Our Textbook Problem
The Latest Stage In the Unending Evolution Battle
SOURCE: AP/HARRY CABLUCK
Some of the biology textbooks under consideration by the State Board of Education at the board meeting in 2003.
Print
Don’t fall for the optimistic spin that some are putting out: What happened in Texas last week was bad, bad, bad for science education. That’s according to the National Center for Science Education, the leading organization defending the teaching of evolution in the U.S. (Still need to make a charitable contribution before April 15? Here’s a group that needs and deserves it!)
Science, Cultured
Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture. He is the author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.” (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)
To recap: The Texas Board of Education was rewriting its science standards, both for Earth and Space Sciences and for Biology. In this context, the board got rid of language about teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, longtime creationist code for undermining it in the classroom. That’s a win. But at the same time, other language was inserted that create new opportunities for sowing doubt about the cornerstone of biology. For instance, students are now expected to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.” That tortured language can serve only one purpose: Help drag misleading creationist critiques and misinformation into the curriculum.
In the case of Texas, that’s particularly dangerous: The state’s vast size allows its educational practices to significantly influence science textbook publishers. The standards could thus have an impact on other states as well. We’ll have to see how it shakes out, but we can’t feel optimistic.
Granted, in broader perspective, one might view this latest stage in our ongoing evolution conflict in the United States as presenting reasons for hope. After all, in the space of thirty years, we’ve moved from the stupendous absurdities of “creation science”—the attempt to teach students about a biblical flood having laid down the fossil record, about humans and dinosaurs living together (on the ark, among other places), and so on—to Texas’s vague, poorly written agnotology. That’s progress, if it’s to be measured merely by the substantive positions that anti-evolutionists are now forced to advocate.
However, it’s important to remember that “creation science” and “intelligent design” alike were beaten back in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion. Legal challenges, not popular ones, have whittled down anti-evolutionism to its current lawyerly state. And unfortunately, such progress has no parallel in public surveys about evolution. There are tons of polls out there, but I’ve always preferred to rely on Gallup because, as the National Science Foundation notes, they’ve asked the same question repeatedly since 1982. And there’s no movement: 46 percent of the public agrees with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”
This is not merely anti-evolutionism; it is a specific and extreme form of creationism, the so-called “young earth” variety, which relies directly on biblical literalism. Such a stance rejects the past 200 plus years of science not just in the field of evolution, but in geology and, most assuredly, cosmology, where many of the same literalists question the Big Bang. This core anti-science swath of America wants far more than to have students “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.” It wants its children entirely shielded from the teaching evolution, even though it has already raised them at home to doubt and disbelieve in the first place. That’s why the current, sneaky creationist language will serve its purpose: For every kid brought up to equate Darwin with a full frontal assault on religion and morality, only the slightest semblance of doubt and questioning will be seized upon and do its own work from there. Biology class won’t have any impact; the beliefs of childhood will last throughout life.
It can be overwhelming, exhausting, and deeply depressing all at once to follow each subsequent stage in the anti-evolution whack-a-mole game, as attacks pop up across the country, state by state, and we go through the same rituals over and over again—sometimes a step forward, sometimes a step back. I must confess that I occasionally tune out, for precisely this reason: I’ve heard it all before. How can we keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting?
Only some kind of seismic change could alter this societal dynamic. It could come at the hands of a great political or religious leader, who finally breaks down walls. Or perhaps it could come from either of the core camps—the scientists, the creationists—if one changed strategy entirely. (Not likely.) Or, it could come if we vastly change the localized way in which we currently determine the content of American science education. (Again, not likely.) But barring any of these things, it will continue to be the scientists against the conservative religious, with powerful feelings on each side.
“Somebody’s got to stand up to experts!” said Texas Board of Education chair Don McLeroy during the latest proceedings, according to the National Center for Science Education. Some defenders of science and reason will find this statement hilariously misinformed.
I find it deeply, painfully sad.
Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”
Comments on this article
As an ex-science teacher and a grandparent, I feel we are all watching the rationality of our nation unfold into medieval, irrational histrionics. If Galileo were to explain planetary motion to the 46% of evolution doubters you refer to, they would be likely to deny the validity of his claims, although based on documented observation. We see our youth subscribing to astrology, fortune telling, vampire legends, captivated as they are by brilliantly produced entertainment from Hollywood. They haven’t a clue about geologic time, the laws of thermodynamics, or basic mathematics past arithmetic. Science and humanities taught in our public schools are captive to populist pressures based on religious doctrine rather than on observed, repeatable scientific experiment and unbiased historical records. At the same time we have exported our manufacturing offshore, and long ago abandoned the precious metal standard for our money in favor of “currency” the value of which is based on international whim rather than a consistent, golden basis. The Creationists constitute a bellwether, “bellwether – sheep that leads the herd often wearing a bellwether – male sheep, especially a castrated one.” The irony is striking!
