Don McLeroy attempts to spin the issue

Today in the Austin American Statesman we have an editorial from none other than the state’s chair of the board of education–Don McLeroy!  Recall that McLeroy is himself anti-evolution, though he has continued to claim for years that he has no intention of promoting the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design in science classes (though his actions have always said otherwise).

According to McLeroy’s editorial today, the blame for this controversy lies at the feet of the proponents of evolution:

The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia’s far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom. Even Texas’ 20-year-old requirement to teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of hypotheses and theories has come under attack. Words that were uncontroversial and perfectly acceptable for nearly two decades are now considered “code words” for intelligent design and are deemed unscientific. The elite fear that “unscientific” weaknesses of evolution will be inserted into the textbooks, leaving students without a good science education and unprepared for the future, compelling businesses to shun “illiterate” Texas.

McLeroy makes several misleading statements here.  First, acceptance of the validity of evolution is not restricted to academia’s “far-left”.  Even if that were true, proponents of evolution are not against questioning of the theory, or any theory.  Questioning the world around us is part of the scientific method.  Furthermore, there are plenty of real controversies about the theory of evolution that are currently being questioned and examined by scientists around the globe. 

What educators and scientists ARE concerned about is the attempt to confuse students about the theory.  Anti-evolutionists are trying, as they have been for years, to make it appear as if evolution is a theory in crisis, when it certainly is not.  By making it appear thus, this opens the door for creationists and intelligent design proponents to say, “Look, students.  Here is the alternative.”  Such teachings may be acceptable at home, at church, or in a religion or philosophy class, but these ideas of origins are unscientific.  Being unscientific, they do not belong in a science class. 

Now, others might point out that having the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” in the standards does not mean that teachers will be tossing ideas about creationism around willy-nilly.  True.  However, having the phrase “strengths and weaknesses” in the science TEKS is dangerous regardless.  This phrase itself is unscientific and gives students false ideas about the very nature of science.  McLeroy points out that this phrase has been part of the standards for several years and was uncontroversial until recently.  That’s not really the case.  There have been many people who have wanted that phrase removed for YEARS.  (Recall that several months ago state board of education member Barbara Cargill wrote an editorial in which she stated that the phrase had served Texas students well for years.  When I emailed and asked her to explain this statement, she never replied.)

McLeroy points out that the new standards focus on contructing “testable explanations”–a phrase he says should be satisfactory to both sides of the issue.  He states that, “The debate can now shift from “Is it science?” to “Is it testable?””  Fair enough.  The issue of something being testable is, of course, very important to the scientific method.  McLeroy claims that one of the new controversial science standards is simply following through with this idea of “testability”:

A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question. It states: “The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.” It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.

The question I have for McLeroy and others on the board who support these changes is…why are you singling out evolution?  If you truly feel that the “strengths and weaknesses” of theories need to be addressed, why are you particularly singling out this one theory?  Why aren’t there any standards being drafted to address the strengths and weaknesses of the germ theory of disease, for example?

In his concluding paragraph, McLeroy states:

If we are to train our students, engage their minds and, frankly, be honest with them, why oppose these standards?

McLeroy himself is clearly being dishonest.  By singling out evolutionary theory for “strengths and weaknesses” and attempting to use a Stephen Jay Gould quote to discredit the theory (yes, you’ll have to read the editorial for that tid-bit) he shows that his actions are, in fact, religiously motivated. 

So, to answer McLeroy’s question…why should we oppose such standards?  Here are just a few reasons.

1. These standards give students a false idea that there is a scientific controversy over evolution.  There is not.
2. The phrase “strengths and weaknesses” gives a false idea about the very nature of science. 
3. This approach could potentially lead to costly lawsuits when teachers use the standards to promote alternative theories in class like creationism (or, vice versa, teachers could potentially be accused of not adequately covering the “weaknesses” part of the clause).
4. Potential damage to the educational system, reputation, and economic growth of our great state. 
5. Potential damage to the educational system, reputation, and economic growth of our COUNTRY (recall that Texas is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, so what Texas decides largely impacts the rest of the nation).

Barbara Cargill’s recent comments on evolution and “strengths and weaknesses”

Barbara Cargill

Barbara Cargill, the district 8 representative of the Texas State Board of Education, recently wrote an article addressing the controversy over Texas’ science education standards and the “strengths and weaknesses” language.  You may find her article in its entirety here.  Below I have commented on some of Ms. Cargill’s points.

“The State Board of Education began discussing our state’s science curriculum standards in November.  We listened to over 90 testifiers, and the vast majority supported teaching all of evolutionary theory as fact with no reference to its scientific weaknesses.”

As I have stated on this blog before, if evolutionary theory is going to  be judged by such standards, then much of science should be suffering under the same scrutiny.  No scientific theory is ever going to be proven to be 100% true.  No theory is safe from criticism and peer review.  That does not mean that well-tested theories should not be treated as fact.  That’s the beauty of the scientific method–which, many scientists will agree, HAS shown evolution to be true beyond “reasonable doubt”.

The current requirement states that students are expected to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”  This is a good standard that has served our teachers and students well for many years.

I would personally like to know how this is a good standard that has served the state well.  This clause is certainly put into the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) specifically for ideas that some people find troubling or controversial.  I have never heard of anyone spending time in class having their students evaluate the weaknesses of cell theory, the germ theory of disease, thermodynamics, and so on.  A good science teacher will of course discuss how parts of any of these theories have changed over time and might touch on any controversies related to the topic.  Yet this is something that is covered by the TEKS already–both the current TEKS and the newly proposed TEKS. 

