Evolution Education in Texas
What is in a word?
Weakness.
What does it signify?
Well, to the debate taking place across the United States over science education standards it has come to mean much more than it should. Weakness is the word that is used to instill uncertainty in the minds of people. Because science is unable to know everything, then how could it know how we humans came to be? How can science have discovered the links from more primitive organisms to the complexity that makes us who we are? Uncertainty is a weakness in the minds of some people, and they would like an alternative view discussed.
The problem is that the science of evolution is not uncertain about the general process anymore. Over 100 years of scientific investigation have built the theory. There have been no studies that negate the process of evolution. Each study that brings new knowledge to the workings of the evolutionary process just make the theory richer.
What is viewed as weakness by some is actually a strength of science. Science has the capacity as a tool to make new discoveries.
The language intended to bring Creationism into the Texas classrooms will only serve to bring uncertainty about the scientific process. That is its intent — to undermine knowledge in favor of dogma.
If the intent of the Creationist members of the Texas school board is to allow critical thinking and knowledge seeking to thrive in the classroom, they should have accepted a motion to change the language from “teach the strengths and weaknesses” to “including discussing what is not fully understood in all fields of science.” But, they didn‘t.
So far, knowledge survives. But, just barely… with a vote of 7-7 yesterday, the language is supported by half of the Texas school board. That in itself is too much. The board is voting again today. Fingers crossed.
Update: The evolution specific amendment passed, 13 – 2, with the following wording: “In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”
For up to the minute blogging from the Texas school board meeting check out the Texas Freedom Network.
Filed under Science & Politics | Comments (9)9 Responses to “Evolution Education in Texas”
Leave a Reply
The 20 year old language in Texas law requiring teachers to teach strength as doubt and serving as a lever for the promulgation of specific religious beliefs in the classroom – was struck down today (yesterday?). The late Stephen Jay Gould in (I believe) his book Rock of Ages, made a compelling and entertaining argument that this controversy didn’t need to exist at all. If we viewed religion and science as what he called “non-overlapping magisterium”, it would be simple to teach religion (not in the schools!) as religion w/out its silly intrusion on science. Conversely, it would be simple to teach science in the schools (where, aside from everywhere, is where it belongs) without intruding on religious beliefs.
Despite this modest victory for rationality (in the areas where rationality belongs, thank you SJG), it’s still interesting to learn that regular Gallup polls place the number of Americans who believe that man emerged in the, oh, past 10,000 years or so when the “earth was created” at close to 50%. I wonder how many people believe that Man sprang full blown from the forehead of. . . .naahhh! We’ve just substituted an “on the face of it silly by today’s standards” creation myth with a more acceptable one.
Love your blog. Keep up the good work!!
Cheers
-Jeff
This is crazy. How can this happen in America?
Thoughts are things. It takes the same amount of energy to think about science as it does creationism. They both burn the same calories at the same pace. The difference is that science doesn’t deliberately think the same thought all the time. So I would suggest that we tax same though people at a higher rate than people that are open to new thoughts. Now for the challenge for science it to develop a new thought and thoughtless tax structure. I sure the creationists would never think of that.
Kirsten,
Just let me say that you really Excel at communicating your ideas both in your writing AND on This Week In Science. I love the conversational tone and ease with which you bring a Science/fact based point of view to the topics you communicate about.
Keep up the great work!
The alternative to scientific uncertainty is religious certitude which of course is a euphemism for stupendous ignorance. I know because my fairy book told me so.
@Jeffrey Lemkin:
Stephen Gould did attract criticism from horrible people like me who called him an apologist for religion. Gould either refused to acknowledge dogmatic belief as anathema to science and progress or else he was trying to make peace between science and religion – either way he was wrong in doing so. Reason remains the greatest enemy of any religion; religious institutions have lamented over the past centuries that education, and specifically the encouragement to think and reason correctly, was to blame for their decline. Does the pope ever make a speech about how science and reason have been responsible for feeding an ever-growing population? No, but the pope (pick any of them) loves to give a speech on how reason is to blame for all the evils of the world because it causes people to forget about their gods. You can hear the same nonsense from any cult of unreason.
Must we always hit the panic button for the issue of Evolution in the science books. I think most students looking at the material for the theory of evolution are more then capable of a making a decision for themselves. Also most students will more then likely pull material from other sources to get a deeper understanding of the subject material. So to haggle over the precise wording in a science book is really a waste of time.
To answer your question statement Kirsten, “How does Science know that human beings came to be?” It doesn’t the essence of being and of existence is a philosophy question and way beyond the scope of the scientific method. Science is fundamentally a knowledge of things through their proper causes. In other words science measures things. Science can prove we are a live by measuring are blood pressure and our heart beat. Science can also point out that the human body is a product of a series of chemical reactions and the constraints surrounding those chemical reactions. But Science can not answer the question what it means to “be”, that is a question for philosophy.
Here is a better example. Take Love for example. Science can’t tell us what love is. It can measure the level of different hormones in the human body, perhaps measure a change in body temperature or blood pressure but science can not define what love is. That is an another question for Philosophy.
So when the question comes up in high school biology class, where did we come from? To answer the question properly involves issues that touch on science, philosophy, and for some theology as well.
@alloycowboy
Yes, we must hit the panic button.
There are many responsible parents in the world who help to teach their children to think critically, and to always look for additional sources of information. However, there are many who do not.
For the children of the latter grouping of parents, the information they get from the school books is essential to their education. It might be all they ever get.
Should we accept sub-standard textbooks that promote inaccurate interpretations of science in our schools because we expect students to get their information elsewhere?
Science is a tool for gathering knowledge about the world. It is a framework for asking and answering questions. Theological discussions of such questions are not appropriate for the science classroom, and theology’s influence should not be felt in science textbooks.
Science is precise. The language that is used to teach it should be just as precise. Otherwise, we aren’t teaching science, we are teaching ideology.
That words have precise meaning (even though many of us are very sloppy in our use of them). That precise and often subtle meaning can have powerful consequences is not lost on those who have been undermining science standards.