|
|
|
Open Minds Teach Both Sides |
| Teach Strengths & Weaknesses of Evolution |
|
|
Popular Links
|
Forest M. Mims: MR. MIMS: Good afternoon. My name is Forest Mims. I live in Seguin, Texas. I was born in Houston. I graduated from Texas A&M. While preparing for this hearing, I read an organization that's here today believes there is no problem with the books before you and has no serious -- and that there is no serious scientific doubt about evolution. Well, I do serious science and I have doubts about evolution and the books. I have written many books about science and technology, invented instruments and conducted biological research in Brasil, Hawaii and Texas for NASA and the University of San Palo. My papers have been published in leading scientific journals, including Nature. I've been a member of many professional societies, including the National Science Teacher's Association and the Texas Academy of Science. The books and lab kits that I developed for Radio Shack, a Texas corporation, have sold seven million copies. They're used in many schools, not only in Texas, but around the world. We carefully review errors -- for errors before publication. Folks, it's a strict policy. It's a Texas policy. We fix errors. The publishers of the some of the books before have you a different standard. The descriptions of the Miller-Urey experiment in some of these books fail to state the experiment does not work as described. Several books feature staged photographs of the peppered moth. One book doesn't even mention the Cambrian explosion. Well, this Cambrian Aerolites I have here was there. It knows that life appeared in a geological blink of an eye. And our students deserve to know the same. Errors and omissions like these fail to meet the standards of a high school science report, much less the error-free mandate of the Texas Education Code. I experienced a publisher's reaction to the evolution lobby when Scientific American magazine terminated my column assignment after the editor learned I no longer accepted Darwinian evolution. He said he was worried about the public relations nightmare that would occur if my doubts became public. His dream came true in the form of an international media event that led to a unanimous letter of support from the 16-member Committee on Scientific Freedom of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Since 1992, I've told this story to science students from more than 20 countries at the University of the Nations in Hawaii and Switzerland. I'll be teaching there again at Lason in October. I've learned that students around the world are perfectly capable of making analytical judgments about evolution. Why not Texas students? Folks, Texas students deserve biology books without errors and omissions. My three children have excelled in science. Our youngest daughter, Sarah, won first place at the Texas Junior Academy of Science last year and again this year. She won $20,000 in scholarships at science fairs last year. Sarah is only 16, yet she knows how to write accurate science reports. And by the way, she's writing her first scientific paper about a major scientific discovery she made on her own. The discovery of living fungus spores in smoke from Yucatan arriving in Texas. It's time for Texas to insist that publishers provide biology books having the same accuracy we expect in our children's science projects. Thank you. CHAIR MILLER: Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Leo. MS. LEO: This is from -- this is from your onetime employer, the Scientific American in March 2003. And I'd like you to comment on it. "Since the origin of feathers is a specific instance of much more general question or the origin of evolutionary novelties. Structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and make no clear related structures in contemporary relatives. Although the evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give us as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers." So are they kind of changing their viewpoint there? I mean, that was in the one that criticized you. That's the Scientific American. MR. MIMS: Yes. Well, there are people within Scientific American who don't share all those views. What you just said, though, is a very interesting summary of the situation. I study mosquitos, for example, Culex pipiens. I measure the specter response of their eyes. And every time I study these animals -- and they are animals. They're insects -- I marvel over their ability to fly. They have a complete guidance system, have an inertial navigation system and have TV cameras on their head. It's an incredible thing to see that. I also study pigmented bacteria in Brasil and how they're reduced in population -- or actually, increased in population by smoke from biomass burning, how that alters the ultraviolet environment. These animal reactions to ecology are incredible. They're difficult to understand. They're inexplicable from strictly an evolutionary perspective. MS. LEO: Thank you. MR. MIMS: Thank you. 2 CHAIR MILLER: Any questions? 3 Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. RIOS: Jay Budziszeski, followed 5 by John Koonz. 6 MR. BUDZISZESKI: Honorable members 7 of the State Board of Education, my name is 8 Jay Budziszeski. I'm a full professor in both the 9 departments of government and philosophy at the 10 University of Texas at Austin. In my 22 years as a 11 scholar of political philosophy, I've written six 12 books. I'm a nationally-recognized authority in my 13 field of specialization. 14 The subjects that I teach most often 15 are the tradition of natural rights and natural law, 16 the problem of toleration, the constitutional 17 thought of the American founders and the influence 18 of religion on law and politics. 19 Now, although my teaching has 20 included the philosophy of science, I'm obviously 21 not a natural scientist myself. Why then am I 22 here? I speak today in support of the principle 23 that young people should be educated not 24 propagandized. And I know something of what that 25 means. CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
133 1 One of the most important differences 2 between education and propaganda is how the two deal 3 with great controversies. In education, the 4 students are taught about the controversies. In 5 propaganda, they are shielded from them. In 6 education, students are taught both sides of the 7 important debates. In propaganda, they're taught 8 only one. In education, students are taught both 9 the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially 10 favored theory. In propaganda, they're ought only 11 its strengths. 12 In short, education is the training 13 of minds, while propaganda is the training of 14 prejudices. In a democratic republic, the public 15 school should not propagandize, but educate. 16 Now, the mandatory curriculum 17 guidelines for Texas, the Texas Essential Knowledge 18 and Skills, TEKS, agree with me. As we find in the 19 science section of these guidelines -- this is well 20 known to you -- students must learn to, "Analyze, 21 review and critique scientific explanations, 22 including hypotheses and theories, as to their 23 strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence 24 and information." 25 Now, if the TEKS guidelines agree CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
134 1 with me, then what is the issue? The issue is that 2 some advocates defend making an exception to the 3 TEKS guidelines in the case of the neo-Darwinist 4 orthodoxy. The view is urged upon you, the Board, 5 that although the students should be taught about 6 theoretical controversy in other scientific fields, 7 they should not hear about the controversy about 8 biological origins. That although they should be 9 told about both sides of the other scientific 10 debates, they should be told only one side of the 11 origins debate. That although they should learn to 12 weigh both the strengths and the weaknesses of other 13 controversial theories, they must be shielded from 14 the weaknesses of neo-Darwinist theory or they must 15 somehow figure them out for themselves. 16 Against this special pleading, I urge 17 that biology should be taught like the other 18 sciences and that within biology, the neo-Darwinist 19 theory should be taught like other controversial 20 theories, with honesty about both sides. 21 Honorable members of the Board, when 22 biology textbooks are biased, you are the check and 23 balance. I urge you to require biology textbooks to 24 let fresh air into the discussion of neo-Darwinist 25 orthodoxy. And I urge you to require that the CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
135 1 important scientific controversy about origins be 2 taught, not suppressed. To do so would be not only 3 good training in science, but good education in 4 citizenship. 5 Thank you. 6 DR. McLEROY: Madam Chair. 7 CHAIR MILLER: Dr. McLeroy. 8 DR. McLEROY: This is good 9 testimony. I got a real quick question. The 10 National Academy of Sciences says there are no 11 weaknesses to evolution in their teaching about 12 evolution in The Nature of Science back in 1998. 13 They said there are no weaknesses to evolution. And 14 you're advocating for us to take a stand, you know, 15 the Good Honorable Board. How do you propose -- on 16 what basis do we make our stand against the National 17 Academy of Science and all these other supposedly 18 experts? I mean, the strongest appeal for their 19 argument is the fact that they have so much 20 authority on their side. 21 MR. BUDZISZESKI: Yes, sir, that's a 22 very good -- 23 DR. McLEROY: So just give me -- this 24 Board would have to be encouraged to stand up to 25 incredible powerful forces. So what encouragement CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
136 1 would you give us to be able to do that. 2 MR. BUDZISZESKI: Well, I think 3 that's a very good question. And I would say this: 4 You know, we're all familiar with terms like 5 political correctness. We know that there are such 6 things as political prejudice, political propaganda 7 and so forth. What's less well known is that in all 8 intellectual fields, as well, these kinds of dogmas, 9 theories which harden into orthodoxy tend to 10 develop. Scholars and scientists have the 11 reputation in the popular mind of being people who 12 are nonconformists and independent thinkers. The 13 fact is that although they tend to be indifferent to 14 the views of their fellow citizens who are not 15 members of their own fields, they're hypersensitive 16 to the views of other members of their own fields, 17 so that a kind of a group think can very easily 18 develop. I see this in my own field. I see it in 19 other fields when I read the literature. I have to 20 cross lines many times in my work. And it operates, 21 as we hear from scientist after scientist who has 22 tried to present a contrasting view and as we see in 23 the history of science, it operates in science, 24 too. 25 So the mere fact that some particular CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
137 1 organization of scientists -- and remember there are 2 many organizations of scientists, many different 3 prestigious scientists on both sides. But when a 4 single particular organization of scientists says, 5 oh, there are no problems here, what you're 6 listening to is group think. There are problems in 7 every theory that I've ever encountered. And I'm 8 including my own theories in my own field. You're 9 never going to find one that never has problems, 10 that there's nothing left to discuss. Whenever you 11 hear that, you're listening to propaganda, you're 12 not listening to scientific reasoning. 13 DR. McLEROY: Thank you, sir. 14 CHAIR MILLER: Any other questions? 15 Mr. Montgomery. 16 MR. MONTGOMERY: Sir, I hear us 17 talking a lot about nobody or some people do not 18 want to include both strengths and weaknesses to 19 the -- what we -- to the hypothesis. And I wish 20 somebody would talk about some other science concept 21 except for just evolution, but I do realize that 22 that is a controversy. But we've got to use a 23 standard here. I doubt that any members of this 24 Board are opposed to including weaknesses. So 25 that's not really the issue. CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
138 1 The issue here is: Are they already 2 sufficiently covered by the books; and if not, what 3 are these -- are these purported weaknesses 4 supported by science -- empirical scientific 5 research? And what standard should we, as a Board, 6 not being scientists, use to make that decision? 7 Would it be peer-reviewed scientific literature? Is 8 that the standard you would use? 9 MR. BUDZISZESKI: I beg to differ 10 with your characterization, sir. I think the 11 question is whether the strengths and weaknesses are 12 to be covered. I don't agree that that's not really 13 a matter of controversy, although -- although it's 14 a -- the desire to shut out opposing views is the 15 opinion that dare not speak its name here in these 16 hearings. 17 You have heard from a high school 18 student who says she -- she seemed like a bright 19 person to me, is not able to learn about these 20 things from her high school textbooks. You heard 21 from a very intelligent high school teacher that in 22 attempting to follow the law, the legal 23 requirements, she had inadequate materials to do 24 that in the textbooks. 25 Now, I am not a biologist. I've CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
139 1 stressed that from the beginning. And I have not 2 done a survey of the biology textbooks. But I'll 3 tell you what I have surveyed and what I have 4 reviewed is the products of the Texas public schools 5 in science. These controversies come up in my 6 classes, too, because they involve issues of law, 7 public policy, the intersection between religion and 8 politics and all these sorts of things. And what 9 I've found among my students who have been exposed 10 to these textbooks in science is that they aren't 11 even able to give me a good argument for the 12 neo-Darwinist view, although they have been 13 indoctrinated to believe that it is true. 14 MR. MONTGOMERY: So let me just -- 15 MR. BUDZISZESKI: And they are in no 16 way prepared to talk about its weaknesses. I have 17 to -- I'm forced to say, I can -- that as an 18 amateur, I can give you a supplemental list of 19 readings on both sides and encourage you to go off 20 and read on your own to try to fill in some of the 21 gaps left over by inadequate science textbooks when 22 you were in high school. 23 MR. MONTGOMERY: So you can't suggest 24 a standard? 25 MR. BUDZISZESKI: Pardon? CHAPMAN COURT REPORTING SERVICE 512.452.4072
140 1 MR. MONTGOMERY: You can't suggest a 2 standard of particular -- 3 MR. BUDZISZESKI: What do you mean by 4 "a standard"? I think the standard is this: If 5 what you find is that scientists are, in fact, 6 disputing these things, then that controversy should 7 be discussed. These things have -- you mentioned 8 peer-review journals. This controversy has appeared 9 in peer-review journals. I have myself been at 10 scientific and philosophical conferences -- 11 MR. MONTGOMERY: You've answered my 12 question. 13 MR. BUDZISZESKI: -- at which it has 14 come up. And I've read -- and I've read 15 publications by scholarly publishing houses which 16 contained these things. I mean, that seems like a 17 pretty good standard to me. 18 MR. MONTGOMERY: Sir, you answered my 19 question. We need to move on. 20 MR. BUDZISZESKI: Thank you. Thank 21 you very much.
|
CWA-Texas
(note three Texas zones)
<>< ><> <>< ><> < Find your State Board of Education (SBOE) member
here SBOE Members by district: 1 Rene Nunez 2 Mary Helen Berlanga 3 Rick Agosto 4 Lawrence A. Allen, Jr. 5 Ken Mercer 6 Terri Leo 7 David Bradley 8 Barbara Cargill 9 Don McLeroy (Chairman) 10 Cynthia Dunbar 11 Patricia Hardy 12 Tincy Miller 13 Mavis B. Knight 14 Gail Lowe 15 Bob Craig <>< ><> <>< ><> < | |||||||||||||
|
Copyright
2003-2008 Texans for Better Science
Education (TBSE)
|
