The attack on women occurring in so many state houses around the country this legislative session has received much well deserved attention. What has received far less notice, however, is the fact that science education has also been under relentless attack by many of these same legislators.
Bills attempting to ensure that public school science students learn far less about evolutionary theory, the context that ties all of biology and much of science together, while being exposed to the pseudoscience of creationism, have sprouted like mushrooms. (The mushroom analogy is an apt one since these bills thrive in the dark, away from the light of scientific knowledge, and feed on the detritus of long dead ideas.) In recent months, anti-intellectual, anti-science legislation has been introduced in Alabama, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.
But, unlike the attack on women, there is a glimmer of good news on the science front. In Louisiana, Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, has introduced a bill to repeal a terribly misguided Louisiana law. The law Senator Peterson is working to repeal, ironically named The Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008, permits teachers to bring creationist resources into public school science classrooms and laboratories.
Senator Peterson is both clear and articulate about her motives: "This year, the governor has asked the Louisiana legislature to focus on education. If this legislative session is truly about improving Louisiana's education system, then the first place to start is to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act."
Senator Peterson is certainly not a lone voice calling for repeal. Indeed, thanks to the amazing efforts of Zack Kopplin, a first-year-student at Rice University (who began his work as a high school student in Baton Rouge), 75 Nobel laureate scientists have endorsed the effort to repeal this ill-advised law. Additionally, numerous scientific and educational organizations have written in support of the repeal. Organizations as impressive and as diverse as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the Louisiana Science Teachers Association, as well as the organization I head, The Clergy Letter Project, along with numerous others, are all on board.
The Louisiana law has also been the butt of numerous jokes, perhaps the foremost of which was Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury strip on July 10, 2011. Trudeau depicts a high school biology teacher in Louisiana explaining the situation to his class: "So all of the evidence massively supports a theory of evolution that knits together everything we know about biology! However, as high school science students in the state of Louisiana, you are entitled to learn an alternative theory supported by no scientific evidence whatsoever!"
Except for the fact that, by definition, a "theory supported by no scientific evidence" cannot be considered a "theory," at least not within the realm of science, Trudeau catches the absurdity of the Louisiana law perfectly.
As we think about the possible demise of this legislation, it is well worth considering its (anti-) intellectual pedigree, especially since such consideration is particularly relevant in this presidential election year. The Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 can be traced back to an amendment offered by then-Senator Rick Santorum to the senate version of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Santorum, an outspoken proponent of the non-science of intelligent design, drafted the "Santorum amendment" after meeting with members of the Discovery Institute. His language implied both that there was a great deal of controversy about evolution and that it was not widely accepted. Although both of those points are, in fact, true within the general public, neither is close to being accurate with respect to the scientific community. Immediately after its introduction, the Santorum amendment elicited negative comments from 96 scientific and educational organizations. Although the Santorum amendment was adopted by the senate, it didn't survive negotiations in the conference committee that gave birth to No Child Left Behind. Nonetheless, the Louisiana law is a direct descendent of Santorum's failed efforts.
As wonderful as Senator Peterson's repeal effort is, it's important to be realistic about its chances. In fact, Senator Peterson introduced the same bill last session and it didn't make it out of committee. The problem is simple to understand. We've reached the point where expertise is something to be shunned. The opinion of the scientific community is criticized because scientists supposedly are biased in favor of their discipline. The opinion of educators is to be avoided because it's seen as a mistake to believe that they know more than random members of the public.
Anyone with specific knowledge is viewed skeptically in some circles as an elitist. Those promoting anti-science legislation are the same as those who voice the position that encouraging people to attend college is to encourage snobbery.
In this perverted universe, a bill such as Senator Peterson's must be all but dead on arrival. The very fact that those who know the most about the subject so strongly support her efforts will likely be enough to kill it.
Unless. Unless those of us who care about education, who care about knowledge, who care about shining light on difficult problems raise our collective voices. Together we can demonstrate that embracing critical thinking and the scientific method is a good thing for society and that elitism of this sort will yield huge dividends for all of us.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
You hit the nail on the head with your posts!!! The trouble with evolutionary theories is simple. They have a supposed beginning, (i.e., abiogenesis), and a supposed end result, (i.e., man, etc.). However, the middle is left out due to missing links.
They have no "clue" as to how this abiogenesis, which is another twist on spontaneous generation, happened...but, it's a fact - don't you know. Just like a month ago, they, especially the atheists, were all excited about neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. That has already been proven false.
But, as they think...you and I are both ignorant. Hopefully, we will not have to witness them explaining themselves before God.
They have no supposed beginning and they have no supposed end result.
Evolutionary theory does not deal with abiogenisis, it just accepts that there was a cellular organism to begin with.
There is no end result to evolutionary theory, it just continues, as long as organic life forms continue to procreate then evolution will continue.
As for missing links, I admit we won't ever find the missing croco-duck. But that doesn't have any bearing on evolutionary theory.
Just like a month ago sensationalised media articles based on evidence that was not fully understood caused people (some of which may well be atheists) to get excited about the presentation of the evidence in the media that suggested neutrinos had travelled faster than the speed of light.
