Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Then there was the 100 years war.

graft and embezzlement of funds by priests collected to build gigantic Gothic churches,

Gail Lowe's task at State Board of Education
(William McKenzie/Editorial Columnist/The Dallas Morning News/July 14, 2009)

Don't envy Gail Lowe.

Rick Perry's selection as the latest head of the State Board of Education must lead a board split between social conservatives on one side and moderate conservatives and a few minority Democrats on the other. Finding common ground has never been the board's strong suit, and the struggle really has little to do with party lines.

Skirmishes between the sides over teaching creationism and defining reading standards have been among the latest meltdowns. The board's contentious fights have been such a problem that the Legislature usually looks for ways to take some powers away from the board. This year, the Senate even refused to reconfirm Don McLeroy, one of the social conservatives, as head of the 15-member elected body.

Hence, Ms. Lowe's selection. While I would have preferred he picked someone from the moderate-conservative/minority Democrat side of the board, I fully expected Gov. Perry to select someone from the social conservative side. And it appears he has picked one of the least objectionable members of that faction. Interestingly, Pat Hardy, a Fort Worth Republican member of the moderate conservative/minority Democrat side, had favorable things to say about Ms. Lowe, including praising her for her intelligence and preparation.

The Lampassas Republican's decisions as board chair naturally will determine her effectiveness. She told me in a phone interview today that she sees herself as a facilitator. She will let members be vocal, but she then wants the board to go on after it votes on a controversial topic. (For the record, she voted against including creation teaching in science classes.)

When I asked her how she planned on handing David Bradley, the board's most dominant social conservative, she chuckled and said "I'm not sure one manages David Bradley."

She's probably right. And, of course, he has every right to speak his mind.

But she also has to make sure Bradley and any others on her side of the board don't steer the board into unnecessary skirmishes. And the tests will come soon.

Decisions will be made perhaps by week's end about who will manage the Permanent School Fund. Some social conservatives want a new firm that will cost more. So far, Lowe has stood her ground and preferred the firm that has been managing the account -- at less expense.

The board's also about to get into its next round of standard-setting for students. Next up is what students should know about social studies.

Lowe says she wants students to know a lot about our founding documents and the "uniqueness of Texas." She also wants the standards to be less wordy and more precise.

Amen to precision. In hindsight, I realize some of our standards are too gabby. They need greater specificity for each grade.

Most of all, I hope she encourages all board members to vote for rigorous standards, whether that's in social studies or elsewhere.

Welcome Ms. Lowe. You sure you want this job?

Accept it: Talk about evolution needs to evolve by Eugenie Scott
(Susan Milius, Science News, August 2009)


So you urge scientists not to say that they “believe” in evolution?!

Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say.… What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you “accept evolution.”


How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?

To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science.... An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.

You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data “sheds new light on this part of evolution.”


So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?

Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.


So how do you explain what science is?

An idea that I stole from [physicist] James Trefil visualizes the content of science as three concentric circles: the core ideas in the center, the frontier ideas in the next ring out and the fringe ideas in the outermost ring....

[We need to] help the public understand that the nature of scientific explanations is to change with new information or new theory " this is a strength of science " but that science is still reliable. And the core ideas of science do not change much, if at all.

The core idea of evolution is common ancestry, and we’re not likely to change our minds about that. But we argue a lot about … how the tree of life is branched and what mechanisms bring evolutionary change about. That’s the frontier area of science.

And then of course you have areas that claim to be science, like “creation science” and “intelligent design,” that are off in the fringe. Scientists don’t spend much time here because the ideas haven’t proven useful in understanding the natural world.


You’ve been on talk radio a lot. What’s your sense of what the public understands about evolutionary biology?

The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. They think it’s a great chain ... of gradual increases in complexity of forms through time, which is certainly an impoverished view of evolutionary biology. That view is the source, in my opinion, of: “If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” ... That’s probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.

It’s like saying, “If you evolved from your cousins, why are your cousins still here?” And of course the answer is, well, in fact, I didn’t evolve from my cousins. My cousins and I shared common ancestors, in our grandparents.


What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?

Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.


What should scientists and people who care about science do?

I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change ... you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will ... accept the science.

Quote:

Accept it: Talk about evolution needs to evolve by Eugenie Scott
(Susan Milius, Science News, August 2009)

What should scientists and people who care about science do?

You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will ... accept the science.

ros, We can sit back, and let the legal system handle all the challenges to science from the ID crazies. Let them spend their money for a cause that can't be won; those defending science will win hands down.

Rosicrucianism and Scientology are two examples of organizations accepted as religions in the US but scrutinizing what they believe in isn't far from examining an the workings of an asylum.

The more we intervene machinery between us and the naked forces the more we numb and atrophy our own senses. Every time we turn on a tap to have water, every time we turn a handle to have a fire or light, we deny ourselves and annul our being. The great elements, the earth, air, fire, water, are there like some great mistress whom we woo and struggle with, whom we heave and wrestle with. And all our appliances do but deny us these fine embraces, take the miracle of life away from us. The machine is the great neuter. It is the eunuch of eunuchs. In the end it emasculates us all. When we balance the sticks and kindle a fire, we partake of the mysteries. But when we turn on an electric tap there is, as it were, a wad between us and the dynamic universe. We do not know what we lose by all our labour-saving appliances. Of the two evils it would be much the lesser to lose all machinery, every bit, rather than to have, as we have, hopelessly too much.