Saturday, March 25, 2006

 

Tap Dancing in California

.
A school district in California is the latest to try to single evolution out of the science curricula for a disclaimer to the effect that it is only a theory and not "unalterable fact." One good place to see how this is scientifically disingenuous is the late Stephen Jay Gould’s article "Evolution as Fact and Theory." That such a policy is legally improper is demonstrated by the decisions in Selman v. Cobb County School District and Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.

Anyway, here is the text of the new policy:

LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCIENCE PHILOSOPHY

The Science curriculum of the Lancaster School District is standards-based and reflects the fundamental belief, as stated in the 2004 Science Framework, "that all students can acquire the science knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the world that awaits them." To provide students with a high degree of science literacy the following expectations should be met:

The goal of science education is to encourage inquiry, investigation and understanding.

The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools – observable facts and testable hypotheses.

The character of science is open to inquiry. The curriculum promotes student understanding of how we come to know what we know and how we test and revise our thinking.

To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they should understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories and laws.

Students should learn that science never commits itself irrevocably to any fact, hypothesis, or theory, no matter how firmly it appears to be established. Evolution, then, should be taught as theory, as opposed to unalterable fact. Discussions that question the theory may be appropriate as long as they do not stray from the current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis and theory. Science instruction must respect the private beliefs of students, but discussion in this regard should not be part of the science curriculum.

Students are given opportunities to construct the important ideas of science, which are then developed in depth, through inquiry and investigation.

The three basic scientific fields of study – earth, life and physical sciences – are taught and connections among them developed.

Science is presented with its applications in technology and its implications for society.

Science is presented in connection with the students’ own experiences and interests, frequently using hands-on experiences that are integral to the instructional sequence.

Instructional strategies and materials allow several levels and pathways of access so that all students can experience both challenge and success.

Textbooks are the major, but not sole, source of the curriculum; everyday materials and laboratory equipment, video and software, as well as other printed materials such as reference books and periodicals provide a substantial part of the student experience.

Assessment programs should be aligned with the standards-based instructional program. Student performance and investigation play the same central role in assessment as they do in instruction.

All this will, no doubt, play out in court but the interesting thing is that Alex Branning, the 22 year-old owner of a web design and Internet marketing company, who proposed and promoted the policy, decided to defend the school district's action at talk.origins. The thread can be found here.

Mr. Branning claimed that the policy:

. . . is not an attack on evolution, nor is it a "backdoor" for the creationists. It simply allows (even encourages) the teachers to have discussions about science in the classroom.

He also stated:

Because of the scare tactics and fear-mongering of the NCSE and other organizations, it is an automatic response to put anyone who even resembles an anti-evolutionist in the "creationism" camp - and then to immediately assume that I want to bring the Bible into the science class. These things couldn't be further from the truth. The motives behind this move are the sinking test scores - students don't care about science and they are failing the class miserably. While my idea to promote discussion (and hopefully pique their curiosity at the same time) may be off the mark, we must do something!

And lastly, Mr. Branning said:
Many of you ask why single out evolution? The answer is simple: it is the only scientific theory that people talk about, arguably the only one laymen care about.
We know evangelical and fundamentalist Christians care about disputing evolution, but is there any significant impetus to "talk" about evolution, compared to other theories, outside certain religious groups? It seems clear that this claim is merely an attempt to avoid the uncomfortable fact that the only motivation for this policy is to skew science education to the demands of particular religious groups.
.
As might be expected, the reception at talk.origins was skeptical even before it was revealed that Mr. Branning owns a website called Evolution Is Impossible. Mr. Branning did not deny his ownership but said:

I fail to see how running a web site with a catchy title (perhaps too catchy) that questions the science behind evolution makes me a creationist.

Umm, "Evolution Is Impossible" is merely catchy? And he doesn’t see why it raises questions about his motivations, especially since he has refused to disclose his religious affiliations? While he is correct that faith is a private matter, once you enter the public arena on an issue fraught with religious implications, the price you pay may include the sacrifice of that privacy. Mr. Branning himself recognized that his motivations are relevant by putting forth a defense of them.

So, when it comes to catchy titles and creationism, which is it? Does becoming an anti-evolutionist lower your IQ by forty points or does it lower your honesty by 100%?
.

Comments:
G'day, catshark!

In my e-mail to Alex late on Saturday night that invited him to join the discussion in Talk Origins, I did try to give him an idea of how frantic the exchanges could become. I really did!

I'm just sorry I missed finding the evolutionisimpossible site before asking him to comment himself on the debate in the newsgroup. Of course, if I had seen that site, I would have more than likely said something in the e-mail and he might then have avoided turning up in T.O. My thanks to you and the others for outing his anti-evolution position.

(signed) marc
 
I can't see any reason you should feel any responsibility for this particular Christian walking of his own free will into that particular lion's den. He seemed to have no difficulty starting a new thread or responding when and where he wanted to. He did not display any signs of being a usenet newbie. In any case, you warned him explicitly and if he didn't realize that people could make the connection between him and that site, what is he doing running an internet marketing company? If you want to feel sorry for anyone, keep the kids in that school district in mind.
 
As I recall, this home schooled boy wonder had only some community college courses in "communications" aka web design, and was then warmly embraced by the school board.

I also recall that one of his web site projects was a Christain fellowship sort of thing for fundies.

While it is just fine to be ignorant, or to be a Christian fundy, this will be of major concern regarding the intent of his proposals.
 
Nice resource! I’ve just added it to bookmarks.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives