http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=346
A Response to the 21st Century Science Coalition Standards of Science Education
[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by two A.P.
auxiliary staff scientists. Dr. Brooks holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology
from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Deweese holds a Ph.D.
in Biochemistry from Vanderbilt University.]
Lines have been drawn and sides have been taken in Texas as scientists
and educators battle with one another over whether the weaknesses in
evolutionary theory should be taught in the public school system. Since
1998, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (
TEKS)
curriculum for the sciences has remained unchanged. Now, 11 years
later, revisions and updates are being made regarding many points within
this curriculum, including how evolutionary biology should be taught in
the public school system. The 1998
TEKS for high school reads:
The student knows the theory of biological evolution. The student is
expected to: (A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA
sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities, and
embryology; and (B) illustrate the results of natural selection in
speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior, and extinction
(“Comparison of Current...,” 2009).
A few points can quickly be drawn from this excerpt. First, the opening
sentence states that students are expected to know the theory of
evolution. It does not state or even directly imply that evolution is
the single true explanation for the origin of life. Second, nowhere in
the statement or the remainder of the 1998
TEKS
are students indoctrinated with the idea that evolution is scientific
law; although, students are still expected to recognize that
similarities among different species are evidence of change rather than a
common creator. For 11 years, the above standard for biological
education has guided middle and high school teachers in their pursuit to
educate young minds. But now, evolutionists have made dramatic pushes
to change what was once taught as an alleged explanation for life into
nothing short of fact.
In support of the proposed changes to
TEKS, the 21
st
Century Science Coalition has formulated five principles that they
believe must be adopted into the Texas science curriculum. The
Coalition’s Web site reads: “We will not allow politics and ideology to
handicap the future of our children with a 19
th-century education in their 21
st-century classroom” (“Welcome,” 2009). The five principles are:
Scientifically sound curriculum standards must:
-
acknowledge that instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences;
-
make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt;
-
be based on the latest, peer-reviewed scholarship;
-
encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to ‘strengths and weaknesses,’ which politicians have used to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses; and
-
recognize that all students are best served when matters of faith are left to families and houses of worship (“Scientist Statement,” 2009, emp. added).
As of the writing of this article, over 600 men and women who currently
hold faculty positions at Texas colleges and universities have signed a
petition in favor of implementing these standards into Texas public
school curricula. The signers include faculty members from several
universities affiliated in some way with Christianity, including Baylor,
Texas Christian, and Abilene Christian, among others. By signing the
petition, these men and women are indicating a personal conviction that
evolution is essentially scientific law and believe it should be taught
as fact to middle and high school students. Further, they intend to
remove from the classroom any and all references to the weaknesses of
the evolutionary hypothesis. In effect, this petition and its signers
are attempting to force onto unsuspecting youths an unproven idea as
pure, clear fact.
The principles endorsed by the Coalition manifest several flaws. First,
the Coalition claimed that “evolution is vital to understanding all the
biological sciences” (“Scientist Statement”). This echoes the modern
push for evolutionary thought to permeate all areas of science. By
interpreting all things in terms of an evolutionary history, the
influence of evolution becomes widespread—particularly in the biological
sciences. However, there is
nothing about biological science that
requires macroevolutionary explanations (see discussion of macroevolution below). In fact,
science
can be taught without invoking macroevolution—despite what we are
bullied into thinking. The biochemical, structural, developmental, and
functional similarities between organisms can be explained in terms of a
common Designer without the need for common descent. Both authors
acknowledge that their own research in biochemistry and molecular
biology is conducted without consideration of macroevolution with
absolutely no detriment to its quality or its conclusions. So, biology
can be understood—even researched—without requiring a context of
Darwinian macroevolution. In fact, postulating common design by a
Designer is a more effective working model than assuming biological
structures are the result of accidental, random processes.