April 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pmChris,
“analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records.”
I am assuming it is the specific examples mentioned that are problematic.
Even so, I am missing something in the logic chain. How does this necessarily mean that the various creationists rationalizations will be accepted over the explanations of evolutionary science? It sounds like some odd variety of “teach both sides” gets in rather than an exclusively creationist perspective. While I understand how it might be offensive to have both sides in, haven’t evolutionary explanations been strengthened enough to stand tall in such a fight?
April 1st, 2009 at 8:12 pmTexas and California get their clout in textbook selection not just because they are populous, but because they make textbook selections statewide, rather than in individual districts as happens in many states.
Maybe it’s time to stop trying to fight these bait-and-switch “teach the controversy” statutes. They are usually vague enough–just mentioning the topics, not the outcome–that complaining about them can sound like hypersensitive whining. Instead of removing them, maybe the statutes should just be explicit about the range of credible scientific explanations. For example, it’s fine to say that there is some uncertainty about the age of the universe, as long as it is made clear that ALL scientifically based estimates come in over five billion years. Young-earth creationists could not complain about that without making very clear what they are really up to.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am“How can we keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting?” Mooney asks.
It’s not a speed test, or a strength test. It’s an endurance test. (CF the amazing Genie Scott of NCSE, who has worked on this problem for years, and many others like her.)
April 8th, 2009 at 12:08 pm“The sequential nature of the… fossil record” sounds like The Great Chain of Being. Hope a history teacher shows up to teach it.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:54 pmTIME TO STEP BACK AND VIEW THE EVOLUTION BATTLE FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES?
I am not eager to sound like a conservative scientific Brooks to Mooney’s Shields. However, being born in an earlier generations gives me perspectives that are often overlooked by more recent generations of scientists, Chris Mooney included.
As a student in the 50s I can recall no issue over Darwin and evolution theory in biology texts and teaching (they were also mentioned briefly in World history texts) in any public schools. Catholic clergy might have problems with evolution, but most Protestant clergy accepted it, taking something like the position already enunciated by the 19th Century Danish naturalist and chemist, Georg Forchhammer. Forchhammer argued that there need be no conflict between science and the Bible. Science should be taken as the authority for the study and understanding of natural phenomena, as the Bible was accepted as the ultimate authority for spiritual matters.
In the 1960s scientific leaders made a fateful and self-centered mistake. New “affective” educational philosophies were introduced nationwide by leading schools of education, foundations, and President Johnsons Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe III, replacing “cognitive” approaches to education. Holding all students to the same standards and teaching methods was regarded as unfair and harmful. Social promotion was introduced. The previous mandatory requirements for math and core science courses (i.e. biology, chemistry, physics) were eliminated.
“AP” (advanced placement) science courses were made available to the minority of students interested in careers in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering, and science, etc. But most students took the more common option of “earth science”, i.e. mixtures of meteorology, chemistry, geology, etc. that took a mainly descriptive, simplified approach to science and did not provide the rigor of the earlier courses that gave students an understanding of scientific thinking and method.
Where were the scientific leaders? They were busy recruiting the “best and brightest” and had little interest in non science majors – so long as they and university departments got their desired quota of talent. The newer generation of students never gained any real grasp of science or the scientific method. This included both communications majors (journalists) and future clergy!
As creationism gradually increased, so did concerns rise in a segment of the scientific community. Confrontations began to emerge, which eventually became court battles. I have been extremely uncomfortable about the “victories” gained by scientists over school boards and the new intelligent design concepts. At least the activist part of the scientific community regarded the legal victories as the fight for keeping science teaching free from intrusion of religious concepts. But for at least many citizens without stakes in the details it just looked a groups contending for control.
The activist scientists seemed to show little interest in the general standard of science teaching in the schools in question or other schools with far worse standards. It was only challenge to their authority, symbolized by evolution, that aroused action. If the challenge to evolution was withdrawn, the concern subsided.
I yield to no one in my admiration for Darwin, who had one of the highest batting averages for advanced theory and intuitions that would later be proven correct. But I also note that Darwin was also a man of marvelous openness and humility, who would have never been comfortable in the activist role.
introduce students to rigorous approaches that would becoming doctors, dentists, engineers, and now ocourses in science were was regarded as unfairwere e 1960s,l that science was the ultimate authority on detailed natural phenomena, just as the Bible was the ultimate spiritual authority. Danish naturalist and chemist, Georg Forchhammer around 1835, that the Bible was without problems or were neutral. They accepted After all, the Danish chemist, Forchhammer in 1835-40 already pointed out that had problems t to Shields and Brooks, but there perspectives on this longstanding confrontation that people from younger generations like are aspects of this confrontation that battle
April 11th, 2009 at 12:01 amWhy teach in school something on Evolution outside of its impact on history and politics?
