More on Texas

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the teaching of evolution in public school science classrooms. The organization's executive director is Dr. Eugenie Scott, who holds a PhD in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri.

Dr. Scott appeared last week on NPR's Science Friday program, where she discussed the recent adoption of new (creationist friendly) science education standards in Texas. In her interview with host Ira Flatow, she discusses the new standards, why wording and language are important, and what exactly is at stake with the passage of the new standards. You can access the interview and listen to it by following the above links, or you can download an mp3 of it here.

Here is video of Dr. Scott's testimony before the Texas State Board of Education last month:

Texas BoE Chairman

I don't know where to begin with this one...it's like a school lunch, you've just got to digest it for awhile:

I do like the part about "somebody needs to stand up to these experts." I agree. Who do they think they are being all..."experty" and stuff. That's the last thing we need in education is experts.

It's good of him to bring up Stephen Jay Gould, and he's right that Gould had issues with both the stasis of species and the Cambrian Explosion...so you know what Gould did about that? He proposed a new theory...a new model...a new idea of how evolution works. It's call punctuated equilibrium, and you can read all about it in almost any biology textbooks. Gould's work strengthened the theory of evolution, because it's an example of GOOD, SOLID SCIENCE.

Oh, and the Cambrian explosion took place over about 30 million years. And while that's still a relatively short period of time in the Earth's 4.6 billion year history, it's not really as sudden as creationists would lead you to believe.

Natural selection is not an unguided process. Beneficial traits are passed on in greater frequency than harmful ones because organisms with beneficial traits in a particular environment are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. That is a guided, selective process...there's nothing random about it.

Stasis (groups of organisms that stay the same for long periods of time) absolutely supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. If we understand that organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to pass on their traits, then it follows that a type of organism that is well adapted to its environment probably isn't going to change much unless there is a significant change to the environmental niche that they occupy.

Texas, Continued

Last week, I wrote a post here about the fight over science standards that was happening within the Texas state board of education. The news, at that time, was good. Creationists had failed to get the needed votes to re-insert a clause into the standards requiring the teaching of "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, I jumped the gun a little, as Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy points out:

After that, the news sinks rapidly. The far-right Republicans on the Board were not finished. They put in language to weaken the Big Bang theory, saying that there are different estimates for the age of the Universe. You can try to be coy and say this is also strictly true, but again that’s a cheat and a lie. The woman who proposed this is obviously a young-Earth creationist, and when she says "different ages", she means 6000 years. This belief in a young Earth, is, simply, dead wrong. We know the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the Earth, while younger than that, is still 4.55 or so billion years old itself. This is not some random guess, this is rock-solid (literally) science, confirmed independently from such diverse scientific fields as astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology… and even the study of how languages change over time shows the humanity is older than 6000 years.

These same people on the Board added language to the standards to weaken teaching about global warming. Don McLeroy, who is a creationist and also the Chairman of the BoE, said that climate change is "hooey". They also attack the science on the complexity of the cell, and the initial genesis of life (called abiogeneisis; life from non-life). These are all standard creationist tactics.

I guess the bright side of this is that maybe Texas will replace Kansas as the international laughingstock when science standards are discussed. But the damage that this could potentially do to science education in one of our largest states, especially in a time when society is so worried about our children falling behind the rest of the world in science, is extremely scary. You can believe what you want...that's your right. But to force those beliefs on the rest of society by manipulating the political system is not only illegal, but is a gross bastardization of religion.

Evolution in Texas

In January, the Texas State Board of Education took a preliminary vote on a new set of science standards that will govern how science is taught for the next 10 years in the Lone Star State. I wrote about it here. As with most science-standards debates, most of the discussion centered around evolution. For the past 20 years, the Texas standards have included this language:

The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.

The new standards will take out this "strengths and weaknesses" language and replace it with:

The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing.

The revised standards eliminate the "back door" approach to creationism that is the intent of "strengths and weaknesses" language, and have been endorsed by dozens of scientific and professional organizations. On January 23, the Texas board of education gave preliminary approval to the revised standards after an amendment to re-insert the "strengths and weaknesses" language failed on a split 7-7 vote.

Final action on these standards was scheduled for today and tomorrow, following a public hearing date on Wednesday. Earlier today, evolution opponents again failed to pass an amendment restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language on a split 7-7 vote.

A last-ditch effort by social conservatives to require that Texas teachers cover the "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution in science classes was rejected by the State Board of Education Thursday in a split vote.

Board members deadlocked 7-7 on a motion to restore a long-time curriculum rule that "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories – notably Charles Darwin's theory of evolution – be taught in science classes and covered in textbooks for those subjects.
[...]
The tie vote upheld a tentative decision by the board in January to delete the strengths-and-weaknesses rule in the new curriculum standards for science classes that will be in force for the next decade.

Those standards spell out not only how evolution is to be covered, but also what is supposed to be taught in all science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as providing the material for state tests and textbooks.

A final vote is scheduled for tomorrow, but the results are expected to be the same. Proponents of science education claim this as a major victory in their struggle to keep creationism out of science classes, since the Texas standards typically have a large influence on what textbook publishers include in their books.

Anti-evolution in Missouri

Our neighbors to the east are getting in on the fun. From NCSE:

House Bill 656, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on February 10, 2009, and not yet referred to a committee, is the latest antievolution "academic freedom" bill. The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including such subjects as the teaching of biological and chemical evolution*," and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."** "Toward this end," the bill continues, "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses*** of theories of biological and chemical evolution.*"

*First issue: As with other "academic freedom" bills, what is the purpose behind singling evolution out for special treatment? Why not encourage students to "explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion" in all areas of science? Why are these skills only important when discussing evolution?

**Second issue: The controversy surrounding this theory is a social controversy, not a scientific one. Any uncertainty that exists relates to HOW it happened, not IF it happened.

***This is the recurring theme of these types of bills. Since it's been ruled unconstitutional to prohibit the teaching of evolution, or to encourage the teaching of religious-based alternatives, the new strategy is to set evolution up as being a theory full of weaknesses. This is a back-door attempt to promote a particular set of religious beliefs.

The bill continues:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote philosophical naturalism or biblical theology, promote natural cause or intelligent cause, promote undirected change or purposeful design, promote atheistic or theistic belief, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or ideas, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

Religion involves a faith in some sort of supernatural power. By definition, naturalism is a way of looking for answers about nature in nature. Trying to set scientific naturalism up as an opposing religious belief is not only illogical, but it also cheapens both science and religion. Additionally, the methods of science involve "methodological naturalism", which means that scientists seek the answers to questions using METHODS that are natural. "Philosophical naturalism" is atheistic, but is not a requirement of science.

This paragraph not only tries to make science look like a religious belief, it actually goes a step further and tries to equate science with atheism. Labeling evolution as inherently atheistic is another back-door way to promote a Christian Fundamentalist agenda.

The nice thing about bills like this is that they typically die in committee. Let's hope this one follows that pattern.

Is Evolution Legal?

Today's question asked if the following statement is true or false: "In Kansas, it is illegal to teach evolution without also teaching creationism", and students were pretty evenly divided on how they felt about it.

The statement, for the record, is completely false for reasons that I'll go into in a moment. But let me begin by saying I was surprised by the number of students who thought it was illegal to teach evolution PERIOD.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools to be unconstitutional as a violation of the establishment (what is commonly, but perhaps incorrectly referred to as the "separation of church and state").

In response to this ruling, states begin issuing "equal time" laws which stipulated that evolution would be taught, but equal instructional time must be given to teaching creationism. In 1982, these laws were declared unconstitutional by a federal court's ruling in McLean v. Arkansas. In 1987, the Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard. With this ruling, the court not only declared it unconstitutional to require "Creation Science" to be taught alongside evolution, but also declared that teaching "creation science" undermined the provisions of a comprehensive science education.

In response to the Edwards decision, creationist groups began removing all references to God or the Bible from their materials. This movement culminated in "Intelligent Design", which was declared unconstitutional by a federal court judge in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

I guess the take home message from all of this is that:
1. It is unconstitutional to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science classes.
2. It is unconstitutional to require the teaching of creationism (in any form) in public school science classes.
3. This is true in Kansas, along with the rest of the United States.

