Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Education Policy

  • Handing School Administration to the Courts

    In a previous post I mentioned that the proposed Academic Chaos Bill here in Florida was cowardly in that it created a very confused situation which others would have to navigate. The Florida house analysis of the bill says much the same thing:

    Finally, if a principal, the district school superintendent, or the school board determine that the information a teacher is presenting is not objective, relevant, or scientific, then the administration must prove its case prior to any action against a teacher. This may result in case-by-case determinations which, based on the propensities of the science teachers in the district, may prove frequent and challenging. This bill will affect costs of administering the science curriculum and, although indeterminate, may increase litigation expenses for the school district. (page 4, source: here, hat tip: Florida Citizens for Science Blog)

    With this clear analysis provided to the legislators, there is every reason that any who vote in favor should be made to regret their decision. They have chosen a few political points over the good of the children of Florida, and if they are not stopped, will have put a great burden on teachers, principles, and administrators throughout the state.

    Hopefully, since the house voted out an amended version, this thing can be killed at least for this session.

  • Florida Academic Chaos Bill Advances

    The badly misnamed Academic Freedom Bill has advanced through the judiciary committee of the Florida senate. You can find an account of the event on the Florida Citizens for Science blog, and some additional commentary by Pete Dunkelberg on The Panda’s Thumb.

    Pete notes quite correctly that teachers are not prevented from presenting any scientific material in support of meeting the curriculum standards:

    But there is no scientific material that anyone has been inhibited from presenting. There is however a certain view that some people wish to pretend is scientific even while knowing it isn’t. That view is called creationism or intelligent design. If the bill is not to allow teaching creationism, it has no function or purpose.

    And that is indeed the problem. Because they don’t like the curriculum standards that were designed by a very well qualified and representative team, these folks basically want to remove any requirement that Middle and High School teachers follow the curriculum standards. In other words, anything goes. The standards do not present the teachers from teaching science. And what else is there that these people could be wanting to introduce. Could it be religion? Of course they deny this.

    I don’t believe “lying” is too strong a word for what sponsors like Senator Ronda Storms are doing to the citizens of Florida. I believe she and her supporters know full well that this bill will result in chaos and legal action. But for certain people, the hope that they will get some religious teaching into public schools somewhere is a good enough excuse.

    22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. — Proverbs 12:22 (KJV)

    (See how nice I am! I even quoted it from the KJV for those know-nothings who think that version is the most accurate.)

  • Book: Evolution and Christian Faith

    I’m constantly on the lookout for books on evolutionary theory aimed at the general public rather than specialized audiences, so when I saw this little book on the shelf of the local university library, I took it home to check out.

    My response to it is a bit mixed. There are a number of good things about it. It’s simple, it presents most of the basics of evolutionary theory at the most basic level, and it deals with intelligence design briefly and vigorously. On the other hand, its approach to Biblical interpretation is vague, its theology is a bit soft, and its assumption that these arguments have any hope of reaching fundamentalists or even conservative evangelicals is frankly just a bit naive.

    The author, Dr. Joan Roughgarden, is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian and a member of the Episcopal church. She begins by discussing the relationship between science and religion. She suggests that the conflict between religion and science is fostered by the fact that we don’t discuss the two together. Her favorite topic of research is lizards, and she laments that evolutionists rarely discuss God and anti-evolutionists discuss God and rarely discuss lizards (p. 6).

    Unfortunately she really doesn’t do very much of discussing the two together. She does draw a few lines of connection between the Bible and science, but these can be divided between the naive and the distantly metaphorical. I don’t mean to be too cruel here, because there are a number of wonderful passages in this book, especially in describing the basics of evolutionary theory in non-specialists terms.

    In this early chapter she also intends to draw a distinction between what is solid and what is still questionable or “squishy” in evolutionary theory. That promise is very interesting, as is her distinction between the “real” controversies, which are in the details and in the leading edge of evolutionary theory, as opposed to the fake controversy created by intelligent design.

    In the second chapter, Dr. Roughgarden discuss the first “solid” element of evolutionary theory which she rightly calls a fact, common descent. She argues that there is nothing in a literal reading of Genesis that would deny this. The then continues in the third chapter with variation, which again she says does not contradict a literal reading of Genesis. I happen to agree with her on this point, as I state in my earlier blog post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds. The problem, as most people who have discussed this issue will see, is that with these two elements we’re pretty much out of literal readings of Genesis 1 and 2 that will support evolutionary theory, and most conservative Christians will not even agree to those.

    Thus it is no surprise that chapter 4 deals with reading the Bible literally, and suggests essentially that Jesus came to change a rule-based approach to one based on principles and relationships. Most interpreters would have some trouble using that point to suggest that we now have permission to read certain things literally or not literally based on whether they agree with our scientific understanding. The connection there is a bit vague. Further the dividing line is also a bit vague. How do you decide?

    Dr. Roughgarden doesn’t tell us. She leaves us with the literal reconciliation of common descent and variation without a “kinds” boundary in living things, while suddenly rejecting such a literal reading of the days of creation based on the changed approach brought by Jesus. I don’t think this will provide a consistent approach to hermeneutics, and I don’t think it will impress the fundamentalists.

