Politics Re: McGavick Defies Kansans: He Wants to Teach the “Theory”
I posted this in the comments to Josh’s post, but I’m going to pull it up here. McGavick is not, I repeat, NOT being reasonable on this ID issue. In fact, his language closely approximates the “teach the controversy” tactic advanced by the Dover school district (whose ID advocacy was adroitly bitch-slapped by Judge Jones in late 2005) and the Kansas Board of Education, before voters were so humiliated they threw the bums out.
In the comments below, I said:
Pardon my vehemence, but I think you guys are being extremely naive. Any gesture toward “compet[ing]” beliefs, or teaching “all the different theories” on a national level will—and has been—taken by local school boards as an OK to teach intelligent design as a scientific theory that undermines evolution. This it is not. No reference to creationism belongs in the high school science classroom, except possibly as an outdated point of view that Lamarck, Darwin, et al, had to confront when introducing their explanations of how species change over time. ID is an obfuscating trick, and any discussion of its merit (or decided lack thereof) entails the use of purposefully obscure concepts in information theory, biochemistry, etc. High school students are not equipped to deal in that kind of critique, and they shouldn’t be invited to.
Let me remind you that Santorum’s infamous amendment to No Child Left Behind used conciliatory language too: “that good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science. Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and prepare them to be informed participants in public discussions.” The part I bolded looks nice, huh? Everyone can get on board with that. Unfortunately, Santorum would consider ID “a testable theory of science”—that’s exactly how it’s promoted—whereas anyone who understands the definition of a scientific theory would disagree.
The effect of this kind of legislation, were it mandated rather than being expressed as the “sense of the Senate” (a non-binding resolution) would be to present evolution as a theory in crisis—which it is not. As a theory that “generates so much continuing controversy” within the scientific community—which it does not.My standard high school biology text—mid ’90s, Catholic school—did not even touch on creationism. There’s no reason why it should have. It would have been a distraction from learning the scientific method (which ID blatantly flouts) and the current understanding of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which was what I was there to do.
Honestly, I don't see how Santorum's or McGavick's language supports their cause. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but I think it's a dangerous play on their part and can easily come back to bite them on the ass because (like Annie says) ID isn't a testable hypothesis (bye Santorum), and like I said earlier, it sure as hell isn't a theory (bye McGavick). If the current language doesn't limit science education to testable hypotheses and theories, then I think now there's more room to push in ID and other non-scientific alternatives to evolution than there would be if we made such limitations.
But again, I could be an optimist.