Florida Citizens for Science board member Kathy Savage granted me permission to post the text of a recent e-mail as a “guest post.” Here it is:
When you get a chance go and read [Texas Education Agency] the 27 pages of recommendations for the Texas Science Standards made by Stephen Meyer. It is quite apparent that he is 1) trying to alter the definition of science to include critical analysis of ideas for which there is not any scientific evidence; 2) is trying to legitimize paranormal forces as possible scientific explanations; 3) water down the definition of science so that the framework of how science is defined is less stringent than should be required and leave the definition more open to “interpretation”; 4) will have students learning about the “strengths and weaknesses” of so many different theories that there will be no time for a solid groundwork of the main ideas at all, etc.
He refers to evolutionary biology as “primarily an historical science” (whatever the heck THAT means); he wants to require serious and in-depth discussions on the ORIGIN of life “including those from a pre-biotic soup”; he wants the standards to include evaluation of the “positive and negative impacts of biological research on society by studying examples from history including the germ theory of disease, the development of antibiotics, EUGENICS, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment; and theories of SCIENTIFIC RACISM”; and evaluate the evidence that the “HYPOTHESIS that the earth’s cooling led to tectonic activity, resulting in continents and ocean basins.”
And Charles Garner wants the “vague” term of evolution to be replaced with MICROevolution. I’m not sure what point he is trying to make here
But it sounds an awful lot like public opinion should be as valued as evidence when arriving at scientific conclusions (unless I’m reading this wrong).
Furthermore it looks like he wants to “bench” earth space science until a time when it can be determined that it is taught “within the bounds of science”. What?!?!
The seemingly innocuous changes that he and Meyers would like to make to the wording in the standards all would have the effect of weakening science as a way of “knowing” and understanding the material world.
What do you all think?
What do I think? I think Ms. Savage and I would disagree on the appearance of these changes. I don’t think they seem innocuous in the least! From my vantage, they look like a direct and blatant frontal assault not only upon biology, geology, physics and astronomy but an attempt to undermine the basis of evidential reason and scientific method itself.
This stuff seems innocuous in the same way that a rattlesnake with its fangs sunk into one’s nose seems cuddly.
Of course the reason Charles Garner wants the word evolution replaced with microevolution is because evolution is OK with creationists as long as God still gets credit for magically creating every species. After God is done with his magic tricks, evolution can take over as long as no species starts looking too different from its ancient ancestors.
“What do you all think?” I think the reason for these attacks against science education is a religion called Christianity. I know there’s “moderate” Christians (as if believing in Jebus is moderate) who accept modern science, but even those pro-science Christians are part of the problem. The religious extremists who want America to be like the Dark Ages need the moderate Christians to justify their religion. So I’m in favor of the complete eradication of Christianity from America. The best way to rid our country of religious insanity is improving science education, and that’s why the Christian extremists are so afraid of evolution.
“It is quite apparent that he is 1) trying to alter the definition of science to include critical analysis of ideas for which there is not any scientific evidence;”
I love criticizing ideas for which there is no evidence! Let’s criticize psychics in class to show students how science debunks bad ideas.
“3) water down the definition of science so that the framework of how science is defined is less stringent than should be required and leave the definition more open to “interpretationâ€;”
Like gravity. It is only your interpretation whether you fall at 9.8 m/s^2
“He refers to evolutionary biology as “primarily an historical science†(whatever the heck THAT means);”
That’s a bit of Ken Ham’s nonsense. According to him, sciences are divided into “historical” sciences and “operational” sciences. Operational sciences are Real sciences, covering how the universe works. Historical sciences are just scientists guessing about how the past was by looking at scattered evidence. They aren’t subject to experiment, so aren’t real sciences at all, and are full of error, unless you have an inerrant source to know the past from!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/key.jpg
“And Charles Garner wants the “vague†term of evolution to be replaced with MICROevolution. I’m not sure what point he is trying to make here”
By making an illusionary distinction between types, they can maintain the delusion that the evidence we have doesn’t prove what they can’t accept. Pure word games, every bit as stupid as political pandering to “real Americans”.
“But it sounds an awful lot like public opinion should be as valued as evidence when arriving at scientific conclusions (unless I’m reading this wrong).”
Naturally. Public opinion is what they have, so clearly it must be more important than mere facts.
“Furthermore it looks like he wants to “bench†earth space science until a time when it can be determined that it is taught “within the bounds of scienceâ€. What?!?!”
You know, without reference to LIES, like the earth being more than 10,000 years old.
“The seemingly innocuous changes that he and Meyers would like to make to the wording in the standards all would have the effect of weakening science as a way of “knowing†and understanding the material world.”
I see nothing innocuous at all.
“What do you all think?”
I think pies are better than cakes, as a rule.
“He refers to evolutionary biology as “primarily an historical science†(whatever the heck THAT means)”
Some sciences fit that description, such as geology, climatology, cosmology, etc. Evolution is one of them. They all use presently-available and verifiable evidence to explain the past, which cannot be reproduced in the lab. It’s the same thing that detectives do at a crime scene — they can’t re-create the crime, but they can examine clues to hypothesize what happened.
The typical historical science can also be used to do present-day work. Geology is rather useful in mining and oil exploration, and evolution has obvious applications in combating ever-mutating viruses. Creationism, of course, has neither explanatory power nor practical uses.
I think it is scary. Science is not a “majority” rules or “free speech” deal. The argument about presenting “alternatives” and/or the “strengths and weaknesses” is total crap. It is a way to justify allowing religion in school and science class.
I wonder if the states could make a rule that only people who have real degrees (you know, from real accredited universities) can be on the BOE? and that they automatically reject “suggestions and recommendations” from people with CLEAR ulterior motives?
We should also note that Ralph Seelke, a “scientific creationist”, gives recommendations that includes the same “strengths and weaknesses” arguments actively being promoted by the DI in order to get educational face-time for their false theories. Seelke tries to be clever by insisting that students approach this by critically analyzing the various aspects of evolution by evaluating the meaning of hypothesis, theories, scientific evidence, etc, which if done according to the definition of the scientific method itself, would all lead to the same conclusion that evolution theory was developed using scientifically valid methods and evidence. He then repeats the same distorted facts from Cambrian fossil evidence and his misquote of claims made by Carl Woese regarding universal common ancestors as examples of this critical evaluation. Just keeping the door propped open for the creationists and IDers right?
“Just keeping the door propped open for the creationists and IDers right?”
Well, they may come up with something one of these days. But if they do, the door will open for them. No need to leave it open “just in case.”
Wasn’t it Behe who called for an “affirmative action of ideas” to help less scientifically accepted ideas? Boggles the mind.