    In the fifth chapter she carries this point to the other extreme, using the vine and the branches (John 15:1-6) as an illustration connecting natural breeding (which she prefers to natural selection) in the Bible. This is such a metaphorical connection that it strains my reading a bit, and I’m quite an advocate of metaphorical readings. But she goes on in chapter 6 using Mark 13 and the parable of the sower as a connection to random mutation (p. 45). The explanation of random mutation is pretty good, however.

    Chapter 7 is a discussion of direction in evolution which, in my opinion, doesn’t deal adequately with the challenge presented by the theory of evolution to the older Christian understanding of the way in which the universe works. This is followed by chapter 8 which is occupied by a discussion of Roman Catholic theology. In it, Dr. Roughgarden acknowledges that the challenge to evolutionary theory and the impetus to teach intelligent design in the science classroom are not largely driven by Catholics. Those who are pushing it are, to a large extent, not going to be moved by statements by the Pope, however good those statements are.

    Following this is a chapter on the things that evolution has not accomplished yet which is largely dedicated to discussing the definition of an individual, and where natural selection operates, individual or group.

    The chapter on intelligent design was quite good. I was surprised that after a call largely for peace, this chapter is a pretty vigorous attack. On page 94 Dr. Roughgarden provides four things that intelligent design proponents need to do in order to get their views examined scientifically (p. 94). These are good criteria that would require the ID folks to do some actual science, an unlikely prospect. She further describes the controversy proposed by ID (as in “teach the controversy”) as “concocted” (p. 95), and finally calls ID “junk religion” (p. 101). She says it should be discussed in religion classes in order to point out just how bad it is as theology. She doesn’t think it has any place in science classrooms. On this, of course, I agree!

    Chapter 11 is given to sexual selection, and I have a hard time seeing why it is in the book. It makes little sense to me, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist. If it does have a purpose, that would seem to be to suggest that we shouldn’t present natural selection in such a competitive fashion. I’m not sure just how this works. Natural selection does involve a fairly heavy competitive element.

    The last chapter points to new directions. These could be summarized by saying that scientists should present themselves less like Richard Dawkins, and theologians should avoid referring to a wrathful God so much. I’m pretty much in agreement with that, but I don’t think either Dawkins or Falwell and Roberts (who she uses to illustrate what’s wrong in religion) will follow the suggestions.

    My overall impression is that Dr. Roughgarden is a good scientist who has a liberal view of religion, but has a limited understanding of the type of theological ideas that drive evangelicals and fundamentalists. She expresses a peaceful and experiential faith that I can truly appreciate. If my review sounds rough, it’s because I don’t think that she has engaged the controversy that is actually going on. She’s hoping for peace.

    I enjoyed this book, but I don’t feel I can add it to my list of recommended reading for those who are trying to get acquainted with the creation-evolution controversy.

  • Curriculum Chaos Bill in Florida

    The Florida legislature is considering an Academic Freedom bill. This one has been done to death, and you can find a great deal of information about it on the Florida Citizens for Science Blog, with the most recent update here. I’ll let you get the details via the many posts there.

    I want to add a point about this bill, however. It’s simply very stupid legislating. Now we are not at all shocked to see stupidity in the Florida legislature, or anywhere else, for that matter. As my wife commented when I mentioned this to her: “Why should Florida be different?” It’s not merely that this is creation vs. evolution, an issue on which I have some pretty strong convictions. The bill itself is wrong. It misunderstands academic freedom and it leaves almost everything open to interpretation, inviting litigation. In fact, it’s pretty much the sort of bill you write when you know you can’t get what you want, but you want to create some legislative language that will tangle the issue and let you try for it.

    The fundamental problem is that the legislature is choosing to write legislation on one portion of a subject through a specific bill. They had a framer’s committee to write the curriculum standards, they have a Board of Education to check those standards politically, but what they want to do is tinker with them by passing a bill.

    In most areas, we’d recognize this for what it is–bad micromanagement. If you think your management system for the state’s education system is that badly off, then you need to look at a better fix than this. But of course these legislators know that the experts are going to come to the same conclusion as they did before, and so they’re going to make political points at the expense of the children of Florida.

    This is bad legislation, badly written, hopelessly misguided, and there is no good outcome that would result from its passage. There is simply no excuse for it. The legislature should reject it.

  • Florida and Academic Freedom Follies

    The Florida Citizens for Science blog has a post summing up the current situation with creationist bills in the Florida legislature. FCFS communication director Brandon Haught shows how the bill in the Florida Senate is essentially taken directly from the Discovery Institute’s web site.

    What is the purpose of these bills? Academic freedom is not generally considered an issue in public high schools. Curriculum is closely controlled. Supposing someone who was opposed to so-called creation science chooses to use this academic freedom to thoroughly analyze, and of course vigorously refute that position. This would be as an alternative to what is currently mandated–clear teaching of the theory of evolution in its proper scientific place. Would these folks be equally happy with that?

    Fundamentally, these laws are simply a case of people who do not understand the material trying to replace well-supported work done by experts in the subject. But there is something further. I suspect that creationists will be almost as happy if the bills are defeated. Then they can yell loudly about how “academic freedom” was defeated, and point to it as a case of “Darwinist” suppression.

    It seems there is nothing these folks won’t do to avoid having to actually do the hard work of science. Their expertise at this avoidance perhaps was learned in childhood, when they were avoiding learning things like the meaning of “theory” in science.

  • Fordham Institute Criticizes Science Standards Compromise

    According to the Bradenton Herald, Paul Gross used the word “dishonest” in reference to the compromise language. Personally I prefer “silly” or “inane.” The changes didn’t change the meaning.

  • Florida Adopts Compromise Science Standards

    The Florida Board of Education voted 4-3 today to add the words “scientific theory of” before the word evolution in the standards. It was my understanding that the phrase would be added also before every scientific theory in the standards if this was done, but I don’t yet know if that is the case.

    The fact that this is regarded as a compromise illustrates how little some know about the use of the word “theory” in a scientific context. The meaning should not be changed at all, but obviously some people think that evolution is weakened in this way, and presumably hope to introduce religious alternatives. But evolution is a theory, and “theory” in a scientific context refers to an explanation of a variety of observations, not to a “weak” fact.

    We will have to keep watch on Florida’s educational community to see that teaching is not weakened due to some perceived meaning in the word “theory.”

  • Florida Citizens for Science Blog on Standards

    Brandon Haught has blogged much of the discussion on the Florida Citizens for Science Blog. My previous post is here. I doubt the standards opponents would have gone to such trouble over the word “theory” if they didn’t intend some underhanded tactics based on the popular definition as curriculum is developed and textbooks are chosen.

  • Science Education Problem for Florida

    In today’s News Roundup from the Florida Citizens for Science blog, there is reference to a poll taken in Florida. This poll suggests that 50% of Floridians would like to see only faith-based views of origins taught in public schools.

    What is most interesting to me in the poll, however, is how it shows that increased education makes acceptance of evolution more likely. In fact, if you went outside the boundaries of the poll, you’d find that the more evolution is involved in someone’s professional or academic specialty, the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.

    Now conspiracy theorists suggest brainwashing. I’m sure scientists are subject to social pressure, but often less so than anyone else. In science, the opportunity to overturn a dominant theory is the road to success. People speaking against the science standards here in Florida talk about the series of dominant theories that have been overturned (see commentary at Dispatches). What these comments seem to miss is the fact that it is scientists engaging in science who have overturned those theories, and that the culture of science favors overturning.

    In addition, these same folks miss the Sunday School and church brainwashing that is possible on the other side. I know that I heard nothing until I was well into college other than young earth creationism. While I encountered evolution in a high school biology text, I was immediately also introduced to “the truth” in other materials. But all that supposed brainwashing doesn’t take. I would certainly be willing to discount the church based brainwashing if the creationist crowd will back off the the science education brainwashing.

    Those who oppose evolution have a fully valid way to attack it–get out there and do the science. Instead we have PR statements, popular books, and political maneuvering to get content that does not pass muster as science including in science courses. Let creationists do the hard work of demonstrating their view. Right now it’s not happening, and thus it is appropriate that such views are shut out of the science classroom. Please note that I say “shut out of the science classroom” and not out of public discourse or scientific discourse. Anyone should be able to engage in public discourse–and creationists are doing so. Anyone can attempt to overturn a scientific theory, but they need to present it to scientists first, not to school children.

    There are those who will argue that the majority of parents should be able to set the public school curriculum. I disagree. I think we would be appalled should the majority of the public be permitted to set curriculum in medicine or health, and even in various shop classes. What the general public knows about auto mechanics, for example, is somewhat questionable. But nobody believes they should write curriculum unless they are fully acquainted with the field. In the area of biological sciences, parents are in effect trying to write curriculum, or to get their state representatives to do so, without any qualification.

    I would hold that parents should have the ultimate control, in the form of home schooling or the use of private schools. Public school curriculum should be written by the consensus of those qualified in the field, something that has already happened with the Florida science standards. The Board of Education should approve the standards as written.

  • Interesting Florida County Statistics

    I have been neglecting to post much on the Florida science standards issue lately. One interesting study looks at the FCAT scores for students in counties supporting and opposing the standards. You can find the article here. Be sure to keep up with the action via the Florida Citizens for Science Blog.

    Speaking of Florida Citizens for Science, I received an e-mail today which I will answer in more detail later, but which quoted the FLCFS site (Word .doc file):

    . . . The supernatural cannot be measured or tested and so is not included in any science course. Additionally, there are many people with sincere religious belief who accept the theory of evolution. It needs to be made clear here that no student is asked to “believe” evolution. Rather, evolution is to be “understood” in the same way that the heliocentric solar system is understood.

    This e-mailer then says: “A person of no faith surely posed the remark that the supernatural cannot be measured.” That’s astonishing, and shows a complete lack of understanding of theology, not to mention simply the meaning of words. If my correspondent can measure the supernatural he’s a bigger man than I am!