Saturday, February 25, 2006

 

A Word to the Wise . . .

.
Mary Lang Edwards, who is a professor of biology at Erskine College and who was appointed to a panel of scientists asked to advise the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee about the proper teaching of evolution in public high school biology classes in that state, has an opinion piece entitled "The Wedge Into Biology Standards" in today's The State.
.
The other two scientists on the panel, appointed by state Sen. Mike Fair, each has ties to the Discovery Institute, a "think tank" as it likes to style itself, a PR establishment as people familiar with it know, promoting Intelligent Design. Perhaps not surprisingly:

On Feb. 13, the Education Oversight Committee voted against accepting the 2005 Science Standard for Biology as written, despite overwhelming support of the standard by the state Department of Education and S.C. biologists.

The 2005 Science Standard was:

. . . the result of a rigorous process of consultation and review. Three separate committees approved standards for biology to teach students how to evaluate investigations, engage in problem-solving, think critically and draw conclusions, all within the boundaries of accepted science. Using scientific methods, students will examine many factors that affect evolution. This is very different from what the EOC advocates.

Apparently, the EOC intends "to include the Discovery Institute’s agenda to 'critically analyze' evolution in the science standard." As Dr. Edwards points out:

Unless you are accustomed to thinking about science as practiced by the scientific community, the issues may be confusing. This confusion is exactly what the Discovery Institute hopes to accomplish. ...

Their slogans — "teach the controversy" and "critically analyze" — are designed to undermine the real science supporting evolution. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Southeastern Association of Biologists, the evidence for evolution is irrefutable.

Dr. Edwards sums up the situation:

South Carolina now is where Ohio was in 2002, when the term “critically analyze” was inserted into science standards. After years of effort by proponents for good science, the Ohio Board of Education voted Feb. 14 to delete a lesson plan and science standards with the term “critically analyze” that would have opened the door for students to be taught intelligent design. Other states have also successfully fought strategies used by proponents of teaching intelligent design.

We have the opportunity in South Carolina to stand behind a science program that can contribute to our efforts to improve our national standing in education.

It sounds like it's time for people who care about good science education in South Carolina to get involved. Ohio shows that it can make a difference.
.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives