First it was making Christian proselytizing in public schools OK by non-binding resolution. Now the Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would restrict teaching of evolution.
Dubbed the “Missouri Science Education Act,” the bill would require teachers to distinguish between “verified empirical data” and theories. The bill further calls on teachers to “minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism and understanding.”
The Post-Dispatch notes that “evolution” is mentioned nowhere in the bill (bill status, bill text). This is true, but it is clear evolution is the target. The bill attempts to distringuish between “verified empirical data” and everything else.
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, extrapolation, estimation, unverified data, consensus of scientific opinion, and philosophical belief, such information shall be within the purview of critical analysis and may be critically analyzed. Critical analysis includes the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;
It’s not clear when science moves from the realm of theory to “verified empirical data.” The bill defines verified empirical data as
information representing physical reality based on repeated independent human observation, measurement, and experimentation with consistent results. Verified empirical data is without significant inference and is not theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, estimated data, extrapolated data, or consensus of scientific opinion.
Does the legislature think that quantum mechanics is verified empirically? What about string theory? Parallel universes? What kind of science comes without inference or extrapolation?
It’s clear, however, that this bill is all about evolution. Under the bill, information that is not verified empirical data must be identified as such, and may be “critically analyzed.” Critical analysis means
the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;
So most of the time, teachers and administrators have freedom to choose whether to “critically analyze” scientific theory that is not verified empirical data. But the bill’s sponsors don’t trust biology teachers, who have been teaching evolution without governmental interference. So the bill has special language for biology:
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount. If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.
Not only do teachers have to identify scientific thought on biological origins as special, they have to teach it in a special way so as to minimize its import. And what else do they have to teach? “Alternate logical explanations”. Not alternate scientific theory, but alternate “logical” explanations. What is the best known “logical” explanation of biological origins? Our good friend intelligent design.
The creationists have been trying to shoehorn ID into the Missouri curriculum for years, but have failed to get their bills out of committee. So this time, they say “theory or hypothesis of bilogical origins” instead of evolution, and “alternate logical explanations” instead of intelligent design (which itself is used instead of what they really mean, biblical creationism). And to make sure they could get the bill out of committee, they resorted to subterfuge, putting the bill on the agenda at the last minute and without notice, ensuring that the scientific community wasn’t represented:
Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said few testified against the bill earlier this week after it was placed on the agenda with little notice. He said officials representing science teachers were not present at the hearing, but would be eager to weigh in.
Recent Comments