Florida Citizens for Science

Here’s an interesting opinion piece that ran in a Naples paper. It mentions some other article supposedly published in the same paper about an opposing view, but I couldn’t find that other piece.

FlCfS board member Pete Dunkelburg submitted this for posting here.

Creationism Now

A new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (PIGDID) provides a very good catalog of current creationist arguments. The author, Jonathan Wells, is a Discovery Institute (DI) Fellow who has dedicated his life to destroying Darwinism. The DI is throwing a party for the book, so PIGDID is as authoritative and strong as this sort of thing gets.

PIGDID is being reviewed chapter by chapter at The Panda’s Thumb. Reading the book along side the reviews will be a revelation to anyone who doesn’t know how creationism works. I can’t think of any better way for School Board members and candidates and the press to come up to speed on the subject.

Does Wells succeed in destroying evolutionary biology? Or does PIGDID turn out to show that ID creationism, despite first appearances, has virtually no scientific content and 21st century creationism amounts to propaganda against science? If Wells or the DI or any creationist authority could have established the claims in PIGDID under oath at the recent Dover trial, it would have been a resounding victory for creationism. Did they simply forget all these devastating claims, or are there other reasons why the claims were not made under oath?

Read the book along with the reviews and you will learn the answers. The review process is just starting, and chapters may not be done in the same order as they appear in the book. Chapters one and three are already done.

The review so far is really good and insightful. Be sure to check it out! I think a review of chapter 9 is now up.

Here is a thought-provoking article offering an explanation for why pseudoscience is so widely accepted by the general public. The basic lesson to take away from this article is one that I’ve believed for many years: people need to be taught how to think. No, not what to think, but how to think. Our senses and our untrained minds are highly fallible. Students need to be shown this fact and then they need to be trained how to overcome humans’ shortcomings. I completely agree with the writer’s assessment that science courses shouldn’t be taught as a bunch of unrelated facts. Instead, students need intensive courses on what, exactly, science is and does first. They need to know how to question and investigate. Only once future generations are schooled in basic critical thinking will pseudoscience fade away. Until then, it is here to stay … and even grow.

Indeed, to win the long-term battle against pseudoscience, scientists must look beyond the narrow battles against ID. The real war they must wage is in the classroom. Specifically, scientists need to effect a sea-change in how science is taught at the junior high, high school, and college levels. They must teach students not merely the core knowledge of their subject matter, but also an understanding of why researchers developed scientific methods in the first place, namely as an essential safeguard against human error.

To do so, they must inculcate in students a profound sense of humility regarding their own perceptions and interpretations of the world. They should teach students about optical illusions, which demonstrate that our perceptions can mislead us. They should show students how their common sense notions regarding the movements of physical objects, like the trajectory of a ball emerging from a spiral, are often incorrect. They should teach students that even highly confident eyewitness reports are frequently inaccurate. Most broadly, they must counteract what Stanford psychologist Lee Ross calls “naïve realism”-the deeply ingrained notion that what we see invariably reflects the true state of nature (Ross and Ward 1996). Scientists may well emerge victorious from the current ID battles. Given that the research evidence is overwhelmingly on their side, they certainly deserve to. Yet as Dawkins (1993) reminds us, ideas can mutate at least as readily as genes. Unless scientists institute a fundamental change in how science is taught, it may be only a matter of time before a new and even more virulent variant of Intelligent Design emerges. Then scientists will again be surprised at the public’s uncritical embrace of it, while shaking their heads in disbelief at the average American’s lack of common sense.

It’s always worthwhile to see how the fight for science is going across the country. The latest news out of Kansas sounds promising. In the event you don’t know what’s been going on there, anti-science school board members promoted a horribly written revamp of the state science standards. The proposed standards blatantly redefined what science is in an effort to slip anti-science junk into the public classroom. The call to battle was sounded as school board elections were the only good way to stop this beast in its tracks. It looks like it was a bloody fight, but reports indicate pro-science has regained the upper hand … for now.

From the Panda’s Thumb:

If current results hold, it looks like the creationists on the 10-member Kansas Board of Education have lost two seats in the Republican primary. The likelihood is therefore that the new Board of Education will switch from being a 6-4 pro-creationism majority to at least a 6-4 pro-science majority (depending on the November general election). This probably means the pro-ID/creationism science standards are history.

DailyKos’ Darksyde:

The most significant primary defeat was of sitting uber antiscience conservative Connie Morris, who has described evolution as a “fairy tale.” But let’s not start celebrating just yet.

Creationism is no more finished than the religious right. Both stem from decades of investment made by extremist right-wing Republicans and corporatists in a vast, well-oiled political machine that we progressives are only beginning to fully appreciate, much less match.

Red State Rabble:

Moderates must not be fooled into sitting on the laurels in the coming months. We must not allow ourselves to be satisfied by a narrow one-vote majority on the board. We need to go out, raise money and win both elections in November.

The right-wing understands that this is a long-term fight. They didn’t give up when they lost the election in 2000, and they won’t give up now.

…

We will face another election in just two years when three of the current four-member moderate minority are up for re-election. The radical right will be ready with money and candidates when that day comes.

Will we?

As Florida’s science standards come up for review, we have to hope that our elected officials do the right thing. But we need to be ready in case they don’t. We don’t want to be the next Kansas (no offense to you guys).

Michael Ruse wrote a piece for the Tallahassee Democrat recently concerning evolution and the conflict with religion. Check it out when you have a moment.

Here’s a question posed in the Sun-Sentinel newspaper by a reader:

Q. What is a good way to explain evolution vs. intelligent design to our 14-year-old daughter? We know how we feel, but we want her to be able to make up her own mind. — K. J. R., Plantation

Read the column to see how a Fort Lauderdale reverend responded. How would you answer?

A Florida Today opinion piece laments how funding for space science research is drying up:

Cassini is the latest in a long line of hybrid space probes that have revolutionized our understanding of the solar system, providing a scientific bang for the buck light years ahead of anything gained from human exploration.

Yet, as NASA tries to get the shuttle fleet flying, finish the International Space Station and send astronauts back to the moon, it’s gutting money for robust space science research to pay for it.

The lunar program is important because of the scientific paydirt that can be struck by establishing a moon base, but NASA shouldn’t sacrifice all other high-value exploration to get there.

Congress needs to step in and reverse some funds or, better yet, allocate a small increase to keep the efforts alive.

If it doesn’t, the nation will pay a high price.

Things are looking ugly in the Florida science classroom according to both a national test and the FCAT.

Only half of Florida’s eighth-graders had even basic science skills 10 years ago, and a new nationwide test indicates they have not improved.

…

In Jefferson County just east of Tallahassee, only 6 percent of eighth-graders met minimum standards on the exam, given as part of the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.

…

Students in much of America scored poorly on the test administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, but the performance of Florida eighth-graders lagged six points below the national average.

Among their shortcomings, the Florida students couldn’t gather information from graphs and diagrams, didn’t understand concepts involving the solar system and did not have a grasp of cause-and-effect relationships.

And here’s a particularly relevant quote that strikes right at the heart of the matter:

“It’s stuff they should know,” said Victor Hatfield, a science teacher at Union Park Middle in Orange County, who served on a committee that set passing levels on the test. “But many students do not see science as relevant to their lives.”

I know my two kids are struggling to see why understanding algebra or chemistry should matter to them. Ma and Pa explain to the teen and pre-teen that it is very important to understanding the world, building up a foundation of knowledge for the future. That fails to impress them. What does it matter to me now? I’m not going to be a chemist!

So, yes, they don’t see the majority of science, especially any parts that don’t explode or look gross, as relevant.

Denise Walczak teaches sixth-grade science at Kissimmee’s Neptune Middle School, where 70 percent of eighth-graders flunked the FCAT science test. She attributed that to the high number of transient students and to the nature of the subject.

“In science, we have to incorporate all the disciplines: reading and writing, mathematics, and even social studies. If a child is weak in one area; it’s going to reflect,” she said.

FCAT science results will figure into school grades next year. But educators say the poor scores for 2006 underline the larger concern that the United States is not producing the scientists it needs to stay competitive in an increasingly technical world.

The Nation’s Report Card website offers quite a bit of insight into the tests they administered. You can even see sample questions and how kids did on them. Here’s one sample from the 12th grade test:

A newspaper article reported that a fossil was found that was 200,000 years old according to generally accepted radioactive dating procedures. A letter to the editor of the newspaper disputed the accuracy of the age determination because the fossil was found closer to the Earth’s surface than were previously discovered fossils of the same age.

Which of the following would be an appropriate argument against the letter writer’s claim?

A) Older rock layers commonly lie deeper underground than younger ones.

B) Older rock layers may be pushed closer to the surface by geologic processes.

C) The age of a rock layer can often help in determining the age of the fossils it contains.

D) Fossils form only under certain conditions.

Only 49% of students got the correct answer, which is B.

In a localized story, the county where I live was among the best in the state in science. That encouraging news is deflated, though, by this tidbit:

The science results come as Lake County Superintendent Anna Cowin is proceeding with a proposed overhaul of the science curriculum for middle-school and high-school campuses but has yet to present her changes to the School Board or secure the board’s approval as required by state law. Schools were notified of the proposed revisions in February.

…

“I would like to know what they have done,” Conner said. “Apparently there are some changes, but we can’t seem to get an explanation from the superintendent’s office as to what they may or may not be.”

Cowin did not respond to e-mails and phone calls Wednesday seeking comment on the science achievement of district students or the proposed changes in the curriculum.

What changes are in store? And why keep it all in the dark? Cowin is a controversial personality in Lake County. She’s portrayed in the media as very confrontational with the school board. Editorials are constantly questioning her decisions and strange way of conducting business. A quick Google search for her turns up some very right-leaning views during her political career. I hope this isn’t a sign of anti-science tendencies. We’ll see.

Obviously, this science curriculum overhaul bears close watching.

And on a side note, a good discussion about the National Test is over at the Uncertain Principles blog at Science Blogs.

Commitee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) published an interview with National Center for Science Education director Eugenie Scott. I was mildly shocked by Scott’s stating that by a strict scientific definition of the word “theory,” Intelligent Design could be a theory. I can grudgingly see the point; however, it seems to me that any crackpot idea could then be labeled a theory, thus watering down the definition to the point where it’s nearly the same as the common definition of a hunch or guess. Sure, Scott says theories can be wrong, but I don’t think even calling ID a wrong theory is justifiable. There has to be a line drawn between truly developing an explanation of facts and playing Jedi mind tricks.

I do like how Scott publicaly wonders why Florida’s Michael Ruse engages in debates with the creationists. No sugar coating that, eh?

And you know I can’t resist posting her quote about American science education. I’m just so predictable.

BB: We hear a lot about children in this country falling behind their counterparts in other countries. How does this controversy play into the overall educational picture?

ES: Certainly, if the United States is going to maintain its technological superiority, we have to have good science education. We don’t have as good science education as we’d like; it’s very patchy. Some schools do a wonderful job; others do a terrible job; many do a mediocre job. The systematic avoidance of the teaching of evolution is a real ‘canary in the coal mine’ for indicating the politicization of education. If we are choosing our science based on political considerations, we are under and miseducating our students. We will not maintain that international technological and scientific superiority.

We’re continuing to try and make sense out of the noises in Hernando County. The latest meeting minutes won’t be posted on their website until they’re approved at the next meeting May 2.

An action item on the next agenda might be a key element of what’s going on, but we’re not too sure to be honest:

F. Approval Of The Adoption Of ScottForesman As The Core Instructional Material For Elementary Science The Elementary Science Focus Team has reviewed the Hernando County elementary Science Curriculum and designed a plan for instruction that includes the purchase of a new textbook series from Pearson ScottForesman. In compliance with FS 1003.02 we request Board approval to use funds from the 2006-2007 instructional materials budget to purchase textbooks and science instructional supplies for our schools. The Instructional Materials budget in the General Fund has been increased by $1,023,408.00 as a budget amendment to allow schools to place purchase orders to expedite the delivery of instructional materials to be paid for from the 2006-2007 Instructional Materials allocation. Board approval is recommended.

Is this something that got Mr. Wiggins excited? Anyone in the know, please tell us what’s up.