Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Education

  • 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!

  • Ethics of Lotteries vs Casinos

    I live in Florida where we have a lottery that is supposed to provide money for education. At the same time we have a strong resistance to allowing casino gambling. Now I’m not a gambler, and don’t recommend it. Some do it for entertainment, and I don’t have a problem with that. For me it would be very expensive entertainment indeed!

    But I find this approval of gambling–what else is the lottery–for state purposes while opposing any form of casino gambling a bit puzzling. Over the years I have heard many, many ads for the Florida lottery, and they trouble me much more than casinos do. It has been said that lotteries are a tax on math illiteracy. In that case, the ads for the Florida lottery amount to aiding and abetting math illiteracy, as well as charging a penalty for it. I’m only going to comment on the ones I’ve heard here, though I suspect other lotteries must use similar methods.

    Gambling by nature operates on creating an illusion. Entertainment in general does the same thing, so that’s not a criticism. In the lottery, the illusion is that you’re doing a good thing by participating and you just might get rich. Of course, there is a need to convince people that the likelihood that they will get rich is higher than it really is. In the casino, I would maintain, this is a known and knowable part of the entertainment. People may get taken in, but they basically ask for it. But do they ask for it in ads on radio and television for a state-sponsored lottery?

    Let me give an example. One type of ad emphasizes the number of chances. For example, a certain ticket is advertised as having “more chances now than ever.” One ad a couple of years back announced that each ticket now provided five chances to win–a great boon to the players. Now anyone who knows probability realizes that the actual chance to win remains the same if you increase the chances to all the players. Your odds become 5 times what they were out of 5 times what the total was before–totally equal.

    I guess one could say that if you fall for that, you deserve to lose your money. In a casino, I might even say the same thing. If one spends more on entertainment than one can afford, one has only oneself to blame. When I was an airman on temporary duty in Panama I once took $50 with me into a casino and played until it was gone. My experience didn’t make me want to spend another $50, but not everyone likes the same type of entertainment.

    But should the state be sponsoring misleading advertising? Yes, the lottery is handled by a contractor, but it is still done for the state, and its purpose is education. I don’t see this. I particularly don’t see it as better than casino gambling. I think it would be much better for us to support education directly through taxes spent on the purpose. It’s not my purpose to examine the use of the lottery money here, but there are many who question whether the education spending from lottery money is not offset by cuts the legislature feels free to make based on the availability of the lottery money. I don’t have good numbers on this.

    (As an aside, we need to establish education as a valuable, profitable investment, not a simple expenditure. One thing that troubles me about many fiscal conservatives (and I am fiscally conservative) is the tendency to lump all expenditure together, and then talk directly about cuts and deficits. “Cuts across the board” are unlikely to be wise. The problem is that we don’t have the discipline to prioritize and make choices. Spending on defense, law enforcement, education, and highways, for example, is qualitatively different from expenditures on social safety net programs.)

    It seems to me that it is unethical for the government to participate in deception, and particularly a deception that tends to take money from those least able to afford it. They should be safe from such exploitation by their government.

  • Roundup Florida Science Standards

    Wesley Elsberry has provided a roundup of his posts on the Florida science standards. Note that the vote on these will be February 19.

  • Am I a Darwinian?

    I spent Saturday, February 9, traveling to/from or in Tallahassee. I was there to attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, and also to take in some Darwin Day speakers at the FSU Medical School. I was able to work in Dr. Harry Kroto and Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education), and also part of the final panel that include Dr. Michael Ruse amongst others.

    There is a problem with these meetings in that we gather together people who already agree that the theory of evolution is sound science and we are encouraged by those supporting it and alarmed by the number of folks in this country who oppose it. Often little is accomplished in convincing anyone who wasn’t convinced already. But it’s really a very small problem. There is a place for educating and encouraging the choir, and those of us who were there learned some things about communicating evolution. I would say that the very best way to build support for the theory of evolution, and thus also sound science generally, is to provide better science education.

    Why do I think supporting the theory of evolution in particular encourages sound science? In order to truly do science one must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the main point on which large numbers don’t want to do that. As long as we say we can ignore the facts discovered by science, we are inevitably weakened.

    There was one discussion that interested me especially because of my linguistic background. Dr. Scott made the comment that we should not accept the title “Darwinist” because that title is applied to us by creationists as an epithet. Physicists are not Kelvinists, for example. (Dr. Scott provided a considerable list.) I can see her point on this, because the term “Darwinist” has been poisoned so much by the debate. Dr. Michael Ruse objected on this one point and suggested rather than he didn’t mind being called a “Darwinian.”

    I’m kind of torn on the issue. I don’t like being called an “evolutionist.” It’s not my religion or my political “ism.” It’s just a well-established scientific theory that I accept. It shouldn’t be regarded with surprise that I accept it; the reverse should be true. Why would one not accept a theory with such solid support? But at the same time I dislike the misuse of Charles Darwin’s name. Evolution today is not limited to what he discovered, but at the same time he was both a man of his age, and thus not perfect, while at the same time he was a wonderful example of a scientist, and a scientific thinker. He was able to step beyond the paradigms of his age and provide a whole new foundation for understanding the whole science of biology. In that sense, I would proud–but unqualified–to be called a Darwinian.

    The bottom line, I suspect, is that I can do very little about what people choose to call me or anyone else. I will likely be a “theistic evolutionist” for the indefinite future, even though I object to the “ist” on evolutionist and the “theistic” part of the title. I both believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. My theism does not modify the data of the theory of evolution. Yet the title has become accepted and does identify a somewhat coherent group of people.

    Perhaps we should take on the name “Darwinian” and try to rescue the reputation of the fine scientist form which it is derived. The fact that this must be done is a sorry comment on our culture.

  • Not Doing Evolution Sunday

    Well, actually I am. Just not officially. First let me note that I was reminded that I needed to say something about this by a comment from Laura, who also provided this link to further information about the weekend.

    First, let me tell you what I am doing for evolution Sunday or Darwin Day. I’m headed to Tallahassee to attend Darwin Day activities that will be held at the medical school there. I will also attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, of which I’m a board member. I commend a strong commitment to and involvement in defending evolutionary science, and public school science standards. I believe that public school science standards must teach solid, consensus science, and the theory of evolution is foundational in the biological sciences.

    Second, let me commend those churches and religious organizations that are commemorating evolution Sunday. If this works well in your context this is great. I’ll discuss a bit below about what I believe “works well” and why.

    Finally, let me tell you why I and the non-profit religious education organization I lead are not doing anything specific on Evolution Sunday. I believe the theory of evolution, and only the theory of evolution should be taught in public school because it is consensus science. There is no substantial scientific controversy about it in the community of scientists in the relevant fields. The amount of noise generated on the issue does not relate to any scientific controversy but rather to religious, philosophical, and social controversies.

    And that is the key point for me. While I do not believe the scientific controversy is significant or legitimate at the moment, the religious controversy is very legitimate. It is much more widespread, and has much further to go before there is any consensus, if there ever will be. One of my strongest objections to teaching any version of creationism, including intelligent design, in public schools, is because I do not trust the state and state employed science teachers to teach religious ideas in a balanced manner. It’s not their training, and it’s well-nigh impossible to do in any case. Besides the church-state issues, which I take seriously, you could destroy a semester of science class just running through the number of different views and how they would step on one another.

    The proper place to do this, I believe, is in the home and in the church. (I will note in passing that while I am a strong supporter of public education, and my children attended public schools, I am not opposed to home schooling and believe it should be an option available to parents.) But whether you are homeschooling or not, if you are a parent you need to be paying attention to these issues and providing your children with information and reading material, and then discussing these issues with them. Sunday School classes need to undertake such discussions openly.

    Thus I would call for churches to use the same weekend to discuss religion and science from whatever perspective you choose. My preference for churches is that how one integrates one’s beliefs with science be open. A church that can allow everyone from theistic evolutionists to young earth creationists to share fellowship would be a wonderful thing. I once taught a class in Genesis to a small group, in which the lady who always took the seat to my right was a theistic evolutionist of vigorous views, while the one to my left was a young earth creationist. We all remained friends as well.

    I also know many pastors who have no problem with theistic evolution, but who simply don’t want to go there. If your church holds an explicit doctrinal position against theistic evolution, then perhaps you ought to search for some other church. But if your church does not, perhaps you ought to express the range of positions that are acceptable under your doctrinal standards, and give church members the freedom to express and discuss their beliefs.

    I think Evolution Sunday is effective in a church in which evolution would be the default position of the membership. Bringing that out into the open is good. It is also good to discuss and learn more about it. But plan also to find out how your neighbors think. For example, many Christians I know who accept evolution think the opposition largely consists of young earth creationists. That is not the case. In a church where more views are likely to be represented, I think this Sunday (or one could choose any of a number of other Sundays) can be dedicated to the topic without telling people the conclusion.

    Above all, I would hope this would be a time of some reconciliation in churches. I know I express myself forcefully and regularly on this topic. But I also have said repeatedly that I have no difficulty with fellowship in church with those of opposing views. It would just be nice to know that they could accept me on the same basis. And I have no problem with them also forcefully expecting their views, providing again there is that caveat about fellowship.

    Whatever you do or don’t do, enjoy the weekend!