Response to ID/creationist proposal:
Patricia Princehouse, Case Western Reserve University
|
|
|
January 27, 2005 Dear Members of the Board, I teach evolutionary biology, and the history and philosophy of science at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH. I have done paleontological field work and museum work in Africa, Europe, and North America, and also worked in Richard Lewontin’s genetics lab at Harvard. I am keenly interested in how to teach science well at every level so that students can develop enthusiasm for science while learning the content of major scientific theories and the processes scientists use to achieve these successes. I understand your science standards have been targeted by some of the same creationists who attacked science education in Ohio in 2002. Examining the IDnet proposal, I see they are using the same tactics and arguments they used here in Ohio. I was very involved in the debate here, and I wish you the best of luck in extricating your science standards as best you can. John Calvert brought these same arguments to Ohio in 2002; his meddling helped manufacture a firestorm of public protest against ID and complex politics from which Ohio (and its national reputation) has yet to recover. Intelligent Design creationism is not a grassroots effort; it is a national lobbying program by a relatively small group of well-funded activists that gets recycled around the country ad infinitum. I urge you to do what West Virginia did when Calvert attempted to start this up there. They listened politely for 5 minutes, then told him they were not interested in hearing any more. The intelligent design creationists use a campaign of misinformation and outright lies to attack the very nature of science, using slogans and issues that are not scientifically supported. Virtually all of the proposed IDnet changes would alter your standards with one effect –the changes would make the standards wrong. In more detail, my impressions of IDnet’s proposed changes: IDnet thinks it can change the nature of science by fiat. Their suggested changes to your Science Standards Draft have nothing to do with improving science education, and everything to do with illegally disrupting science education at the service of narrow, sectarian religious indoctrination. Their pretense that “naturalistic science” (that is, the kind of science done every day by real working scientists) is somehow not “evidence-based” would be laughable in any other context, but here shows deep and stubborn scientific illiteracy, indeed an aversion to the very project of science. The proposal demonstrates astonishing contempt for the Board of Education, and the parents and children of Kansas. I’m sure you are already inclined to disregard the proposed changes, but in case it’s helpful, I’ll give a few examples of how egregiously the document departs from real scientific processes and practices.
Category 1: Revisions to the Introduction (n.b. In places where the IDnet “Summary of Proposed Revisions” departs from the actual order of the revisions, I have followed the actual order) a) I am struck by the suggestion that the Board and the public are to be “provided an opportunity to consider this alternative viewpoint” –as if these changes were somehow new material. In Kansas of all places, I would think the Board would well remember the public’s clear rejection of this alternative view in 2000. Clearly neither the expert writing team nor the majority of the public wants to incorporate these changes. Nevertheless, I don’t see any reason not to incorporate the word “informed” if the Board decides that is important; but its inclusion militates even more strongly against adopting the other IDnet changes since they would have the effect of misinforming students. The IDnet explanation makes it clear to any reasonable observer that they are trying to advance a specific narrow religious view by lumping the great diversity of everyone else’s views into one category (thereby gaining enormous coverage for their view). In doing so they run roughshod over science and demean the goals of quality education. A science content course should explain the major principles of broadly accepted theories in any particular science. The IDnet proposal seeks to shirk this responsibility in favor of turning science class into a bully pulpit for anti-scientific views. Consideration of the “intrinsic purpose” of human beings is an important topic for students to think about, however, it is not science. Science class is not supposed to supply all the educational needs of K-12 students –only their need for a basic understanding of the content of current science. Such questions are appropriate for courses in philosophy or religion or ethics. To pretend that they are the normal subject matter of biology is, to say the least, delusional.Category 1b It is very striking that IDnet wants to substitute half of the Ohio Academy of Science’s definition of science (lightly edited) for the current wording. No doubt, this is because to provide students with the OAS’ entire definition would be to give them the information they would need to definitively reject Intelligent Design as anti-scientific nonsense. [be more specific] Their claim that “a core claim of evolutionary theory is that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion” grossly misrepresents the field. This is a misstatement of a view espoused by Richard Dawkins, but even when correctly stated, the view is not considered useful by many of his fellow evolutionary biologists. The IDnet misrepresentation hinges on the many different meanings the word design can have. For example, when a child dribbles blobs of finger paint onto a sidewalk & an adult asks what it’s a picture of, s/he might say “it’s a design” –meaning it doesn’t represent a specific intention. When most biologists (eg Sean Carroll) talk about the “design of organisms” they are discussing the ways in which evolutionary mechanisms, especially natural selection, have molded the lineage’s adaptations. The “design” in this case is not illusory in the least; it has a clear naturalistic explanation with no need to go beyond the realm of natural science. IDnet attempts to imply that biologists who discuss the design of organisms are somehow invoking supernatural special creation through divine intervention. That is not true. Similarly, the IDnet proposal plays fast and loose with the law, citing a draft of the No Child Left Behind Act. This draft contains language proposed by Santorum and subsequently excluded by congress in the final form of the law. When language is removed from the draft of a law, that is evidence that the legislators specifically considered that idea and then deliberately decided they did not want the law to be applied in that manner. The IDnet explanation of methodological naturalism displays crushing ignorance of both the nature and history of science. Methodological naturalism goes by another more common name, it’s usually called the “scientific method” and it is the traditional definition of science –a definition used by scientists from Newton on down, not because of any anti-God agenda, but because that’s what science is. Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Methodological naturalism in no way renders teleological (aka “design”) conceptions of nature invalid; but it cannot make such conceptions scientific either. Teleological explanations lie in the realm outside of scientific investigation. The consideration of meaning and purpose in your life or mine is not a matter to be adjudicated by science. It is a matter for our individual moral consciences. These are theological questions that simply cannot be addressed by science. Did God have a goal in mind when He created the laws of nature? That’s a fascinating and legitimate question –but it’s not a question open to scientific investigation. Why did God use evolution to create the beauty and diversity of life forms we see all around us? Another wonderful question, but not one that science can answer. Science is a very limited way of knowing; its strength comes from knowing its limitations. Perhaps the most important limitation is that science limits itself to natural causes for natural phenomena. In this way, people of all different religions –who differ sharply on the theological questions mentioned above—can come together on common ground and agree on scientific explanations, even though they have very different views on the supernatural. I will decline to address the delusional fantasy of what may or may not constitute the fictional realm of “origins science” other than to say that no such field is recognized by any legitimate scientific organization. Thus a class in “origins science” is certainly not something that should be taught in school.