Any minimal review will show that Evolution and Creationism are a total waste of efforts. Interesting in their historical context.
Take the minimum test of any science: Has it ever predicted anything? Does it have any equations? Is it good for something? Has it directed the discovery of a healing drug? Does it predict the evolution of DNA between species?
Consider this, Darwin was wrong when he concluded the different beaks in Galapagos show “evolution”, the fact is that they were random variations, like the variations between members in your own family.
Yes, people evolve, many or most get bigger in each generation but the DNA data on changes within one species implies every species started with one pair of the same species. Evolution, and everyone else, have yet to explain that.
Darwin, himself, argued at different times for three different and incompatible explanations on evolution. His first publication on different species was written by Wallace and Darwin merely added his name.
Another fact that has no explanation is that where one of an species arrives, they never multiply. This kept many spiders and other insects away from many islands, even after ships brought many of them. Evidently, there was no pair of opposite sex to reproduce.
The third fact is a Gamma ray speculation as to how a Super Nova might have removed or otherwise altered a DNA chain.
Even if this could be replicated in a laboratory, the exact very same change must occur in another one of the same specie, of the opposite sex, in nearby proximity and, around the same time. Super Nova are the one of the rarest star in the sky. “Unlikely” is a gross understatement.
Then, there is that pesky Fr. Mendel, the Polish monk that proved, and developed the algebra to predict, how plants tend to inherit traits of their parents. The real first one to have a scientific prediction on how plants evolve.
He sent a copy of his report to Darwin and it was found annotated by Darwin -but unacknowledged.
Darwin persisted on his “tendency to the mean” that was based on nothing and it is a poor way to develop scientific principles, instead of a result from numerous data, properly analyzed and predicted results, like Fr. Mendel’s.
Some 30 years after Fr. Mendel’s algebra in a paper re-discovered by three scientists, at about the same time, the algebra units Fr. Mendel used was seen to exactly match what others predicted and Fr. Mendel’s units were renamed and have since then been called “genes”, until replaced with a new definition based on DNA segments -another step in the true science of evolution. They refer to segments identified to produce specific chemicals or drugs, with about half found only in the brain.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:45 amThis may be the foundation of the science of the brain, when its principles are discovered. Remember, the study of ancient bones has no role, at all, in this subject.
OOPS -
Apologies, readers or editor! I left some draft material in the foregoing letter. Please remove last paragraph from the letter about evolution. thanks
April 11th, 2009 at 6:10 amPerhaps my point is too subtle. The study of Creationism or Darwinism is a total waste of time and effort.
Neither one produced a single prediction, they both provide words to “explain” the difference between species that only their faithful followers accept. A diolog of the deaf, where those who agree talk with each other and have produced nothing that predicted a new species found AFTER the predction is made. Sorry for the condescending expression but I have met too many that use the term “predict” only about the past. Obviously, all these believers are unfit to work in science, of any kind, supported only by the fanatics on both of their sides.
Incidentally, the Pope does not support Creationism and Father Mendel did not support the Evolution views Darwin stole from Rev. Malthus (”fight for survival”) and Wallace. Darwin never admitted his plagiarisms, publicly (he is said to have argued that he added his name only at the insistence of long-time friends, not an unbiased set).
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pmHis main arguement was the many years that passed since his trip to Galapagos which, he said, were needed to reflect on his data collection. Yet, his arguments on the bird’s beak was wrong, he simply had no way to know the truth, so he made up an explanation. Does that sound familiar? He would have been disqualified, for that reason, in many, if not all, professional societies that keep Ethical values.
Why is it that so many claim all evolution is according to the rules of evolution but have never predicted another species? Great many species have been found on land and in the deep ocean, up to a few days ago, yet, not even one was “predicted” before it was found. Funny!
I missed the point: It was about textbooks.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 pmYes, Texas tells the nation what to teach children.
But, why do we need textbooks? Why not use CDs instead?
They would all be cheaper and the muscle of the publishers would end. Of course, they know that and they make sure no state adopts CDs or Internet teaching in the classrooms.
Can you imagine what a game could be, say, one called “The Oregon Trail”, with real photos of the trail and a photo of, whatsher name, Sacagawega (Sp?), if we ever find one.
With pop questions about the times and nation at that time, it could make learning fun and interesting.
But, no, they rather cram all those big and heavy books on the back of children to stunt the physical and mental growth. And they are the Friends of the People? With friends like that, who needs Torquemada?