Teaching the controversy in California
by KrauzeFrom Evolution News & Views I've just heard that the Lancaster School District in southern California has adopted a "Science Philosophy" policy. The policy, which has been supported by the groups Integrity in Academics and Quality Science Education for All, states that "[e]volution … should be taught as theory, as opposed to unalterable fact", and encourages to "[d]iscussions that question the theory … as long as they do not stray from the current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis and theory." For links to the policy and the groups that supported it, go to Evolution News & Views.
I have long made it clear that I don't support teaching intelligent design in school, and although this policy doesn't mention intelligent design, I still think that it's a bad idea. First of all, it is regrettable that the policy is being pushed by public activist groups, instead of by the scientific community. The people backing it will probably reply that the policy should be judged on its own merits instead of by its supporters, and that discussion-based learning does improve the education of the Californian students. It's certainly correct that a policy should be judged on its own merits, and since I'm not any kind of expert on education, I will, for the sake of argument, also concede the second point. Assuming this, allow me to explain why I still think that the Californian policy will damage intelligent design in the long run.
It is a fact that many ID critics are scared of the ID movement and are trying to convince the scientific community to share this fear. It was only the other day that we saw Texan biologist Sahotra Sarkar telling an audience about the ID movement's desire to turn America into a theocracy, and back when Hector Avalos was trying to discredit ID-friendly astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, he was citing concerns about Gonzalez being a sort of undercover agent, placed in Iowa State University by the ID movement.
Obviously the policy in California isn't going to result in a theocracy, but many in the ID critic community will interpret it as yet another sign of how dangerous the ID movement is. And when talking to scientists, asking them to sign petitions or to be "vigilant" about opposing those undercover ID supporters, they can point to this case as supporting their paranoia.
It doesn't take a genius to see that such an environment isn't going to foster an objective, open-minded exploration of intelligent design. So, if you think there's something to that intelligent design stuff and would like to see it studied, take the battle out of the classrooms.
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
After waffling back and forth on the issue for some years, I think I've finally come to agree with your position, Krauze. What did it was learning a little bit of the history of the Big Bang theory in the scientific community. I still don't know much about its history, but I think I've learned enough to see how it is relevant to IT theory.
Sometime in the 1920s (or30s?), the red shift in starlight was discovered. And sometime in there it was realized that Einstein's relativity equations, without his fudge factor, predicted either a shrinking or expanding universe. Then sometime in the 30s a Catholic priest (and scientist?) proposed the Big Bang theory.
Despite the convergence of two separate lines of inquiry supporting the theory, scientists were not quick to jump on the bandwagon. In reading Gerald Schroeder's book, The Science of God, I learned that a survey of scientists taken in 1959 (25 years or so after the theory had been proposed), two-thirds of the scientists still did not accept the theory. It wasn't until after predictions and confirmations of theory had been made that the Scientific Community as a whole adopted the theory.
Now imagine that the Creationists in the 30s hadn't been so committed to a young earth and universe. Hearing of the Big Bang theory and the evidence supporting it, they might have seized upon it and demanded that it be taught in the public school classrooms.
Now imagine the response from the Scientific Community had that happened. And imagine how much longer, and how much more evidence would have been demanded, before the Scientific Community accepted the theory. 25 years would have seemed like nothing in comparison.
The Big Bang theory was a very radical idea, but not nearly as radical as ID theory. And I think Krauze, Mike Gene, and others are right in opposing those who want it or "the controversy" taught in public schools. It will only make things more difficult for ID theory to ever get a fair hearing in the Scientific Community.
Comment by Bilbo — March 23, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Dog gone it, I put IT instead of ID. How do you edit this dang thing?
Comment by Bilbo — March 23, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
ID isn't a theory. It's a teleological perspective that is capable of generating testable hypotheses. Mike Gene says:
"There is no reason why a methodology that doesn't a priori reject teleology cannot employ an experimental, inductive approach to the world. It is merely an alternative view. It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data (thus it can use science) and can also generate subsidiary hypotheses and predictions (thus it can guide science)."
To keep ID out of school the ID critics argue that ID is nothing more than a religious concept that is useless in helping students better understand the natural world. I'm curious as to how it would play out if some school board decided to challenge this claim head on by exposing students to a brief presentation of how a teleological perspective can generate testable hypotheses.
Comment by Jack — March 23, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Gee, I thought we were in the "Post-Wedge World" where this kind of thing didn't happen.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 23, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
I tend to disagree, but I'm not sure. Need to think about it some more…
I favor decentralization of our public schools with a return to local control by the parents who fund the schools. If the parents choose to have a science philosophy course, so be it. I'd rather see 1000 of these grass roots initiatives than a big winner takes all NCSE-DI shoot out. People need to start thinking for themselves and take responsibility for the education of their children
Yes, the scientific community should be heard and their position considered, but lets not prop up a scientific priesthood either.
Comment by David — March 23, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
The problem is with how the community-at-large would react. It's basically the same thing that happens when a school board tries to pass a "moment of silence" rule. In theory, a moment of silence at the start of the school day is perfectly acceptable. But in practice, a bunch of people start quoting from the Bible at school board meetings, and writing letters to the editor about how they're going to get God back into the schools, and it turns into a big proxy war between the pro- and anti-freedom-of-religion types. The courts have to take that into account: They can't just look at the board's actions; they have to look at how those actions are going to be interpreted by the student community.
