Do you think that the Wisconsin state legislature bill to bar the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design as science is necessary?
The bill at issue is LRB-2463 – Psuedo-Science Prevention Act which was sponsored by Rep. Terese Berceau. The bill reads:
SECTION 1. 118.018 of the statutes is created to read:
118.018 Science instruction. The school board shall ensure that any
material presented as science within the school curriculum complies with all of the
following:
(1) The material is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes.
(2) The material is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences.
While biologists are nearly unanimous in wanting to keep creationism/Intelligent Design out of the classroom, they are not unanimously supporting this bill. P.Z. Myers over at Pharyngula came out against this method of keeping religion out of the classroom:
Legislators need to keep their hands off science and science teaching, no matter what side they are taking. Promoting good science is OK; suggesting to school boards that they follow guidelines set by the major scientific ideas is so obvious that it shouldn't need to be said; picking and choosing and saying which specific ideas ought to be taught and making them part of law is just plain wrong.
And so our five school board candidates were asked to weigh in on this contentious issue. Of the five, only four submitted answers. (Juan Jose Lopez was unavailable due to a death in the family.) Of those answering, three stated that they were against the teaching of creationism/Intelligent Design in our classroom. There was, however, some disagreement over the bill.
Maya Cole comes out against creationism/ID by saying: "…repeated attempts by creationists and ID activists to distort the science curricula across the country (including Wisconsin)." (Emphasis mine.) She lends her support to the bill as well: "I would argue that, as public policy, the proposed bill serves the state…"
Michael Kelly affirms his disdain for ID and his support of the bill: "I am strongly affirming my belief that it is absolutely essential to bar any type of creationism in our school system, and that includes the complete ban on intelligent design or any other ridiculous theory postulated by right-wing evangelicals to sneak Creationism into our school system!"
Arlene Silveira makes it clear that she is against teaching ID but she also thinks that it's an issue that the legislature ought to avoid: "I don't support teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design as science in the public school system. But I prefer not having the Legislature making such specific curricular decisions for our public schools."
Lucy Mathiak, on the other hand, gives an answer that deserves some scrutiny. She clearly states her position on the bill: "I would not welcome a bill to bar teaching of creationism or intelligent design any more than I would welcome a bill to bar teaching of evolution or any other scientific theory." She then goes on to make a questionable statement:
"I would strongly prefer that students be given the core arguments and evidence supporting diverse theories along with the freedom and critical thinking skills to consider what they are willing to accept or reject."
It is exactly this kind of wishy-washy fence-sitting hoo-ha that I don't want to hear. Michael Kelly rightly came out and called ID bullshit that has no place in our public schools. Mathiak, for some reason, leaves the door open to introducing religion masquerading as science. She bookends her answer with the "continual and fearless sifting and winnowing" motto of our university and some "food for thought" - a story about how the idiotic rantings of Holocaust deniers was used to demonstrate the presence of anti-Semitism. I find this very disingenuous and odd to boot. Was she equating Holocaust deniers and proponents of Intelligent Design? Or was she saying that the ridiculous ideas of people on the fringe have utility? In light of her previous comments, I presume that she means that all views on a topic should be heard. While I certainly don't object to this, her example doesn't cut the mustard. It is unfair to equate a letter to a professional organization of historians to teaching students. Food for thought - it seems reasonable to assume that she would favor teaching the viewpoint of Holocaust deniers in our schools' history classes and letting the students sift and winnow their way through the racist bullshit. I'm sorry but the Holocaust has been sifted and winnowed already and the verdict is in – it happened. The same holds true for evolution. Biologists have sifted and winnowed the past 150 years and evolution has emerged victorious because the evidence for it is there. ID, on the other hand, is not science. If the chorus of scientists calling out ID for the religious bullshit that it is wasn't enough, there's also the ruling in the Dover case.
Another problem I have with Mathiak's answer is her linking of the sifting and winnowing that is supposed to take place at the university with high school (and elementary?) students being "given the core arguments and evidence supporting diverse theories along with the freedom and critical thinking skills to consider what they are willing to accept or reject." Hey, I'm all for teaching critical thinking skills – don't ever think for a moment that I'm not. But the activities of professors and students at a university doing research is a wholly different proposition from high school students do. The latter group is not out to discover new truths; it is there to receive a basic education. High school students are there to have truths imparted to them. They are there to gain knowlege and skills to build upon, not to be out on the bleeding edge of research.
I challenge Ms. Mathiak to name some of the diverse theories that oppose evolution. And I mean scientific theories, not the book of Genesis wrapped in a cloud of uncertainty. Her statement worries me because it reeks of the ID tactic imploring schools to "teach the controversy". It sounds all nice and fair to teach all sides of a controversy except, in this case, there is no controversy. While there is debate within the scientific community about the mechanisms of evolution, the validity of evolution is not in dispute. Her answer is perilously close to a comment by Rep, Thomas Petri of our fair state who is a proponent of ID. He said:
Additionally, this conference report makes a strong statement that, where Darwinian evolutionary theory or other controversial scientific topics are taught, students should be exposed to multiple viewpoints. Too often, students are taught only one theory where evolution is concerned, and this language gives support to those at the local and state level who uphold the value of intellectual freedom in the teaching of science.
Petri was – I cannot determine if he currently is – on the Board of Advisors of the Discovery Institute, the prime mover in the promulgation of ID. George Bush has also come out on the side of teaching ID using this very language about a non-existent controversy.
I honestly don't know Ms. Mathiak's position on ID. That her father was a biologist gives me hope. I went to her website and looked at the other questionnaires she's answered but this topic was not addressed. Still, her comment above gives me pause. If she does accept ID, then she should be voted down so as to keep religion out of our schools and to help ensure that the science curricula for our schools are of high quality. If she is ignorant when it comes to the evolution vs. ID debate, then this too is problematic for her ignorance would have the same negative impact as actively promoting ID for our classrooms. Another possibility that is more benign, but not very comforting, is that her fence-sitting is merely political posturing so as not to offend voters of any stripe.
I think it unfortunate that Ms. Mathiak did not make clear her view on this issue as did the other candidates. I wanted to e-mail a query to Ms. Mathiak's on this issue but her site has a paucity of contact info. There is only a mailing address for her campaign.
?????????????????????????
No comments:
Post a Comment