It is important to keep in mind that these court cases are not made in judgement of any particular religious belief. They do not, or cannot, speak to the validity or truth on any one particular belief system over another. All they do is define, legally, what the bounds of science are, and therefor what can and can't be taught about the origins and diversity of life (including humans) in public school science classes.

Anti-evolution updates

There's a lot of news coming to us from the National Center for Science Education today.

1. Mississippi's anti-evolution bill died in committee.

2. A new anti-evolution bill has been introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives.

3. At least one researcher gives Kansas science standards an F-.

I hope to post on each of these later this weekend, especially the last one, which I have a serious problem with.

Antievolution in Iowa

Iowa has become the fourth state during this legislative year to have an anti-evolution bill introduced in its legislature. According to the NCSE:

Entitled the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act," HF 183 contains three sections. In the first, it is contended that "current law does not expressly protect the right of instructors to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution," that "instructors have experienced or feared discipline, discrimination, or other adverse consequences as a result of presenting the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution," and that "existing law does not expressly protect students from discrimination due to their positions or views regarding biological or chemical evolution."

This bill follows current trends in that it uses terms like "academic freedom", "protection", and "full range of scientific views" to disguise religious intent. And it fits into the same strategy that I discussed in a previous post, which is to give the impression that evolution is a weak theory and that there's a lot of scientific controversy about the validity of the theory of evolution. Both of these statements are false.

New Mexico Anti-evolution Bill

Another anti-evolution bill has popped up. This time in the New Mexico state Senate. As reported by the National Center for Science Education:

If enacted, the bill would require schools to allow teachers to inform students "about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to biological evolution or chemical evolution," protecting teachers who choose to do so from "reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimation [sic] for doing so."

This is another "back door" argument. Proponents of creationism have consistently re-labeled their tactics (equal time, scientific creationism, intelligent design, academic freedom, etc.) and have consistently had their tactics declared unconstitutional in the courts. So if they aren't able to legally introduce creationism, the next best thing is to make evolution look like a week theory, or a theory in jeopardy (neither of which, by the way, is accurate). The logic behind this goes something like this: 1) evolution and creationism are competing ideas used to explain the diversity of life of Earth, and 2) creationism can't be legally taught in science classes but if 3) people can be convinced that evolution is "weak" then 4) by default they will accept the creationists perspective as true.

Evolution in Texas

Kansas has a bad reputation when it comes to science education. At one point, Popular Science magazine even listed "Kansas Biology Teacher" as the third worst job in science. The bad press comes from our state's ongoing political controversy as to how evolution should be treated in the state science standards.

But it should be pointed out that we're not the only state that's having this discussion. In fact, Texas is currently discussing proposed revisions to their science standards. At issue is whether the following language:

The student is expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.

Should be replaced with:

The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing.

"Strengths and weaknesses" language is a tactic commonly used by opponents to evolution as a way to weaken the credibility of certain theories (like evolution) that are perceived to be in conflict with their religious beliefs.

As always, the National Center for Science Education has a great summary of these proceedings on their website.

Evolution Legislation

As the new legislative year gets underway, most of the discussion is about budgets and how to balance them. Lost in the economic talk, though, are the first two anti-evolution bills of 2009.

Oklahoma Senate Bill 320 would require state and local authorities to:

endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

That doesn't sound too bad, if it was preceded with:

The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

As one of my science heroes (you know you're a geek when you have science heroes) likes to point out, encouraging critical thinking and thoughtful questioning is a good thing in science class. In fact, the ability to ask questions and think critical about the natural world are extremely important tools for a scientist. However, when certain theories of science are singled out for special treatment, we start to run into problems. Probably the biggest is that the statement above gives the impression that scientific questions and evidence should only be explored, critical thinking skills should only be used, and differences of opinion should only be respected when discussing evolution, the origins of life, global warming, or human cloning. If you're studying something like, say, gravity, then there's no need to ask questions. If you're discussing the extinction of wildlife due to overhunting or habitat depletion, don't worry about recognizing or respecting that other people might have a different view than you do. And if you're learning about quantum mechanics, don't bother with looking for evidence.

I'll have more on this later. In the meantime, the amazing folks at the National Center for Science Education have an informative post on this piece of legislation.