For example, both the proposed TEKS  and the current TEKS state:

Science is a way of learning about the natural world. Students should know how science has built a vast body of changing and increasing knowledge described by physical, mathematical, and conceptual models, and also should know that science may not answer all questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cargill goes on to state:

Proponents of Darwinian evolution say that the theory has no weaknesses.  However 700+ reputable scientists who have signed “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” question major tenets of evolution.  They state, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”  In The Origin of Species, Darwin himself wrote, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

To say that proponents of “Darwinian evolution” claim the theory has no weaknesses is misleading.  Scientists realize that theories are subject to change.  This tenet of science is included in the state’s science standards, as mentioned above.  Furthermore, 700+ scientists signing a petition does not mean a whole lot, unfortunately, unless one questions each scientist as to where their dissent lies.  This is, in fact, one of the common criticisms of this petition. Further criticisms include the fact that the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent, some people may have been misled when signing the petition, and that the wording of the original document was in itself misleading.

For example, when evidence for universal common ancestry in the fossil record is taught (i.e. scientific strength), then the contradictory evidence showing the huge gaps of missing transitional fossils in the record must also be presented (i.e. scientific weakness).  We must educate our students — not indoctrinate them by letting them hear only one side of an issue. 

If this is how Ms. Cargill expects teachers to teach the strengths and weaknesses, then I would also like to see how she proposes handling the strengths and weaknesses of other biological theories, like the germ theory of disease.  I am very serious.  As a teacher who wants to make sure I am covering the TEKS properly, I would like to see some examples of how to teach strengths and weaknesses of the other theories I am required to teach my students.  I would love to see Ms. Cargill’s ideas. 

Also, should a teacher mention the strength (the fossil record), and then a potential weakness (gaps in the fossil record), but then go back to another strength (teaching about all the transitional fossils that have been found)?  Or is that unbalanced and still too one-sided and “indoctrinating”?

How does one decide exactly what is a strength and what is a weakness of a theory?  In some cases it may be obvious, but in others it may simply be in the eye of the beholder.  So where does a teacher turn to make sure they are adequately covering strengths and weaknesses?  Should there be some sort of scientific consensus on which ideas are strengths and which are weaknesses?  But wait…if we turn to scientific consensus, then wouldn’t evolution simply be taught largely as fact anyway?

I would like to note that there is one thing I can certainly agree with Ms. Cargill on:

Presently, Texas’ science standards contain key process skills like analyzing, comparing, gathering information, and drawing conclusions.  Students should practice these skills at each grade level, but too often the tendency is to teach rote memorization of accepted facts.

However, she then continues:

By applying the scientific process, students will be challenged to think “outside the box” and form their own conclusions about topics like common ancestry.  Evolution proponents should not mind if students ask questions; after all, if evolution is the best explanation, then the data should only point to its validity. 

Ms. Cargill is being misleading again here by implying that evolution proponents are scared of their students asking questions about evolution.  Unfortunately, some teachers may certainly be scared or a little intimidated, but this is not due to trying to “cover up” any inaccuracies in evolutionary theory.  It is due to the backlash that might occur from the students, their parents, other teachers, local religious groups, and so on.

Also, note to Ms. Cargill–the data does point to the validity of evolution.

Science is full of mystery and constant discovery.  Headlines such as cloning, DNA testing, and gene mapping are prolific.  Science classrooms are the perfect place to brainstorm about current science events!  With that in mind, how can teachers pick and choose which scientific evidence to teach or ignore?  Teaching students to believe that evolution indisputably holds the answers to life’s big questions undermines the very essence of scientific inquiry.

Good question, Ms. Cargill.  How can teachers pick and choose which evidence to teach or ignore?  Unfortunately, Ms. Cargill did not really address the question herself.

Tony Whitson has also commented on this article at Curricublog.

*Update

I’ve commented on the Texas Insider site where Ms. Cargill’s article is published asking her to please address my post and also sent Ms. Cargill the following email:

Ms. Cargill,
 
I recently read your article from the Texas Insider regarding the latest on the evolution/creationism/intelligent design debates.  I have posted some comments on my blog in reference to this article and welcome you to look at it and respond. 
 
The address is located here:
 
https://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/barbara-cargills-recent-comments-on-evolution-and-strengths-and-weaknesses/
 
I hope you are able to address some of my questions.
 
Merry Christmas!
 
Airtightnoodle

Hopefully she will be able to address some of the above.

*And yet another update!

Jeremy from An Evolving Creation linked to this post (thanks, Jeremy!) and added some extra food for thought:

What Cargill failed to mention is that the signatories of that statement are expressing their skepticism about “the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” The statement does not address common ancestry. In fact, several of the signatories have publicly stated that they have no problem with the fact of common ancestry.

Texas scientists want religion, politics out of science curriculum

Thanks to Jimpithecus at Science and Religion, I found the following article from the Houston Chronicle regarding the science TEKS. 

A group of Texas scientists are worried that the state board of education will insist on keeping the “strengths and weaknesses” clause in the Texas standards for biology education.  Currently this phrase is not found in the proposal for the new TEKS. 

David Hillis from the University of Texas summed up the feelings of scientists and science educators across the state well by saying:

“We are here to support and promote strong, clear, modern science education in Texas schools,” said David Hillis, professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin. “Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science education.”

However, the article also states that:

A panel of experts recently recommended the “strengths and weaknesses” provision remain in astronomy and chemistry but be removed from the updated science curriculum.

Who is this “panel of experts”, and why did they recommend for the provision to remain in certain areas? 

As mentioned previously on this blog, the TEKS will not be voted on until next spring.