of
increased quality of evolution education in Texas.

Sincerely,

Dr. Daniel Bolnick, University of Texas at Austin

P.S. You commented on the disclaimer in our original letter, that the
letter reflected our own professional opinions. I should point out
that this was only added because the ouster of Ms. Comer created an
atmosphere of intimidation. A number of faculty expressed concern over
possible retribution from their state employers for signing the
letter. Some chose not to sign for fear of their jobs, others signed
on the condition that the disclaimer be added.
</quote>
On Dec 22, 2007 2:30 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >• The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary
> explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
> >• The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian
> evolution
> >• The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common
> descent
> >• The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the
> genetic code
> >• The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos
> diverge from the beginning of development.
>
> I think some of these are valid unknowns and significant challenges to a
> non-theistic evolutionary paradigm, and these could be valuable
> contributions to a "teach the controversy" approach, but the problem with
> this negative attack on the unknowns while dismissing the known evidences
> for evolution leaving only their alternative for special creation discredits
> and taints anything positive they may stumble upon.
>
> All of these questions above could be used effectively by TE's to show why
> Dawkins' AE position is a matter of faith, and could be used as a very
> strong support for a creator and a Christian worldview, but we can't because
> ID keeps screwing it up with these childish, negative, anti-science attacks.
> They are confusing and missing the distinction between evolution as a
> mechanism and the philosophical baggage that Dawkins and others are adding
> on to it. This is the real controversy that should be taught. But this shows
> that they are not interested in defending God or the Truth, just their own
> spiritually prideful interpretation of special creation.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of j burg
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: [asa] New foray by the DISCOVER Institute
>
>
>
> Just noted today:
>
>
>
> From the Christian Post:
>
> An intelligent design think tank has launched a new website recounting the
> failures of Darwinism that were left unmentioned by study materials on a PBS
> documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial.
>
>
> Related
> Intelligent Design Group Accuses PBS of Promoting Unconstitutional Teaching
>
> The Discovery Institute plans to post a slide show presentation critiquing
> the online materials from PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on
> Trial" documentary on www.judgingpbs.com.
>
> The presentation, entitled "Darwin's Failed Predictions," challenges an
> assertion made by PBS that evidence "unequivocally supports the theory of
> evolution by natural selection."
>
> "The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that
> natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change," according to
> Anika Smith, a contributor for the group's Center for Science & Culture.
>
> "Moreover, key postulates of Darwin's theory – universal common descent, the
> continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under
> intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including
> molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and
> paleontology," Smith added.
>
> According to the website, some of Darwin's failed predictions include:
>
> • The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary
> explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features
> • The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian
> evolution
> • The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common
> descent
> • The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic
> code
> • The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos
> diverge from the beginning of development.
>
>
>
> Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 22 21:27:29 2007