Posted by
Doc Stephens on Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:10:30 PM
The front page of the Sunday February 3, 2008 edition of the local newspaper had an article entitled "School Board to Consider Evolution Resolution." The article begins by stating "With all five school board members believing evolution should not be taught as fact, . . . on Tuesday will consider a resolution opposing the state's proposed new science standards stance on evolution."
According to the paper, Highlands Today, The proposed resolution states, "The board recognizes the importance of providing a thorough and comprehensive science education to all students in Highlands County, which the board believes should include the multiple theories of the origins of the universe and life on Earth." And then, according to the paper, the resolution concludes, "The State Board of Education is urged strongly to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that the big-bang theory and evolution shall be presented only as two of several theories in the study of science."
The school board members obviously do not have any significant background in science. They are interpreting the language used in the standards as laypersons would interpret those words and drawing conclusions that are unintended by the authors of the standards. Ironically, a science educator reading this resolution would say "fine" and then go on teaching to the standards without any concern because the science educator does not understand what the lay board members intend by their resolution. They speak different languages and don't understand each other.
Here are a couple of key words that have different meaning for scientists and laypersons that are used in the state science standards and by the members of the school board to mean different things.
Theory - To the layperson, a theory is a guess that might be arrived at through some logical reasoning. To a scientist, a theory is a well accepted body of knowledge to explain something. Scientists pursue truth, but can never know if they have reached it. Scientific theories are always developing as new evidence is considered and new observations are made. Throughout history there have been many examples of scientific theories that were once accepted by most or all scientists in the field or discipline, but later discarded or changed significantly as more study, research, thinking, and debate uncovered new and sometimes contradictory evidence that ultimately led to a more plausible explanation or theory. The scientific method is a rational process for developing and improving scientific theories.
Fact - To the layperson, a fact is the honest truth. Most scientists do not use this word very often in this context, but never in scientific discourse as a synonym of "truth." No science educator should ever say that a theory is a "fact." That might be an emotional response to someone questioning a well accepted scientific theory, but theories, no matter how well accepted, are not "facts." In fact, to a scientist who is careful with language, facts are just pieces of information which may or may not be accurate depending upon how that information was collected and how it was interpreted. It would be a "fact" that Louis Leakey discovered a bone fragment that had characteristics in common with modern man, but other characteristics in common with great apes or other primates. Dr. Leakey might hypothesize about what might have led to his observation, but his observations and his hypotheses are not truths nor are they scientific theories. He is using his powers of observation, after observing countless bone fragments from modern and archaic creatures, and comparing and forming judgments about what he sees. Dr. Leakey and many other scientists over a period of time, perhaps hundreds of years, may formulate a theory to explain what they observe and as a result of testing various hypotheses, but the best they can do as scientists is offer a scientific theory--in this example, a theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is constantly being questioned and improved by scientists. The early observations, hypotheses, and theories offered by Charles Darwin created a framework, but compared to modern evolutionary theory, his ideas were simplistic and in many cases not consistent with the current science in the field--such is the nature of scientific inquiry.
To further confuse the layperson, the word "evolution" also is used as a shorthand for the process of natural selection which is observable. Yes, it is easy to observe natural selection and "evolution" in a laboratory and in the real world. It is all around us and all you have to do to see it is know what to look for. Our current concern about Bird Flu is related to the potential mutation of the virus to a form that can more easily be transmitted from human to human. Scientists even understand what mutation would have to occur, and if it did, the virus would have "evolved" to a new more successfully transmitted strain through natural selection. Microbiologists observe this process of "evolution" all the time in their laboratories. In this context, it is a "fact" that "evolution" or more correctly that natural selection is observed.
So, the proposed school board resolution changes nothing. A well trained science educator would not say that the theory of evolution or the big-bang theory is a "fact" or the "truth." Frankly, theory is the best that science can do. And science Educators should always describe competing scientific theories when they are relevant. It would be wrong for our science teachers to omit such theories. The history of science is full of heated dialogue and competing explanations. Great thinkers of the past built complex theories to explain what they observed based upon a flat-earth theory. They created models to explain how the sun and the planets moved around the earh. We laugh at these notions today, but not because these early philosphers were not intelligent, because they were, but because we have much more information availble to us today. We've sent great machines and men and women into space who have observed the earth and moon traveling around the sun and the sun around the center of mass of our galaxy and the galaxy around the center of mass of our local group of galaxies. We know what our ancestors could not have known. Such is the nature of scientific inquiry.
Here is the punch line. The members of the school board, and many in the public, apparently believe that religious traditions and their related origin stories should also be taught in science classes as if they were "other theories." There are several problems with this argument. First of all, science teachers are not necessarily qualified to teach comparative religion. The study of such traditions more appropriately belongs in classes about the humanities, history, religion, literature, or in our churches, temples, mosques, and homes. These traditions have nothing to do with science--they are not scientific theories. they are faith based-belief systems which hold a vitally important and most interesting place in a culture. There are different tradtions in just about every culture on earth. Do we teach the Judeo-Christian version including Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden? How about some of the eastern religions, or the beliefs and traditions of African tribes or indigenous people of this continent. Let the humanities and comparative religion professors explore these wonderful and inspirational ideas. Allow the science teachers to teach science--a very human enterprise, well dimished in comparison to the realm of God.