Daniel Bolnick: Letter to Robert Scott about teaching the controversy

| 11 Comments | 1 TrackBack

The following letter followed the initial letter signed by over 150 scientists sent to Robert Scott to protest what happened to Comer. As people pointed out on the original thread, this letter is a well reasoned argument against teaching the controversy since there is no real controversy at least not at the level suggested by ID proponents

Notable quote

For example, the Discovery Institute’s recent publication Exploring Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism, which was written to facilitate classroom discussions of “weaknesses,” is demonstrably full of factual errors and logical fallacies.

Enjou

Dear Mr. Scott,

Thank you for your reply to the biologists’ letter concerning the TEA’s “neutrality” regarding evolution and intelligent design. I have forwarded your response to my colleagues. I believe I can speak for most of the faculty who signed the letter (now over 150), when I say that the work that you and the TEA do to strengthen K–12 education in Texas is appreciated. It is precisely because we recognize your efforts that we felt it would be helpful to contact you with our concerns as professional educators and researchers in the biological sciences.

I and the other signers of the biologists’ letter recognize the distinction between the policy-setting role of the Board of Education and the implementation duties of the TEA. As public bodies, both must be responsive to the public’s concerns. However, it is also essential that these public bodies stand for the highest educational standards that reflect the current state of scientific knowledge. Listening to the public is essential, but the public is not always fully informed or correct when it comes to technical matters like the content of a science curriculum.

There is an old joke about the tendency of elected bodies such as school boards to want to compromise: If group A thinks that 2 + 2 is 4, and group B thinks 2 + 2 is 6, the school board will declare that 2 + 2 is 5. (My favorite historical example is the Indiana State Legislature’s House Bill No. 246, which passed 67 to 0 and redefined the mathematical constant pi to be 3.2, rather than 3.14159…, at the urging of a doctor and amateur mathematician Dr. Edwin Goodwin.) There are times when 2 + 2 simply has to equal 4, and pi does not equal 3.2 no matter what the House Bill said.

Likewise, evolution has overwhelming empirical support, while there is zero original empirical research supporting intelligent design, and no credible evidence against evolution.

You write “that anything said will be scrutinized and may be interpreted as representing a position of the agency or State Board of Education.” The Board’s position on science education should be to provide the best and most accurate science possible, regardless of the political consequences. There are times when public bodies need to lead, and this is one of them. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I urge both the Board and the TEA to exercise such leadership by issuing statements that unambiguously support the teaching of evolution and omission of intelligent design in public classrooms. The full weight of scientific evidence would be on your side. The scientific community is agreed that evolution should not only be taught, but taught in a straightforward manner, unqualified by alleged “weaknesses” that are invariably based on faulty logic or misrepresentations of available data.

This is emphatically not an attempt to suppress contrary viewpoints. Rather, it is a professional judgment that the claims of “weaknesses” in evolution are based on shoddy scholarship. We wish to assure you that not a single so-called weakness promoted by anti-evolutionists has passed scientific muster. For example, the Discovery Institute’s recent publication Exploring Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism, which was written to facilitate classroom discussions of “weaknesses,” is demonstrably full of factual errors and logical fallacies. We would be more than happy to help you understand the flaws in any of the “weakness” arguments that you or members of the Board are uncertain about.

This is not to say that there are no controversies in evolution. But the genuine controversies concern esoteric points about how evolution works, not whether it works. Such debates are a normal component of active research in any scientific field, and do not signify the existence of “weaknesses”. For example, there is currently a vigorous debate over whether coding or regulatory genetic changes contribute more to evolution. Coding changes alter the structure of proteins and their functions; regulatory changes alter when and where a given protein is produced. Clear instances of both types of evolutionary change have been documented, but their relative importance is a subject of active research. Personally, I would love to see these kinds of debates taught in science classes, but they do not represent ”weaknesses” in evolution as a whole.

The difficulty is that understanding these topics requires a substantial level of background knowledge. In the case I just outlined, students must understand how coding and regulatory genes work, but gene regulation is not covered until university-level biology courses, so students are not equipped to investigate this topic until late in their undergraduate careers. The same pedagogical problem arises for many of the supposed “weaknesses” of evolution described in creationist sources like Explore Evolution

In your response to the biologists’ letter, you mentioned Process Skill 3A, which taken on its face, is innocuous and seems to be admirable pedagogy: “The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to: (A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.” You correctly identified 3A as being applied to all science standards from 3rd grade through the discipline-related standards for high school. From its ubiquity across the curriculum, we assume that the purpose of 3A is to encourage students to exercise scientific reasoning, which is quite appropriate. However, you probably recall that in 2003, during the textbook adoption hearings, the evolution-related standards were the only standards to which 3A directly was applied, in an effort to weaken the coverage of evolution in the books. An attempt to force textbook publishers to rewrite their textbooks to include non-existent “weaknesses” almost succeeded. This would have resulted in students in Texas and nationally being miseducated about evolution. Upon entry to university science classes, they would have to unlearn the spurious “weaknesses” they had been taught in high school, which is profoundly unfair to them.

We look forward to working with the SBoE to rephrase 3A to encourage critical thinking in all the sciences, without providing a backdoor for scientifically unsound “weaknesses” that are currently being promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations. Dropping the “strengths and weaknesses” language from the TEKS is an important first step. I and others of my colleagues are willing to assist the TEA or the TEKS reviewing committees in this effort. Having science standards that accurately reflect the scientific community’s consensus is essential to the successful education of Texas students.

In conclusion, biology faculty around the state are deeply concerned that next year Texas will be a battleground where creationists (including advocates of intelligent design and “weaknesses” of evolution) try to water down evolution education. This would harm public understanding of biology (already poor), weaken the quality of university-bound biology students, and undermine Texas’s ability to compete in tomorrow’s biotechnology-driven economy. I hope that as the TEKS revisions move forward, both the TEA and the Board adopt firm stances in support of improving evolution education. I also hope that the the Board consults more extensively with Ph.D. biologists among the highly qualified research and teaching faculty at universities around Texas. Finally, on behalf of all my co-signers, I extend an invitation to you to discuss details of evolutionary biology with faculty from any of the universities in Texas. There is a vast reserve of knowledge about science and in particular about evolution in this state that is at your disposal as you and the the Board work to understand the current state of knowledge on this topic. Please avail yourself of this resource, and take a firm stand in support of increased quality of evolution education in Texas.

Sincerely, Dr. Daniel Bolnick, University of Texas at Austin

P.S. You commented on the disclaimer in our original letter, that the letter reflected our own professional opinions. I should point out that this was only added because the ouster of Ms. Comer created an atmosphere of intimidation. A number of faculty expressed concern over possible retribution from their state employers for signing the letter. Some chose not to sign for fear of their jobs, others signed on the condition that the disclaimer be added.

1 TrackBack

GRADE 9–12 I. HISTORY AND NATURE OF SCIENCE A. Scientific World View The student will understand the nature of scientific ways of thinking and that scientific knowledge changes and accumulates over time. 1. The student will be able... Read More

11 Comments

In addition to bold-facing the first statement about the Discovery Institute (above), somebody should also bold-face the DI’s second mention four paragraphs later:

We look forward to working with the SBoE to rephrase 3A to encourage critical thinking in all the sciences, without providing a backdoor for scientifically unsound “weaknesses” that are currently being promoted by the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations.

…and then everybody reading this should spread these quotes far and wide, to every blog discussing specifically the Texas controversy and generally anywhere the Dishonesty Institute is mentioned.

If Chris Comer were a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy who had announced a Discovery Institute “Darwin v. Design” conference, a Richard Weikart “From Darwin to Hitler” lecture, or a Ken Ham “Answers in Genesis” lecture, you Darwinists would be applauding her ouster.

XYZ: You are right of course. She was, after all, involved in the SCIENCE CURRICULUM! If she had touted the examples you suggest, it would be obvious that she had no idea about science and did not belong in such a position.

XYZ:

If Chris Comer were a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy who had announced a Discovery Institute “Darwin v. Design” conference, a Richard Weikart “From Darwin to Hitler” lecture, or a Ken Ham “Answers in Genesis” lecture, you Darwinists would be applauding her ouster.

Yes, because she’d be promoting RELGION. Which is, as we all know, (though some of you foolishly lie about it) prohibited.

And it’s a good thing, at least for you. We, and our children, get constantly bombarded with religious messages. We have this problem in my daughter’s 5th grade class right now.

However, your children don’t get bombarded with atheism. If it were to happen, I think we’d win more converts than we lost. Because it’s really easy to discredit the bible and religious thinking. And only the constant and unchallenged reinforcement works for you.

Think about it. First we come for the Easter Bunny. Then we come for Santa. They’re easy. Then… The Baby Jesus…

Moses:

XYZ:

If Chris Comer were a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy who had announced a Discovery Institute “Darwin v. Design” conference, a Richard Weikart “From Darwin to Hitler” lecture, or a Ken Ham “Answers in Genesis” lecture, you Darwinists would be applauding her ouster.

Yes, because she’d be promoting RELGION. Which is, as we all know, (though some of you foolishly lie about it) prohibited.

Correction: She would be promoting RELIGION in a SCIENCE CURRICULUM, which is forbidden by the US Constitution, as per separation of state and church. Promoting RELIGION in, say, Sunday school, is permissible in the US. Furthermore, if Ms Comer were promoting “From Darwin to Hitler,” I would demand and celebrate her ouster, if only because the creationist chestnut of “Darwin inspired Hitler” has been demonstrated to be false, several times, especially since the things that Hitler said, such as:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65)

does not have anything to do with “descent with modification” at all.

In fact, I would demand Ms Comer’s ouster even if she were promoting “Darwin inspired Hitler” in a Sunday school class, if only because the spreading of false, hate-filled propaganda is, technically, forbidden under any circumstances according to the Bible, as suggested in the parts that mention “thou shalt not bear false witness,” and “he who claims to know the light, but hates his brother is a liar,” as well as the parts that talk about Jesus’ song and dance about “lov(ing) thy neighbor.”

I support evolution education and deplore creationism as much as anyone here, and I a bit ashamed of the comments above.

No I would NOT have fired Comer if she had done the creationist equivalent of what she did (forward an email saying some creationist spokesman would speak at such and such a place).

The offense is far too trivial to merit firing. If anything is to be done, I would say a verbal warning is more than sufficient. Beyond that, whatever the standards are in Texas.

And I can actually see a pro-science person forwarding such creationist email anyways. Those involved with science education should be aware of creationist activities in their area. Lets not accept the creationist crap that simply forwarding an email that is nothing much more than x person will speak at y place at z time is an “endorsement.” That email was not the reason why she was forced to resign. It was the B.S. excuse in order to make an example out of her.

That being said, if some educator really is blatantly disobeying the law or written official policy that has been properly vetted and continues to do so after a courtesy warning, then by all means discipline them up to and including termination. (Of course if that policy is some kind of antievolution policy, our side can take it to court and/or to the voters just like we did Dover and other places.)

XYZ sock puppet du jour Wrote:

If Chris Comer were a bible-pounding holy-rolling fundy who had announced a Discovery Institute “Darwin v. Design” conference, a Richard Weikart “From Darwin to Hitler” lecture, or a Ken Ham “Answers in Genesis” lecture, you Darwinists would be applauding her ouster.

What, why did you drop the word “crackpot”?

If Comer had actively promoted lectures by creationists, and was herself antiscience, I cannot see any way in which she would be fit to perform the duties of a director of science curriculum. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for her to remain in the job. However, merely publicising lectures (by whomever) and maybe even pointing out their relevance to science education, is not (and should not be) a sacking offence.

However, XYZ, you postulate a hypothetical situation that didn’t happen. What comment do you have on what did happen? Do you believe that Comer was unjustly forced to resign? If so, why? If not, why not?

Vernita:

Links to Dr. Forrest’s You Tube Videos entitled,

“Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don’t Want You to Hear”

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI

All beliefs must be taught, as beliefs, but if you think it is only two, you have missed many more cultural beliefs, and suggestive modern ones (interventionism). One should be more concerned with teaching the concepts of open-mindedness than in alleged “rightness”.

To whom it may concern,

Explore Evolution, the newest propaganda weapon in the arsenal of The Discovery Institute, presents a very one-sided debate by using a good defensive for a good offense. Here, the Intelligent Design advocates despite their case being flawed present their attack and manifesto against Darwinian Evolution, which is equally flawed in its construct. Nonetheless, Evolution is a fact.

Making no attempt to disguise their effort and being lead by a senior fellow of the said institute. They need only to marshal others in cause as jury and experts. Here, we find the other authors with their curricula vitae to match their objective effort.

Explore Evolution helps the Intelligent Design advocates in their case before the court of public opinion by debasing Darwinian Evolution and winning the so-called debate by default.

Explore Evolution, as a textbook, should be viewed as nothing more than propaganda disguised as an open and fair advocacy of concern.

The textbook should be rejected out of hand. There is no debate.

Dangerous Ideas are those that impair reality and its truth against the laws of the universe. Here, the idea of God on the one side, and Evolution through Natural Selection on the other. Both are flawed, where reality is much more dynamic.

The creationists try to escape reality and truth through propaganda and brainwashing. The Darwinian Evolutionists can only find an impossibility of life against its design.

Both provide the personal impairment of man and his place in nature.

Roy D. Schickedanz Refuting Charles Darwin in the case of Life’s Responsive Design 773-933-9275

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 21, 2007 7:49 PM.

2007 SCIENCE BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR: Human Genetic Variation and Global Warming was the previous entry in this blog.

The Disco ‘Tute’s new man is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter