Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

U.S. Department of Education makes the DI very happy

The DI reads much into this statement from the Dept. of Education:


The U.S. Department of Education has given its clear support to the right of state and local school boards to teach the scientific debate that now exists about biological evolution.


In a March 8 letter signed by Acting Deputy Secretary Gene Hickok, the department called official attention to Congressional report language in the No Child Left Behind Act that states that “where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist.” The Department further expressed its own support for the “general principles...of academic freedom and inquiry into scientific views or theories."

The article is yet another PR piece from the Discovery Institute blindly passed off as “news”, and consists mostly of the usual DI hacks gloating, declaring that “states and local school boards have the right to teach students the scientific controversy that exists about Darwinian evolution and to determine their own science curriculum content."

This ‘controversy’ is an invention. There is no scientific controversy over the general facts of evolution, as they are presented at the level of public schools and introductory level college classes. We could haggle over some of the fine details, but the basic ideas of common descent, mechanism of natural selection, and the general history of life on earth are not in contention. I’m not surprised that the Discovery Institute wants to pretend that they are...but the US Dept. of Education? Hickock may well be a creationist lurking at the highest levels for all I know, but the wording of that statement is rather ambiguous.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/459/zSm2KvIw/

Comments:
#1018: — 03/09  at  10:12 PM
"where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

Sounds like politispeak for "teach creation" to me. And no, I'm not surprised it's coming from the Dept. of Education, at least not under this administration.



#1019: — 03/09  at  11:15 PM
Why only evolution? Why not:

* Molecular biology vs. vitalism?
* Mendelian inheritance vs. Lamarckian inheritance?
* The circulation theory of blood motion vs. the sloshing theory of blood motion?
* The fog theory of clouds vs. the solid theory of clouds?
* Hundred-elements chemistry vs. four-elements chemistry?
* Hundred-humor biochemistry vs. four-humor biochemistry?
* The germ theory of disease vs. the demon theory of disease?
* The gravity/inertia theory of planetary motions vs. the angel theory of planetary motions?
* Heliocentrism vs. geocentrism?
* Round-earthism vs. flat-earthism?

"Four-humor biochemistry" is the old view that there were four primary body fluids: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. "Hundred-humor biochemistry" is the modern view that there are a large number of "primary" substances in body fluids: gases, metal and phosphate ions, sugars, fats, amino acids, vitamins, hormones, enzymes, clotting factors, etc.

But crackpots are often rigorously rational about crackpottery other than theirs. Martin Gardner had gotten indignant comments about this chapter or that in his skeptic classic, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. But those who objected generally considered the rest of the book to be excellent.



#1020: Reed A. Cartwright — 03/10  at  01:50 AM
I liked the fib by Chapman: http://blog.rufus.ws/archives/000036.html



Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: And another thing...

Previous entry: AFA Poll

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college