Evolution in Kansas

The Kansas state board of education has begun hearings to discuss the school system's approach on science education, in particular on the subject of evolution.

In June, they will decide whether to revise the science curriculum to include criticisms of the principles of evolution as an explanation of the origin of life, the universe and the genetic code.

I have commented on this subject before. The idea of including criticisms of evolution, indeed of any theory, really should be part of the education system. CBS News has a list of questions evolution critics are encouraging students to ask when taught about evolution. This is good because encourages and fosters deeper exploration of the theory, rather than simply demanding that the student blindly accept whatever he or she is told, which is the antithesis of scientific exploration.

Unfortunately this does not always happen, and many who supposedly support teaching science in science class appear to believe that raising questions is tantamount to undermining science. CNN reports

Ken Schmitz, a University of Missouri/Kansas City chemistry professor attending the hearing said he worried that the attack on evolution could confuse students and endanger their ability to excel in science.

"They are not going to understand this," said Schmitz.

Questioning any theory should not endanger a student's ability to excel in science. If the students are not understanding this, as Dr. Schmitz says, it is because they have been conditioned to not question and to be good little sponges and accept whatever they are told.

While at face value, the first part of what the "revisionists" are aiming for is desirable, it is really just a smoke screen for their real ambition. As part of exploring the questions about evolution, "Teachers would be encouraged to discuss 'alternative explanations'." The alternative explanations desired by the revisionists are, of course, religion masquerading as science.

But even at surface value, this second goal is misguided. It encourages the idea that all explanations have somewhat equal merit, and supposes that there are viable alternatives to the theory in the first place. I cannot personally speak for biological evolution (I never liked biology, and haven't studied it since the 10th grade), but I can for its astrophysical counterpart: cosmology, the study of the origin of the universe. The currently fashionable theory in cosmology is the Big Bang theory. The theory, like all theories, has many holes in addition to the elements which have observational support. But is there a viable alternative that could be taught along side Big Bang in the schools? No. There are alternatives, to be sure. The Steady State cosmology has always been the primary alternative. But should this be taught on something of an even plane with Big Bang? No, because the overwhelming consensus of the astrophysical community is in support of Big Bang. Steady State is on a far from equal footing.

This lack of a viable alternative likely true for evolution as well. To teach loopy, out of the mainstream alternatives side by side with the mainstream theory, with the underlying implication that all explanations have equal value, would give a totally misguided picture of science. (It is ironic that these evangelical Christians, who typically decry pluralism in our culture, want to encourage pluralistic thinking in the teaching of science. In the long term, their goal is self-defeating as it fosters in their children, in the broader picture, a mode of thinking that they totally reject.)