Second, the Coalition wants to “make clear that evolution is an easily
observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable
doubt” (“Scientist Statement”). This is a very misleading statement. By
using the common term “evolution,” the authors avoid clearly defining
what the “easily observable phenomena” are and claim the evidence is
“beyond any reasonable doubt.” (Of course, the implication is that if
you
doubt it—you obviously are not reasonable). This is a frequent tactic
of those who would like us to assume that “all” evolution is the same.
Interestingly, the Coalition did not acknowledge the difference between
microevolution (changes at or below species level using existing genetic information) and
macroevolution
(large-scale changes requiring new genetic information, taking place
over long periods of time) in their statement. Some claim that
creationists invented these terms, but they are commonly used in the
scientific literature and textbooks (e.g., Erwin, 2000; Starr, 2006).
While microevolution is an “easily observable phenomenon” and well
documented, macroevolution is not. The term “evolution” is routinely
used to refer to the combination of the two processes, and this quickly
leads to misunderstanding, because while microevolution is clearly
documented, the same cannot be said for macroevolution. It has been
assumed by some evolutionists that the mechanisms responsible for
microevolution could account for macroevolution given enough time (e.g.,
Erwin, 2000). However, there is much disagreement on this point. The
development of new organisms requires more than changes in existing
genetic information—it requires the generation of new information
altogether in order to form new organs and body structures.
There is no known mechanism for the spontaneous generation of new information. [
NOTE:
There are mutagenic processes which result in random insertions,
deletions, duplications, and rearrangements. But these undirected events
are typically deleterious and always insufficient for generating the
information needed for macroevolution.] The situation is far more
complex than the Coalition’s second statement implies.
Third, there is no argument about whether education should be based on
peer-reviewed scholarship. However, there probably would be disagreement
over the definition of “scholarship.” The modern “peer-review” process
is not without bias. Searches of manuscript databases display a marked
bias against questioning Neo-Darwinism. We completely agree that
students should be kept current on the latest science, but we must
remember that teaching biological science is distinct from teaching
about evolution.
Fourth, the Coalition wants to change a statement in the 1998
TEKS
standards calling for students in science to “analyze, review, and
critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as
to their
strengths and weaknesses using scientific
evidence and information,” to “analyze and evaluate scientific
explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and
experimental and observational testing” (“Comparison of Current...,”
2009, emp. added). It is argued that language mentioning “strengths and
weaknesses” can be used to “introduce supernatural explanations”
(“Scientist Statement”). It is interesting that this change is intended
to “encourage
valid critical thinking and scientific
reasoning.” So, are we to assume that valid critical thinking excludes
taking account of the strengths and weaknesses of a given theory or
hypothesis? In our scientific training as graduate students in the
biological sciences, we were routinely encouraged to be skeptical and to
question existing ideas and conclusions. This proposed change does not
reflect the type of critical thinking we expect of graduate students.
Why is the Coalition afraid of leaving theories open to question?
Fifth, the Coalition’s effort to ban all religious ideas from the
classroom is actually a veiled attempt to dismiss the possibility of a
Creator as a rational explanation of life and to keep students from
analyzing the faults of evolutionary theory. Their desire to teach
children that life originated via evolution goes beyond science into the
realm of subjective beliefs—beliefs that cannot be tested or validated
scientifically. We are told, “science must be taught in a science
class”—which is precisely what those of us who believe in the Creator
do—we teach
science in our science classrooms. The fact
is that the Universe and even life must have had a Cause and cannot be
explained by “natural” means.
What effect would these proposed standards have on education? Young
minds are very pliable. When scientists holding Ph.D.s in biology claim
certain theories as fact, young minds are very likely to believe that
those theories are, indeed, fact. And, why shouldn’t they? When the most
educated, best-trained men and women speak, many teenagers cannot but
listen and assume truth is being conveyed. The problem with making
unsubstantiated statements (such as “evolution...has been documented
beyond any reasonable doubt”) is that such statements inherently exclude
alternate explanations for the origin of life. The Coalition
conveniently ignores the fact that
hundreds of credentialed scientists are skeptical of evolution.
Proponents of evolutionary theory have bullied their explanation for
life’s origin into education to the exclusion of all other explanations.
