Sunday, March 19, 2006

 

Bad Missouri Breaks

.
Missouri’s legislature is currently considering a bill for the teaching of "critical analysis" that was just approved by the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. A pdf file of the bill can be found here.
.
The bill is convoluted enough that a bit of untangling is in order. First of all it speaks of "best practices":

Public elementary and secondary school science teacher instruction for sixth grade through twelfth grade courses in physics, chemistry, biology, physical science, earth science, and other natural science courses shall comply with the following best practices . . .

And here is what it means by "best practice":

When information other than verified empirical data [defined as: "information representing physical reality based upon repeated independent human observation, measurement, and experimentation with consistent results"] 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.

So far, it is just another example of the watered-down, "teach the controversy" ploy the Discovery Institute came up with in Ohio that at least has the virtue of not singling out evolution and doesn’t even make the "critical analysis" mandatory ("within the purview" and "may be"). However, it makes a simplistic division between experimental science and science involving real-time observation on the one hand and science that makes inferences about processes and events that are not directly accessible on the other. This is just a version of the distinction creationists often make between "repeatable observation" and "everything else" that, in turn, they label "religion" that should be excluded from public school unless creationism is taught too.
.
Until here, the bill is perhaps allowing bad science education but not requiring it. Then comes this:

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.

The bit about phenomena "that occurred previous to written history" is brilliant, of course, as it will mandate (note the shift to "shall be taught") this sort of treatment of all science, including physics, biology, geology, cosmology, etc. that deals with events before the Bible itself and, therefore, most seriously contradicts it.
.
So what do the schools have to do with anything dealing with events that occur before writing?

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 ...

And they have to do all that "in a substantive amount". What is "substantive"? It is defined as: "equal to or greater than". In other words, any science class that concerns events before written history that wants to present anything other than "repeated independent human observation, measurement, and experimentation with consistent results" (which, of course, we can't do now about past events and, even if it was done back then, we wouldn't know about it because it was before written history) must spend equal time teaching about supposedly anomalous, contrary and missing data, lack of or conflicting experiments, predictive failures, crucial assumptions and, naturally, the real aim of the law, alternate logical (not necessarily scientific) explanations.

Now the bill does have some safety valves. Its implementation (for 5 years, at least) is subject to the availability of teaching materials, so that they don't have to shut down all science education if they can't find Constitutionally acceptable course materials to teach as "critical analysis." It also allows local districts to modify or expand the definition of "substantive" as necessary for local use, though that could be a two edged sword.

Sometime you just have to admire the craft that went into something like this, even if you don't like it. The only mistake made in drafting it (besides its intent) was that they just couldn't resist driving the point home and, instead of leaving well enough alone, they went ahead and separately mentioned as requiring "critical analysis" any "theory or hypothesis of biological origins." Maybe whoever drafted it looked at Dover and figured that local boards couldn't be trusted to get anything too subtle. Or maybe they were worried the constituency that they are playing to here couldn't be trusted to read between the lines and give the legislators their political reward. But, whatever the reason, that will now be a problem for this bill if it ever becomes law and winds up in the courts.
.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 11:19 AM
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

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

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives