|
|
|
Open Minds Teach Both Sides |
| Teach Strengths & Weaknesses of Evolution |
|
|
Popular Links
|
J. Budziszeski: MR. BUDZISZESKI: Honorable members of the State Board of Education, my name is Jay Budziszeski. I'm a full professor in both the departments of government and philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In my 22 years as a scholar of political philosophy, I've written six books. I'm a nationally-recognized authority in my field of specialization. The subjects that I teach most often are the tradition of natural rights and natural law, the problem of toleration, the constitutional thought of the American founders and the influence of religion on law and politics. Now, although my teaching has included the philosophy of science, I'm obviously not a natural scientist myself. Why then am I here? I speak today in support of the principle that young people should be educated not propagandized. And I know something of what that means. One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how the two deal with great controversies. In education, the students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them. In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they're taught only one. In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they're ought only its strengths. In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democratic republic, the public school should not propagandize, but educate. Now, the mandatory curriculum guidelines for Texas, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, TEKS, agree with me. As we find in the science section of these guidelines -- this is well known to you -- students must learn to, "Analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." Now, if the TEKS guidelines agree with me, then what is the issue? The issue is that some advocates defend making an exception to the TEKS guidelines in the case of the neo-Darwinist orthodoxy. The view is urged upon you, the Board, that although the students should be taught about theoretical controversy in other scientific fields, they should not hear about the controversy about biological origins. That although they should be told about both sides of the other scientific debates, they should be told only one side of the origins debate. That although they should learn to weigh both the strengths and the weaknesses of other controversial theories, they must be shielded from the weaknesses of neo-Darwinist theory or they must somehow figure them out for themselves. Against this special pleading, I urge that biology should be taught like the other sciences and that within biology, the neo-Darwinist theory should be taught like other controversial theories, with honesty about both sides. Honorable members of the Board, when biology textbooks are biased, you are the check and balance. I urge you to require biology textbooks to let fresh air into the discussion of neo-Darwinist orthodoxy. And I urge you to require that the important scientific controversy about origins be taught, not suppressed. To do so would be not only good training in science, but good education in citizenship. Thank you. DR. McLEROY: Madam Chair. CHAIR MILLER: Dr. McLeroy. DR. McLEROY: This is good testimony. I got a real quick question. The National Academy of Sciences says there are no weaknesses to evolution in their teaching about evolution in The Nature of Science back in 1998. They said there are no weaknesses to evolution. And you're advocating for us to take a stand, you know, the Good Honorable Board. How do you propose -- on what basis do we make our stand against the National Academy of Science and all these other supposedly experts? I mean, the strongest appeal for their argument is the fact that they have so much authority on their side. MR. BUDZISZESKI: Yes, sir, that's a very good -- DR. McLEROY: So just give me -- this Board would have to be encouraged to stand up to incredible powerful forces. So what encouragement would you give us to be able to do that. MR. BUDZISZESKI: Well, I think that's a very good question. And I would say this: You know, we're all familiar with terms like political correctness. We know that there are such things as political prejudice, political propaganda and so forth. What's less well known is that in all intellectual fields, as well, these kinds of dogmas, theories which harden into orthodoxy tend to develop. Scholars and scientists have the reputation in the popular mind of being people who are nonconformists and independent thinkers. The fact is that although they tend to be indifferent to the views of their fellow citizens who are not members of their own fields, they're hypersensitive to the views of other members of their own fields, so that a kind of a group think can very easily develop. I see this in my own field. I see it in other fields when I read the literature. I have to cross lines many times in my work. And it operates, as we hear from scientist after scientist who has tried to present a contrasting view and as we see in the history of science, it operates in science, too. So the mere fact that some particular organization of scientists -- and remember there are many organizations of scientists, many different prestigious scientists on both sides. But when a single particular organization of scientists says, oh, there are no problems here, what you're listening to is group think. There are problems in every theory that I've ever encountered. And I'm including my own theories in my own field. You're never going to find one that never has problems, that there's nothing left to discuss. Whenever you hear that, you're listening to propaganda, you're not listening to scientific reasoning. DR. McLEROY: Thank you, sir. CHAIR MILLER: Any other questions? Mr. Montgomery. MR. MONTGOMERY: Sir, I hear us talking a lot about nobody or some people do not want to include both strengths and weaknesses to the -- what we -- to the hypothesis. And I wish somebody would talk about some other science concept except for just evolution, but I do realize that that is a controversy. But we've got to use a standard here. I doubt that any members of this Board are opposed to including weaknesses. So that's not really the issue. The issue here is: Are they already sufficiently covered by the books; and if not, what are these -- are these purported weaknesses supported by science -- empirical scientific research? And what standard should we, as a Board, not being scientists, use to make that decision? Would it be peer-reviewed scientific literature? Is that the standard you would use? MR. BUDZISZESKI: I beg to differ with your characterization, sir. I think the question is whether the strengths and weaknesses are to be covered. I don't agree that that's not really a matter of controversy, although -- although it's a -- the desire to shut out opposing views is the opinion that dare not speak its name here in these hearings. You have heard from a high school student who says she -- she seemed like a bright person to me, is not able to learn about these things from her high school textbooks. You heard from a very intelligent high school teacher that in attempting to follow the law, the legal requirements, she had inadequate materials to do that in the textbooks. Now, I am not a biologist. I've stressed that from the beginning. And I have not done a survey of the biology textbooks. But I'll tell you what I have surveyed and what I have reviewed is the products of the Texas public schools in science. These controversies come up in my classes, too, because they involve issues of law, public policy, the intersection between religion and politics and all these sorts of things. And what I've found among my students who have been exposed to these textbooks in science is that they aren't even able to give me a good argument for the neo-Darwinist view, although they have been indoctrinated to believe that it is true. MR. MONTGOMERY: So let me just -- MR. BUDZISZESKI: And they are in no way prepared to talk about its weaknesses. I have to -- I'm forced to say, I can -- that as an amateur, I can give you a supplemental list of readings on both sides and encourage you to go off and read on your own to try to fill in some of the gaps left over by inadequate science textbooks when you were in high school. MR. MONTGOMERY: So you can't suggest a standard? MR. BUDZISZESKI: Pardon? MR. MONTGOMERY: You can't suggest a standard of particular -- MR. BUDZISZESKI: What do you mean by"a standard"? I think the standard is this: If what you find is that scientists are, in fact, disputing these things, then that controversy should be discussed. These things have -- you mentioned peer-review journals. This controversy has appeared in peer-review journals. I have myself been at scientific and philosophical conferences -- MR. MONTGOMERY: You've answered my question. MR. BUDZISZESKI: -- at which it has come up. And I've read -- and I've read publications by scholarly publishing houses which contained these things. I mean, that seems like a pretty good standard to me. MR. MONTGOMERY: Sir, you answered my question. We need to move on. MR. BUDZISZESKI: Thank you. Thank 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)
|