They use propaganda techniques to indoctrinate young minds early in
order to perpetuate this ill-conceived idea.
Science education has always been a two-faceted approach. On one side,
students are taught facts, equations, and principles that research has
shown to be true. For example, physics equations regarding force and
acceleration (e.g., F=ma), proven biological facts such as that
DNA
is the genetic material, and universal principles such as that energy
can be neither destroyed nor created. The other, equally important
aspect of science education is instruction in the scientific method and
critical analysis of information. This second facet of education has
traditionally been applied in the laboratory, where students conduct
experiments and evaluate their results. Both the learning of information
and the development of critical thinking skills are fundamental to
education at levels of both secondary and higher education. One vital
component to the critical evaluation of data is the analysis of
both its
strengths and weaknesses.
If weaknesses in data were ignored, untold numbers of incorrect
scientific ideas would have been propagated over the years. The
Coalition is in favor of removing discussion of strengths and weaknesses
of evolutionary biology from the classroom. This very idea is in stark
contrast to the scientific method and the principle of critical
evaluation. If this standard is put into effect, it would undermine an
educator’s ability to teach these aspects of science to the students. In
order to properly train students, they must be allowed to use their
minds, to weigh the positive and negative data, to analyze, and to think
for themselves.
CONCLUSION
The 21
st Century Science Coalition is not the only voice in
this fight. Texans for Better Science Education is offering an
alternative to the changes recommended by the Coalition (Texans for
Better..., 2009). Furthermore, hundreds of scientists from universities
around the world have signed Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from
Darwinism” which states, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of
random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of
life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be
encouraged” (“A Scientific Dissent...,” 2009). Contrary to the opinion
of the Coalition, there are many scientists who recognize the
failure of Darwinism to explain the “origin of species” (and the origin of life!).
On March 27, 2009, the Texas State Board of Education approved a final draft of changes to the
TEKS, which will be implemented with the 2010-2011 academic year. Who won the battle is still a matter of debate. The new
TEKS, which can be accessed through the Texas Education Agency’s Web site, reads:
In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific
explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and
experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of
scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to
encourage critical thinking by the student (“Texas Essential...,” 2009).
Noticeably, the terms “strengths and weaknesses” do not appear in the
new curriculum standards. However, the phrase “examining all sides of
scientific evidence” was included. It appears that Texas education
officials have attempted to keep both sides happy by straddling the
fence on this issue. In another excerpt regarding the changes in Earth’s
atmosphere, the phrase “that could have occurred” was added to produce
the following final statement:
Analyze the changes of Earth’s atmosphere that could have occurred
through time from the original hydrogen-helium atmosphere, the carbon
dioxide-water vapor-methane atmosphere, and the current nitrogen-oxygen
atmosphere (“Texas Essential...,” 2009, emp. added).
We may never know the true motivations for these changes—political,
scientific, or other—but whatever the reasons, educators are left with
this manuscript, the 2009
TEKS, to guide their curricula in the sciences.
REFERENCES
“Comparison of Current 1998 Science
TEKS with Proposed 2009 Recommendations to Science
TEKS—Grades 9-12” (2009),
TEKS, [On-line],
URL: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/science/SciTEKS_9_12_Comparepdf.pdf.
Erwin, Douglas (2000), “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,”
Evolution and Development, 2[2]:78-84.
“A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” (2009), Discovery Institute, [On-line],
URL: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php.
“Scientist Statement” (2009), The 21
st Century Science Coalition, [On-line],
URL: http://www.texasscientists.org/sign.html.
Starr, C. (2006),
Basic Concepts in Biology (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning Publishing), sixth edition.
Texans for Better Science Education (2009), [On-line],
URL: http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/.
“Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science Subchapter C. High School” (2009),
TEKS, [On-line],
URL: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/science/ch112c_as_approved032709.pdf.
“Welcome” (2009), The 21
st Century Science Coalition, [On-line],
URL: http://www.texasscientists.org/index.html.
