March 26, 2009
UPDATED: Small Victory for Science — Previously: Texas Science Education Stands at the Edge of the Abyss
UPDATE: According to a report from the Dallas Morning News, the Texas Board of Education rejected restoring the “strengths and weaknesses” proposal by a 7-7 split vote. A final vote will come on Friday, but the vote is expected to remain deadlocked.
My freshman year of high school, when the teacher reached the section about evolution, he began by telling us that though there may be alternative explanations, they were not science and would not be discussed in class. He would be happy, however, to speak with any students about them after class. The evolution chapter then proceeded like any other lesson, with lectures and labs and an exam at the end.
It wasn’t until I was an adult that I realized that my experience may have been somewhat rare, particularly for conservative Indiana. I once met an elementary school teacher who feared being asked questions about evolution and wouldn’t answer them, telling her students to ask their parents instead. One friend’s high school skipped over the topic completely. But by this point in my life, I wasn’t surprised by these stories, having seen efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution in Georgia, Kansas and Pennsylvania (and since then Louisiana). Avoiding the topic seems somewhat mild compared with efforts to foist creationism or its cousin, intelligent design, on students.
The battle has now moved to Texas, where this week the state’s Board of Education is considering requiring teachers to instruct high school students on the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, particularly evolution. Weaknesses, though, is simply code for “evolution is wrong.” Those who pull out that argument do not argue for science; they want creationism or intelligent design taught in its place, though they have learned to be circumspect about their goals. You can see from this liveblog of the board’s meeting this week, by a Houston Chronicle reporter, that several of the people who spoke out on the first day for the “strengths and weaknesses” language had a religious agenda. And they have half of the board on their side, including the board chairman, who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.
You would think that a board of education would have education (i.e., teaching children things that are not false) be their first priority, but it appears that the Texas board, or at least part of it, does not. Of course, the really scary bit of all of this is that where Texas goes in textbooks, so does much of the country. Because it’s such a big market, textbook publishers try to make their books fit Texas’s standards. If Texas requires weaknesses to be included, those false arguments could end up in your child’s schoolroom, even if you live thousands of miles away.
So, Texans, speak up. Teach your children about the wonder of evolution. Tell the board to leave out that silly “strengths and weaknesses” line. If you live elsewhere, keep a lookout for efforts like these.
Some resources:
National Center for Science Education
Evolution Resources from the National Academies
Science, Evolution and Creationism (free PDF download)
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
1 Comment »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
First, it is just as repugnant for “intelligent design” to seek to squelch evolution, as it is for evolution to seek to squelch “intelligent design.”
My concern is not religious, but is based on the historical fact that the struggle of ideas often leads to advances in our knowledge. A John Allen Paulos indicates, the attempt to solve the “impossible equations of mathematics led to significant breathroughs elsewhere.
It is one thing to exclude clearly religious creation stories from the classroom. After all, there is no need to spend time wondering if the world sits on the back of an giant tortoise.
But when a “religious” position (e.g., intelligent design) purports to be scientific in nature, we OUGHT to take it on, to point out it’s inconsistences…and to note the ones that it points out in our side of the argument. This creates knowledge–isn’t that what it’s all about?
My problem is that some evolutionary thinker claim that a God is not needed at all to explain things. I can almost agree with that in terms of what we see on earth…but when you rewind back to the Big Bang, atheism doesn’t work very well any longer.
Has there been an infinite number of universes prior to our current one? If so, then there being only so many ways you can arrange all the atoms in the universe, there have surely been an infinte number of IDENTICAL universes–down to someone writing this very letter to Smithsonian!
And if there are an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously (the multi-verse), we are in the same predicament, I think.
Well, do we wish to believe that there are universes that are exact duplicates of ours–down to the finest detail? Isn’t that surely as much about faith as believing God started it all?
It all circles back to faith.
And so maybe it’s OK to put intelligent design to the test over and over…until it finally either proves itself…or goes quietly into that good night.