But after continued scientific study this evidence was brought into question by new evidence gained through investigation. Such is the beauty of science.
And for these reasons not only do I think you are ignorant but the scientific method of applying the available evidence appears to back up my thoughts.
So get together with all your like minded friends, agree to ignore and misrepresent the facts and give yourselves all a pat on the back while you convince yourself that your beliefs are facts and your god loves you dearly.
I'll continue to live in the real world.
It does nothing of the sort. Prove the transitional stages for the development of life. And what about the most vital question? How did it begin? Science simply doesn't know. There's still no proof whatsoever that all species on earth evolved from the same single organisms. Science has no evidence of fossil records or otherwise that shows transitional stages. What's the scientific alternative? There was nothing, then it exploded, it formed everything, right down to the mud, then bacteria formed, and from the mud and bacteria eventually to apes and humans. Christians aren't opposed to science, but it's disingenous to say that evolution explains everything about life. Science's theory is in the beginning there was nothing and through time, chance and natural selection formed man from mud. The only different component here between science and creationism is the "acting agent". Christians believe God did it and science believes nothing did it. Evolution is a theory about the "behavior" of life not it's origins. If anything can be said at all about creationism, is that we can see what's in the world is consistent with God's world. So if believing God created life sounds far-fetched and wacky, then believing nothing formed into something and evolved into sophisticated lifeforms sounds even more wacky. Where else in life can we see examples of something complex forming out of nothing? No where.
Just because you can think up a ridiculous question does not enslave the rest of us to find an answer.
" Where else in life can we see examples of something complex forming out of nothing? No where. " That is a joke of an answer, since we can't even travel to the closest planets in our solar system, let alone the endless amount of planets and moons in the universe. That's like looking for water in one square foot in your livingroom, saying you can't see anything, then giving up, not bothering to search the rest of the planet.
The irony with this particular analogy is it's obvious a skeptic is completely willing to believe in the possiblity that there is scientific evidence, completely unproven, mind you, with no present chance of proving the theory on the endless of other planets, yet they call Christians believing in the creation story riciculous. In with your "looking for water in one square foot example", I submit to you that you are doing exactly that with the unseen spiritual dimension that is much more powerful than we could every imagine.
Why is it so difficult to believe that God might exist? Because otherwise, what's the alternative? If God really exists, then we would be under His moral laws. We would be held accountable for what we do, and as a unqiue creation of God, man has value. Neither evolution nor a gigantic cosmic bang holds us morally accountable or responsible for anything we do nor do we have any more value than a tree in the woods. Everyone does their own thing in whatever way they think is best.
1. A dearth of manly courage. Martin Luther King once said that a man with nothing he would die for is not fit to live. Today too many men don't even have anything they would risk their jobs for. If biology teachers by the thousands would descend on the Legislature and loudly proclaim that they will continue teaching sound science law or no law, perhaps legislators would think twice (and risk THEIR jobs) about passing such an abomination.
2. It sounds ridiculous and it is, but too many biology teachers don't know what a theory is. They're quite willing to teach the theory supported by mountains of evidence alongside the "theory" supported by none, and let the students make their choice. That's because it's possible to get a degree in science - even a doctorate - without having taken a course in the history and philosophy of science. Our institutions of higher learning need to change this. How are we supposed to make our students understand what a "theory" is and is not if we don't understand ourselves?
Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to write a short paragraph (remember, some of these people have trouble focusing) that defines the following:
Theory
Postulate
Extrapolation
Law
Do this in a short, friendly way that would be amenable to adaptation for sock puppet presentations on YouTube, and we'll be back on track getting science back to the people again.
This statement encapulates the thinking of the creationist types. They are so adamant that to different beliefs can co-exist. It has to be one or the other. I have read many other religious and cultural "creation theories" that are so alien to Christian Fundamentalist beliefs (eg. Navajo-American Pueblo Cultures, or Hindu or even Pagan) that I can only concur that such nonsense exists only in the United States.
I am alarmed that these laws, pushed by extremists with the aid of mostly republican-dominated legislatures, even get a second read let alone are passed by state legislatures.
I fully expect the discussion to devolve soon, given the vitriol that I have read in other places on the web and in letters to the editor across the country. I fear for this dumbing down of education. where the informed/educated are "snobs" and elitists. You can only have my brain/intelligence when you pry it from my cold, dead skull, to paraphrase the leaders of NRA.
What I don't understand is how intelligent, educated people who should've seen this coming just sat back and allowed all this ignorance and superstition to seep into our day to day lives. I'm no genius, but I saw it coming.
Now we're at a point where doctors are ordered by law to lie to their patients and give them unproven "statistics" regarding abortion and breast cancer, and where science classes are being taught things that will make the graduate unable to pursue a career in real science.
We can clearly see that there is a religious-based war on women's rights going on at the moment. We can also see a backlash forming as women of all parties set aside differences to fight for their rights as American women.
So, come on, all you smartypants! Let's quit pointing and snickering, and start stepping in to assure that some standards are imposed on science classes. We really don't want Europeans pointing and snickering at US!
"Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as "creationism"), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology)."