I got involved in Skepticism through two subjects: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and The Debate Over Evolution. As a result, these are the skeptical topics of which I am most fluent. I take many science classes, read books and blogs about science, and listen to a number of podcasts.
It amazes me how infrequently the authors and hosts of these media outlets critique themselves. More often, they beef up their own arguments while attacking the dumbest arguments of the most extreme advocates of the other side, and ignore the rational thinking middle ground. Why is there no attempt to point out where their views overlap with their opponents instead of polarizing the two sides?
SO... Despite the fact that I oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creation in public high schools, I will find points I approve and disprove of in all of my entries. In addition, I plan on criticizing skeptics and atheists in future blog entries. Where does everyone get it right, and where do they get it wrong?
Today's topic will be Academic Freedom!
Recently an Academic Freedom Bill was passed in Texas that changes the language of the text books and teaching standards to teach the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories with an emphasis on evolution. For a little background, "Academic Freedom" is a recent attempt, mainly by Intelligent Design proponents, to have language in public high school biology text books that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories. Many atheists and skeptics argue that this is just another attempt by the creationists to get Intelligent Design, Creation, and religious text into the classroom. Academic Freedom and Intelligent Design proponents argue that the current teaching of evolution and life origins is dogmatic and authoritarian.
Academic Freedom: Where Do They Get It Right?
I am actually not convinced that anyone at the Discovery Institute* is out to deceive anyone. Just like everyone else, I believe my own side of the argument. There is no reason why I should listen to other well-respected skeptics and think that they are trying to fool me, or pull the wool over my eyes. We can only assume the same for those who are in favor of Academic Freedom. They are merely attempting to shine light on something that they feel strongly about.
(*An organization that advocates Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom)
I don't know the ins and outs of Academic Freedom. It may just be a buzz word for teaching the strengths and weaknesses of theories, and I have absolutely no problem with teaching students about critical thinking against scientific theories. Scientists should be creative in addition to being intelligent. Teaching strengths and weaknesses of theories is a good way to get people to thinking about the limits of science and thinking about what might be discovered in the future.
It's more likely that atheists and skeptics are threatened by the fact that this issue is primarily brought up by religious people who are in favor of Intelligent Design, and in some cases, fundamentalist Christians. However, this doesn't mean that this is a slippery slope that will lead to all of our children believing in talking snakes in magical gardens or that they will learn that earth is 6000 years old. You can only take it for what it claims to be. Anything above and beyond that is conspiracy theory-type thinking that assumes that someone is lying, and we should usually be weary of jumping to that type of logic as a solid argument.
Besides, what's wrong with a small compromise?
Academic Freedom: Where Do They Get It Wrong?
Again, to reiterate, I do not know the ins and outs of what will actually be changed in the Academic Freedom laws. These laws are actually in the process of being written right now. However, the name "Academic Freedom" is scary. Apart, these sound like wonderful words:
"Academic" - who can disagree with this?
"Freedom" -everyone loves this stuff.
Together they sound like the freedom to teach whatever you want. To some this may sound great, but to me it sounds like a pure tragedy for anyone with a brain that attends public school in Texas. Public schools must have standards, and as long as this doesn't leak into other subjects and, for example, history teachers begin teaching 9/11 Conspiracies and Teaching the Strengths and Weaknesses of The Evidence For The Holocaust, I'm fine with it. I can only hope that they word the laws correctly to prevent teachers from bringing bad science and logic into the classroom.
Dr. Steven Meyer, president of The Discovery Institute, recently testified to the Texas State Board of Education about Academic Freedom. He spoke briefly about some of his perceived "Strengths and Weaknesses" about the Theory of Evolution, and his background information was a bit lacking. In his attempt to demonstrate an example of a problem with evolution, he cited the fact that we don't know the cause of the Cambrian Explosion. In addition he spoke briefly about chemical evolution and natural selection. He claimed that standards that once "encouraged critical thinking" had been replaced with "qualified affirmation and suddenly demand intellectual descent."
(*You can hear Dr. Meyer's entire testimony here.)
Dr. Meyer's point about the Cambrian Explosion is unconvincing. Acknowledging the fact that we don't know about everything about everything on this planet would be a great indicator that we should be thinking about the answers to these questions, and textbooks do not omit this fact. How does lacking knowledge about the cause of the Cambrian Explosion constitute a flaw with evolution? It is merely an anomaly. It's a sign that we aren't perfect and have yet to discover new information about our scientific theories.
Anomalies don't necessarily count as weaknesses. In many political and scientific debates we often hear people find unanswered questions in science and use that lack of knowledge to claim that there is a problem with the science, or to claim that this unanswered question means that there is something that we can't explain. Some good examples of this are irreducible complexity or pointing out that there is a lack of fossil evidence in a certain species. This type of argument, though often compelling, is not a means of drawing a scientific conclusion. It's possible that this type of argument can lead to a good question that can lead to a good experiment that will then lead to good science, but we should be careful about how we draw conclusions.
Conclusion: Academic Freedom Is Good, Assuming It Opens Discussion And Is Worded Correctly.
I worry that the standards may be too loose on the laws regarding the decision in Texas. I am okay with criticism of evolution and open conversation about any and all scientific theories. I am not okay with the allowing teachers to teach whatever they want.
My main fear about "Strengths and Weaknesses" is that poor wording of educational standards may give faculty members too much freedom. Lack of standards could lead certain teachers to drudge up creationist arguments against evolution that have been disproved for decades and bring them into the classroom. I still hear many of these arguments from the Christians that I talk to on campus. People say things like "Evolution Is Just A Theory," and talk about the Piltdown Man hoax as a means of creating conspiracy theories against religion. These types of arguments only display a lack of knowledge about what it means to be scientific.
Cheers.
-Pete
