Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Education

  • The Continued Saga of Science Education

    The state’s director of science curriculum has resigned after being accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent design. (Source: Austin-American Statesman

    A number of other bloggers have commented on this already (Pharyngula here and here, Wesley Elsberry, and The Panda’s Thumb), and you can review the story there. I’m generally a “late adopter” on these issues. I tend to wait for the rest of the story. But in this case it’s going to require a lot of convincing for me to believe that Chris Comer was not fired because of her support for teaching evolution.

    My major problem with this case is this: Opposing the teaching of ID in public schools is the right thing for a science curriculum director to do. One of the most dangerous things coming out of this controversy between ID and evolution is a confusion between treating things appropriately and treating them equally, whether they are equal or not. We would not expect our science curriculum staff to be neutral about the teaching of astrology, geocentrism, flat earth, or any of a number of other non-scientific ideas in science class.

    How do we know that those things are not valid science? Well, real working scientists have checked them out and found them to be invalid. There are still people out there who believe each one, but we don’t have to “teach the controversy” about them, because scientifically there is no controversy. The same is true of ID. Scientifically there is no controversy. A few guys with graduate degrees, largely outside of the appropriate fields do not create a scientific controversy. To have that, you require science being done on both sides, and you don’t. On one side we have PR and politics. On the other we have science. For a science curriculum director to remain neutral would, in my view, require a lack of integrity.

    One indicator of trouble on this topic is the number of times one has to remind boards of education and other officials of the rulings of the courts on this issue. Why is it that such large numbers of people can only be persuaded to learn and teach (or allow the teaching of) well-established science because the courts say so? Here in Florida a school board is considering the teaching of ID. One major argument against it is, of course, the cost of a major lawsuit. But there is one argument that should rule the day, but doesn’t: We’re talking about science class. Let’s teach science.

    Being neutral about ignorance is not an option.

  • A Taste of Teaching the Controversy

    “Teach the controversy” is one of the well-worn slogans of the creationist movement, and has been well used in the controversy about intelligent design (ID). It’s power is in an appeal to fairness. There’s a dispute? Teach both sides. What could be fairer than that?

    As with most slogans the problems occur in practically every word. What is “the” controversy? What are the “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory that one should teach? And even more importantly, what does it mean to teach a controversy?

    I would suggest that in order to actually teach something, the instructor needs to take the students through a process of evaluation, of weighing and testing the evidence provided. If that controversy is ID vs the theory of evolution, such a weighing and testing will result in a negative evaluation of ID–unless, of course, one tries to privilege certain ideas over others.

    This is not the type of “teaching the controversy” that is desired by ID proponents. In general, they are asking that their views, though representing those of a very small minority of the scientific community, should be taught alongside evolution as having equal validity. The attempt to get these materials into public schools is simply an end-run around the process of science, and indeed of scholarship in general. What ID advocates are asking is that ideas that have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community should be presented instead to high school students for their evaluation.

    I can understand this desire. It’s always fun to take your material to an audience that will not be qualified to challenge you seriously on facts or logic. But it’s not the proper place to get ideas evaluated.

    We have just seen an example of “teaching the controversy”, and doing it well, on NOVA, and the ID folks don’t particularly like it. (The complaints about “Inherit the Wind” footage are particularly humorous.)

    Well, I’m not surprised. They didn’t actually want the whole controversy taught. They didn’t want all their claims evaluated. They just hoped they would be presented side by side to unsuspecting high school students who do not yet have the knowledge to evaluate what they are hearing.

    There are reasons why ID is presented to popular audiences rather than scientific ones. 1) Doing the actual science is too hard, or perhaps 2) The advocates know that no matter how hard they work, the evidence just isn’t there, or 3) They don’t actually care about science at all, and they’re just trying to make points in the culture wars. Come to think of it, it could be all of the above.

    But this argument does not only apply to ID. In the public school science program, we need to teach science, and we need to have some basis on which to decide what is and is not science. Any minority viewpoint can hire PR firms and try to get itself treated as science through the political process, but that is not a good way to determine what really is science. I suggest one standard: Consensus science. There is plenty of that to fill the science curriculum. Other ideas may apply, but the process goes through the scientific community for publication, testing, and verification.

    I would add one more note on this. I have commented before on the NCBCPS Bible curriculum which is aimed at public schools. Many Christians see this as a wonderful opportunity to restore Biblical literacy. But they need to think again. Just how is it that the Bible can properly be taught in public schools? It will have to be taught as an academic subject, which means that the historicity of certain stories, such as the exodus, the destruction of Jericho, or similar things, should be evaluated in a scholarly fashion, as objectively as possible.

    That requires, amongst other things, qualified instructors, and good curriculum (NCBCPS isn’t good curriculum). This will be Bible as a secular topic. Now I wouldn’t mind such a class. The reason I still oppose putting this in public schools is that I believe it inappropriately privileges my own sacred book over that of others and that it is extremely unlikely that we will find appropriately qualified teachers for a sound, academic course on the Bible at the High School level.

    I know, for example, that if I were to teach such a course, many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical students and parents would be shocked at what I would say, though I would be able to point to a great deal of scholarship in all of it. You see, I would “teach the controversy” about many of these subjects, evaluating the evidence, and some people would not be happy with the results.

    Perhaps in High School classes we should teach the most important elements of a subject (and make no mistake, evolution is one of these), and leave the myriad of controversies that people can cook up to be settled through examination by qualified persons.

  • Against Personal Freedom on the Left

    Ed Brayton reports on a victory for FIRE against the University of Delaware, which had a diversity training seminar that was mandatory for all students. It was followed up by big brother style watch-dogging.

    Just in case some of us might get the idea that it is only right-wing ideologues who would like to indoctrinate people, there is plenty of evidence for the same behavior on the left. Where a particular ideology manages to hold unchallenged authority backed by force, there is an unfortunate tendency to act in this manner.

    FIRE is to be congratulated for challenging this type of activity. They are continuing to challenge such practices at the University of Delaware, which, though defeated on this program, has not explicitly agreed to end certain other practices.

  • Shocker: ID is PR with Little Science

    I was working on writing this up earlier, but go distracted, so now I have the excellent post by PvM on the Panda’s Thumb to reference, thus saving me time and words.

    Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science was quoted in the saying:

    Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science, called the draft standards a “wonderful” blueprint for science education. Wolf, of Winter Haven, said the evolution debate holds little interest to most scientists, who accept it as fact. That’s why the issue did not become controversial during the standards-writing meetings, he said.

    “It’s a PR issue,” he said. “And it’s a religious issue. In the scientific community, it’s not an issue.”

    For most of us, this is a pretty obvious statement. The Panda’s Thumb write-up notes how Crowther carefully dodges the actual statement and responds to something else. He is thus enabled to express a great deal of outrage without proving anything.

    His post is titled Florida Citizens for Science Excommunicate Prominent Scientists from “Scientific Community” For Doubting Darwin, a very pretentious title which misses the point entirely. I’m not certain what he means by “excommunicate” but it doesn’t seem to relate to anything we do in Florida Citizens for Science.

    On the other hand, our officers are quite free to notice the obvious. OK, ID supporters, where is the actual scientific controversy? Where are the scientific papers supporting ID? I see a huge amount of PR, a huge amount of popular literature, a very large number of claims, but the actual scientific controversy doesn’t seem to exist. All we need here is to point out actual scientists engaged in a scientific controversy. Scientists arguing philosophy won’t do. Press releases won’t do it either. What we need is scientists engaging in a scientific dispute.

    What we get, however, is interesting. It shows actual scientists operating within a scientific framework developing and improving the theory of evolution just like they ought to do. Obviously a great deal has been learned since Darwin. If that was not the case, evolution truly would be a theory in crisis. Instead, the very debate that shows a healthy, theory operating under the stresses of scientific discovery, developing and growing as it went along. It shows that rather than some kind of Darwinian conspiracy, as the ID folks suggest, there is healthy, active science, capable of correcting errors and making new discoveries.

    Thanks, Mr. Crowther, for providing evidence for the health of evolutionary theory!

  • Of Colossal Wastes of Time

    Jon Blumenfeld thinks that reconciling religion and science is a colossal waste of time. He says:

    Time for battle stations in the comments section, because I am going to say something that is sure to ruffle some feathers: The attempt to reconcile religion and science in general, and the bible and evolution in particular, is a colossal waste of time.

    He’s apparently particularly concerned that the most recent Reports of the National Center for Science Education contains many articles on the topic.

    I have a suggestion: If you believe reconciling religion and science is a colossal waste of tim, just don’t do it. Hmm. Come to think of it, I don’t think he does. Problem solved. Well, not quite, because apparently he doesn’t like anyone else to take their time doing it. Now I’m not going to bother to defend theism. I rarely do. I’m not even going to suggest that any particular group of people need to read material on religion and science.

    But the NCSE is interested in sound science education in the United States, and particularly in the teaching of evolution (see their about page), and in the United States there are a variety of groups that support that goal. I, for example, am a Christian Bible teacher who supports the teaching of evolution (and the absence of creationism of any variety including ID) in public schools.

    As an advocacy organization, NCSE is simply intelligent to serve all of the constituent groups who are likely to support the cause they advocate–sound science education, and particularly the inclusion of evolution. I know atheists are making a few gains as a percentage of the population right now, but sound science standards for public schools are going to need the support of some religious people.

    I don’t mean to sound cynical, but this is simple, basic politics. The NCSE staff seems to understand it quite well, which is one reason they are very effective. We can go ahead some day and have an argument over religion vs. atheism. But let’s not mix up the battle for sound science education get confused with that issue.

    (HT: The Panda’s Thumb)

  • Florida Science Standards Under Attack

    The new draft science standards in the state of Florida are under attack for their forthright inclusion of evolution. You can read more about the state of the debate on the Florida Citizens for Science blog. Those of us who support sound science are acquainted with the style of argumentation involved.

    I want to help make it clear that this is not a “religion vs. secularism” debate. There are a substantial number of people of faith of many persuasions who support the inclusion of the consensus scientific position in the science standards. I even know a number of ID supporters who don’t believe ID should be included in the High School science curriculum.

    Robert Crowther, contributor to the Discover Institutes EvolutionNews.org blog has even weighed in with a comment:

    I just blogged at Evolutionnews.org about this amazing development of the Florida Citizens for Science now being the sole arbiters of who is or is not a part of the “scientific community.”

    Apparently scientific inquiry is free, only so as long as you adhere to the Darwinian orthodoxy. Otherwise you will find yourself not a part of the “sceintific [sic] community.”

    This is presumably a response to this quote from Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science:

    “It’s a PR issue,” he said. “And it’s a religious issue. In the scientific community, it’s not an issue.”

    Well, Mr. Crowther, I see the PR issue. I see the religious issue. I even see some philosophical issue. What I don’t see is the debate in the scientific community. I see a few dissidents who seem uninterested in doing science, but prefer instead to hire PR people, write popular books, and hijack other people’s research. Now PR and popular books aren’t bad, but they don’t constitute an “issue in the scientific community.”

    (Full disclosure: I am a board member of Florida Citizens for Science. The list of board members is here.)

  • New Florida Science Standards

    New science standards for [tag]Florida[/tag] public schools are now available for review (HT: Florida Citizens for Science. These look very good, but there will inevitably be conflict about the issue of evolution.

    There was also a good article on this process in the Orlando Sentinel (again HT: Florida Citizens for Science.

    Interested parties should read and comment on these standards. Though I would expect that the evolution items will generate more controversy than others, the key issue here is not evolution, but sound science education in all areas.

    Thanks to the dedicated folks who participated in writing these new standards for our state.

  • Any Military Connection Triggers Criticism

    Sometimes I wonder if some of my liberal fellow-citizens really don’t like change, progress, innovation, and experimentation all that much. I really thought that conservatives were the ones who were supposed to look only at traditional solutions, while liberals were open to a variety of ideas.

    This afternoon I was doing some writing in my living room, where I sometimes work when the juices are flowing slowly. There’s nothing like turning on a little TV news to annoy me enough so that I’ll start writing at my maximum typing speed. The story that got me started today was about a Marine run High School in Chicago. The link is not to the story I was watching, because I changed channels and can’t remember where that was, but the story and the tone is the same.

    Here we have a High School that young people want to get into, that offers an opportunity for discipline and learning in a structured environment, and what do the critics have to say? Oh no! We’re preparing them to be soldiers! In this case that should be Marines, but why should an Air Force vet like me care about a minor issue like that?

    Now I have to wonder why it is such a bad thing if these young people are prepared for military service. That gives them an option, even a number of options, including reserve and national guard service. It should also prepare them to go into training to become police officers for example. But more importantly, especially in areas where the public schools do not provide an education in a disciplined environment it will simply produce a high proportion of students who can successfully go on to college or to training for other careers.

    It is not the only option for students, and there are certainly students who don’t belong there, but we should welcome such opportunities, especially in the public school system. Providing options that work should be regarded as a good thing.

    Finally, we need a military made up of people who are willing to carry out the orders of the civilian leadership. Any horror one may feel at the orders given to the military–and I myself am horrified by some of those orders–should pale in comparison to the thought of a military that is not prepared to carry out the orders of civilian authority, or of a country with no professional military service at all.

    Complaints of poor people being forced into military service do not reflect well, in my view, on those complaining. It’s a risky job, but it is a job. It is a job that needs to be carried out, and we should honor each and every person who is willing to do it. We should not denigrate them by suggesting they’re just too stupid to do anything else.

    PS: While I was writing this, the story came up on Fox News whose interviewer asked the imbecilic question–“Why do you need so many of these schools?” Hmm!?!? Perhaps they work?

  • Mixed Emotions about Sweden

    I read this news article from Sweden with mixed emotions (HT: Panda’s Thumb).

    My first reaction is negative. Since these schools are faith based, it seems appropriate to me that they teach from the perspective of the faith involved in sponsoring the school. I relate this to my own experience being home schooled and being taught creationism. At the end of High School, my grades and test scores were substantially above average, and I know many home schooled or Christian schooled kids who have a similar experience.

    Personally I would prefer to have gotten down to learning what evolution actually was earlier. It would have saved me some time exploring this on my own, but in general, I would prefer to leave such choices to parents, as long as the children in question are able to pass the appropriate tests. I prefer directing education through the requirements for standardized testing or for admission to the next level, rather than prescribing a curriculum in faith-related schools.

    But there is actually the real question. Sweden’s schools are not organized like American schools apparently. The schools in question are funded by the state even though they are faith based. This triggers the other side of my mixed emotions. If the taxpayers need to pay for it, then the state should control the content. All church related schools, as well as my home schooling, were entirely funded by my parents, the same parents who chose to teach me creationism. They chose it; they paid for it.

    I also should emphasize that I believe the correct choice in using public money to fund education at the elementary or high school level is to use that money to teach consensus science, and that means evolutionary theory, and no brand of [tag]creationism[/tag], including ID.

    I’m not certain if there are non-state funded schools in Sweden that would not be subject to this mandate or if all schools are state funded in one way or another. That’s an interesting question for further research.

    Americans should be careful in reading this story and blog reactions to it, because it does not reflect our situation in terms of either funding or the general structure of our educational system.

  • Creation-Evolution Links 9/26/07

    Well, this is rather quick for another round, but there have been some more good posts I’d like to call attention to.

    • Aetiology has a good post and updates on the community college teacher fired apparently for calling the early chapters of Genesis a myth. I referred to this event in an earlier post
    • I found this post at The Questionable Authority very helpful in understanding fossilization and its relation to reconstructing the history of organisms. The principles are very similar to those in archeology, and make good sense to me.
    • Ed Brayton has this article on the Louisiana Family Forum to which Louisiana senator [tag]David Vitter[/tag] wants to give some of your tax money. It appears there are less savory activities than employing the services of prostitutes, such as taking your money and giving it to groups that will use it to harm your children’s education..
    • A post from Florida Citizens for Science reports that Cheri Yecke is in the top three for the Florida Education commissioner job. I have blogged previously on why she should not be selected.