Category 1c At issue here is whether specific guidelines should suggest possible techniques by which teachers could avoid getting sidetracked on potentially very interesting questions (such as ‘Why did God use evolution to create the beauty and diversity of life forms we see all around us?’) that nonetheless do not further the educational goals of science content courses. The IDnet proposal supports allowing students to disrupt lessons by using up class time on philosophical and religious questions –class time that is supposed to be spent learning science. Category 1d The IDnet suggestion is bizarre. The proposed change does not accord with the text of the section nor does it advance the educational goals of the standard. The current wording in no way suggests that science is somehow omniscient. The only purpose of such a disclaimer is to distract students from learning how science works to develop scientific answers to a set of questions, and thus interfere with the pedagogical cycle such that students learn to disrespect science. Similarly, it places relatively minor issues like the Cambrian explosion (for which a solid scientific understanding has been developed) alongside the origin of life and the origin of natural law. What a bizarre mix of apples and oranges! Category 2a These suggestions should definitely NOT be adopted for all the reasons made clear in the recent Cobb County, GA court case that used similar language for similar reasons. The explanation displays deep scientific illiteracy. Scientists do not judge the merit of scientific theories based on what they cannot explain; they value them for what they explain well. Otherwise, no new theory would ever arise. (If intelligent design is ever to gain legitimacy among scientists, it needs to stop abusing evolutionary biology and take positive steps toward developing any scientific virtues it might possess. Only then would scientists be impressed.) Category 2b The proposed indicator 4 is ungrammatical; but fixing the grammar would not make the proposal any more useful. It demonstrates great confusion about how hypotheses are tested. The proposed instructional example 4 requires 9th graders to perform at a level higher than that of top PhDs in the field –i.e. it asks Kansas’ 9th graders to adjudicate a “best current explanation” on questions for which professional biologists have not yet reached a consensus. Thus it directly misleads students into thinking that tough questions in science are decided via authority rather than data. This highly irresponsible pedagogy is grossly unfair to the students. The proposed addition to the teacher notes grossly misrepresents the nature of science and is thus untenable. The arguments are not improved by the various quotes taken out of context. Category 3 Removing the word “personal” does not advance the pedagogical goals of the assignment. Proposed indicator #6 is confused. Proposed additional specificity #6 exceeds the skills of most beginning graduate students and I cannot imagine that many high schools would have the resources to provide students access to examine physical evidence in the investigation of a sandstone, a fire or a death. Category 4 Category 5 Proposed additional specificity #s 1a & 1b appear to attempt to deliberately confuse scientific and philosophical issues. Such confusion is why NABT removed 1a from its statement in subsequent drafts. Proposed change to indicator #2 changes its meaning, making it untrue. Many mechanisms of evolutionary change have been proposed. Many of them have been ruled out. Biologists do indeed currently recognize natural selection and genetic drift among the primary mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, they are not the only widely accepted mechanisms. Two others should certainly be mentioned also: mutation and gene flow. All four of these are central to current evolutionary theory. Removing the reference to biologists has the effect of making the statement seem dogmatic and overly restrictive. Proposed additional specificity #2f is in error. Genetic drift is not synonymous with changes in allelic frequency. Also, the structure produces the erroneous implication that genetic drift is a kind of natural selection. That is not true. Proposed additional specificity #3b is inaccurate. Not all mutations are random; some are patterned by e.g. cytological processes that result in mutational “hot spots”. The amplification “random” is thus deleterious. Further, the inclusion of the quote from Futuyma would have a grossly misleading effect unless students were already familiar with Kimura’s neutral theory. I cannot imagine that the average Kansas 12th grader has the mathematical skills necessary to understand the advanced population genetics necessary to engage with Motoo Kimura & Sewall Wright. Proposed change to indicator #4 to change from active to passive voice
impoverishes the indicator. The typo in the indicator should be corrected
(“evolution
sic theory” should be corrected to “evolutionary theory” –that
is the terminology scientists use. Only creationists say “evolution theory”).
Proposed additional specificity #4a and 4c misrepresent the scientific use
of microevolution and macroevolution. 4c attributes a view to Ernst Mayr that
he does not hold. Mayr is famous for demonstrating that microevolution can
often be extrapolated to produce speciation. Thanks for your consideration, Dept of Biology |
|
| Last updated January 31, 2005 | |