So I don't see any way we can get any form of Intelligent Design into the public schools given the current political climate.
Anyway, what's the obsession with getting children to believe in Intelligent Design? Children don't have a lot of influence. The key is to convince mainstream scientists. Once it's reached critical mass among scientists, then it'll be a lot easier for school boards to justify teaching it.
Comment by chaosengineer — March 23, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I don't think it's wise to let kids think mainstream science nor scientists ideas are ever above criticisms. Science should welcome skepticism, not discourage it. Thus public schools are an appropriate place to teach this scientific virtue.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 23, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Christopher Amico (2006). "Board OKs Darwin challenge." Antelope Valley Press, March 23, 2006.
Comment by Nick Matzke — March 23, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Hi Nick,
"Gee, I thought we were in the "Post-Wedge World" where this kind of thing didn't happen."
No one said that activist groups would stop trying to influence public education. The question is how much success they'll have in the long run.
You're with the NCSE. How do you estimate your chances of making this go away?
Comment by Krauze — March 24, 2006 @ 2:17 am
March 24th, 2006 at 9:33 am
"I don't think it's wise to let kids think mainstream science nor scientists ideas are ever above criticisms. Science should welcome skepticism, not discourage it. Thus public schools are an appropriate place to teach this scientific virtue. "
I cannot see how allowing 'ID' into public schools has anything to do with science/scientists being above criticism. These 'teach the controversey' and 'teach the problems in evolution' claims are just fluff. What controversey? That some religiouos zealots don't like evolution, and some of these people happen to have degrees? That is news? That is a controversey? Teach the problems - what problems are these? The distortions in Icons? Hmmm… Maybe teaching using Wells' book might be a good thing afterall - the teacher can use it as an example of how political motivations and religious fervor can make people engage in dishonest and shoddy scholarship…
And what better place to expose the antics of ID propagandists than in public schools!
Comment by derwood — March 24, 2006 @ 9:33 am
March 24th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You said: "The Big Bang theory was a very radical idea, but not nearly as radical as ID theory."
Depends on what you mean by "ID theory". That a teleological perspective can generate testable hypotheses is a fact. Last I heard it wasn't unconstitutional to teach facts to students in the public schools.
Comment by Jack — March 24, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
March 24th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Jack, let's just say ID theory would be considered by the scientific community to be more radical than the Big Bang theory. Yes, I would like to see ID theory taught in public schools. I think teaching competing views, if done properly, can help develop critical thinking skills in students, which is sorely missing.
However, I don't think ID proponents are the ones who should be trying to get it taught in public schools. All that does is convince the scientific community that we have a politico-religious agenda.
What we need to do is develop ID into a sophisticated scientific program, so that people like Nick will be impressed enough to think it should be presented, even if they disagree with it.
BTW, Hi Nick. Long time, no see. How are things at the NCSE?
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
March 25th, 2006 at 3:06 am
Bilbo, other than the Dover school board who has attempted to get ID taught in the public schools? And you might want to ask Nick what an ID research program would have to discover in order to impress him.
Comment by Jack — March 25, 2006 @ 3:06 am
March 25th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
I don't know, Jack, other than Dover, who? I guess I'm missing your point.
If I remember, I think Nick said finding something like that fish in Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy….you know, the one that you could stick in your ear, and it would translate any language in the galaxy for you. Of course, I think it fed off the sound waves, or something. I imagine we could find a Darwinian explanation for it, if we really tried.
But Nick is young. After all, who would have ever thought Antony Flew would have have given up atheism?
Comment by Bilbo — March 25, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
March 25th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Hi Bilbo,
It was the babel fish. Wasn't Nick's argument that this would be evidence of design because evolution couldn't explain it?
Anyway, intelligent design don't have to prove itself to the satisfaction of critics like Nick, any more than abiogenesis research has to be proven to the satisfaction of Duane Gish. If intelligent design develops a track record of experimental success, it will be a viable alternative for curious researchers, whether or not the idiosyncratic demands of critics have been met.
Comment by Krauze — March 25, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
March 26th, 2006 at 4:40 am
"I don't know, Jack, other than Dover, who? I guess I'm missing your point."
I thought you were concerned that IDers were pushing to get ID taught in school. I was just pointing out that I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
Comment by Jack — March 26, 2006 @ 4:40 am
March 26th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I don't know how much IDists were or are pushing to get ID taught in public schools. I've pretty much been a fence sitter, myself, until I thought of comparing it to the Big Bang theory. I think that settled the question for me.
To those who still think ID should be taught to pre-college students, I suggest home-schooling. In fact, in the long run, that may be the most effective way to get ID into mainstream science and education. Here's how: I think most home-schooled children end up excelling in college. This means they will be tomorrow's leaders in science. Expose them to the concept of ID today, and ID will be a more readily accepted view tomorrow.
Comment by Bilbo — March 26, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 9:46 am
And just whom will be doing the home schooling? Do you think the average parent is sufficiently well-versed to present the material in an even-handed, infoemd manner? Or will they just have their kid read 'Pandas…' and Icons and send them off to interrupt and badger their college professors with a bunch of paranoid disinformation?
Comment by derwood — April 4, 2006 @ 9:46 am