The Controversy Evolves

We keep a close eye on the evoluation-versus-intelligent-design debate that is playing out in a number of school districts around the nation. Why? Because it's the same debate as our sex-ed controversy. In both cases you have a minority of people whose beliefs conflict with science, and they strongly believe their beliefs should be included in the public school curriculum. For the most part these arguments are religion-based, and it often turns out that the groups who try to effect these changes are well-funded and well-organized.

That means that the rest of us, who blithely walk around thinking that the world can be understood using facts and reason, need to organize as well, and fight back.

The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch has an editorial this morning:

Once again, the State Board of Education is provoking a debate on whether evolution is a controversial scientific theory that should be taught with warnings and disclaimers.

This fight should have been dead and buried in February, when the board voted 11-4 to drop a science standard and lesson plan that called for "critical analysis" of evolution. But a few dogged members still insist on "teaching the controversy" about evolution, even though the controversy has been manufactured by disingenuous people who wish to introduce the supernatural into science classrooms.

At a Monday meeting in Columbus of the board’s Achievement Committee, member Colleen D. Grady proposed that the science standards be changed to guide teachers on how to present controversial topics such as global warming, stem-cell research and, of course, evolution, in science classrooms.

Grady borrowed words and phrases from different parts of the current science standards to create a Frankenstein monster of a standard. It would read:

"Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning response to criticism and open communications are integral to the process of science.

"Discuss and be able to apply this in the following areas: global warming; evolutionary theory; emerging technologies and how they may impact society, e.g. cloning or stem-cell research."

Context is important, and the public should see through this ploy. Evolving strategy: State board members failed to sneak in creationism, so they try a new tactic

Yes, this editorial hits on an important feature of the debate. "Teaching the controversy" would be an interesting approach if there were a controversy. But inside the fields mentioned -- global warming, evolutionary theory, etc. -- the controversies are small and inconsequential to the regular high school kid. In evolution, for instance, there may be a controversy about whether punctuated equilibrium better describes evolutionary prgoress, or is change more-or-less even over time? Doesn't matter, unless you're working in the field. The basics of evolution are not a matter of controversy.

The "rival theory," in the case of evolution, is no theory at all, but the untestable religious idea that an intelligent designer must have created every living thing.

Intelligent design is code for the Christian version of creationism.

The Education Department staff will be drawing up a draft for the board’s consideration in September. Why now?

What has changed in Ohio’s schools over the past five months that requires the board to revisit the standards? They are fine.

A good guess might be that, if this issue ends up in court, no one could claim that evolution has been singled out if global warming, cloning and stem-cell research also are listed.

Great, now they think they can win because they're fighting over the entire curriculum, and not just evolution. Classic case of lose the battle, win the war.

There is no debate within the scientific community that evolution occurs; the theory is bolstered constantly, as newly discovered fossils fill in the record.

The scientific community also has concluded that the globe is warming. Only the particulars, such as the conclusions to be drawn from the numbers and what to do about it, are up for debate.

Columbus is an ironic place to be challenging global warming: Ohio State University’s Lonnie Thompson and Ellen Mosely-Thompson have spent decades documenting the effects on glaciers and the snowcap on Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro.

As for stem-cell research and cloning, there is no debate about the science involved in these issues. The only debate would be over the morality of these practices, a worthy discussion, but not one appropriate for a class devoted to teaching the scientific method.

These few wily board members are the best possible evidence that evolution exists; their tactics mutate every time the public catches on to what’s happening.

Amen, brothers and sisters.