Clare Wuellner, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for Inquiry Austin. cwuellner@centerforinquiry.net

Please consider my comments regarding points made in Mr. McLeroy’s Commentary of March 25, 2009. Mr. McLeroy’s text is in bold. My comments are in italic. Thank you.

COMMENTARY

McLeroy: Enlisting in the culture war; Don McLeroy, SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR; Wednesday, March 25, 2009

What is the greatest challenge facing science education in Texas? The answer is simple: to make sure an excellent teacher is in every classroom. What's the greatest challenge in writing the state science standards? It is identifying appropriate content that builds from grade to grade and leaves our high school graduates college and work force ready. However, the greatest difficulty in writing these standards is the culture war over evolution.

On all points in the previous paragraph: agreed.

The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia's far-left,

True, academics tend to be left-of-center, but their politics and their expertise are not interdependent. It’s not true that it is only academia’s far-left who are in this debate. Nearly all scientists in academia (based on TFN’s study released last fall) accept evolution. Mr. McLeroy’s statement makes it sound like this debate is being stirred by only a few extremists. That simply isn’t the case.

along with the secular elite opinion-makers,

I’m not sure what this means. We’ve seen and heard for yourself that people of faith support the teaching of evolution. Besides, if this isn’t about religion, as McLeroy claims, what should it matter what anyone’s religious beliefs are?

have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed,

Here, Don McLeroy conflates evolution with the Theory of Evolution. Most people don’t know that there’s a difference. A pretty good analogy would be conflating “cells” with “Cell Theory.” Evolution is something we see happening, just as clearly as we see cells under the microscope. Whether you refer to what we see as microevolution is irrelevant—it happens. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation of what causes evolution. To continue with our parallel, Cell Theory explains the causes of cells (their generation and function). Back to the point that McLeroy was trying to make, which is that scientists don’t think evolutionary theory should be questioned. This isn’t true. Those who understand evolution haven’t disallowed questioning. An example might help here. Let’s say there is an inanimate thing in front of us that has four legs supporting a smooth, flat top about three feet off the ground. People sit on chairs around it and put things on it. At this point, if you were a scientist, you might propose a theory that the thing I’m talking about is a table, because there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to this idea. There is no weakness to discuss. There is only evidence pointing to a single conclusion. Now, if I were to tell you that the thing in question was covered in fur, you might have to reconsider. Perhaps what we’re talking about is a work of art, and not really meant to be used as a table. Then the whole theory goes out the window.

This is why scientists say that evolutionary theory has no weaknesses: if it did, it wouldn’t be a theory. Admittedly, that statement might sound like evolution can’t be questioned. But as you can see that’s a misunderstanding of what the word “theory” means to science.

that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom.

He says this, but then see his statements below…

Even Texas' 20-year-old requirement to teach the scientific strengths and weaknesses of hypotheses and theories has come under attack.

Isn’t the purpose of re-writing the curriculum every 10 years to re-evaluate the relevance and robustness of what we’ve done in the past in light of what we know now?

Words that were uncontroversial and perfectly acceptable for nearly two decades are now considered “code words” for intelligent design and are deemed unscientific.

True. The term “strengths and weaknesses” is viewed as unscientific and language that encourages doubt about evolution, leaving alternative explanations for how living things became as diverse as they are by other means. At this point, science has no other theory for how life’s diversity arose. That leaves intelligent design, for which there is no scientific evidence. (If you are aware of any peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design, please let me—and the rest of the scientific world—know.)

The elite fear that “unscientific” weaknesses of evolution will be inserted into the textbooks, leaving students without a good science education and unprepared for the future, compelling businesses to shun “illiterate” Texas.

I wish it weren’t true, but all we need to look at is how Kansas, Dover, and Louisiana have been viewed since their legal and political battles over evolution. Anything supported that is less than 21st-century science doesn’t look good to the nation and the world.

The editorial writers incessantly argue that evolution skeptics are motivated by religion, that they are anti-science and fundamentally dishonest. In contrast, evolutionists are portrayed as sincere defenders of the truth, completely honest and free of any ideological bias.

This is Don McLeroy’s opinion. My opinion is that these last statements are over generalized and not true. Both of these statements would require a tally to confirm whether editors argue anything incessantly.

But who is rejecting the empirical demonstration of science, that is, the directly observable and verifiable, for ideological purposes? Let us find out as we take a close-up look at a two-step solution to the controversy.

Okay, let’s take a look.

The first step is to define science in a way that is satisfactory to both sides.

This is confusing to me. Now, instead of referring to evolution, he’s talking about science. What two sides is he referring to? The definition of science isn’t in question, as far as I know.

Using new wording from the National Academy of Sciences, Texas' standards define science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” This definition replaces the academy's 1999 language that was very controversial; it stated that science was “to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena.” The change from “natural explanations” to “testable explanations” is very significant.

I agree: the new definition is great. But so was the old one.

The old definition was inferior in that it undermined both the philosophy of the naturalist and the supernaturalist.

Can you put into words how the latter statement is valid? I can’t… What exactly was undermined and how? I am not trying to be obtuse here; I really don’t understand.

By circular reasoning, the naturalist was prevented from using science to prove that “nature is all there is,” and the supernaturalist was prevented from offering supernatural hypotheses.

Here, Mr. McLeroy demonstrates misunderstanding of two key concepts to science. First, in science, the term “natural” means “testable.” (I’m not sure where Mr. McLeroy got this definition—“natural” does not mean that “nature is all there is.”) So the new wording only makes the scientific term explicit. Second, no scientist can test the supernatural because by definition the supernatural is untestable. As soon as a phenomenon is testable, it is “natural.” If, for instance, palm reading were testable, then it would be a natural science. I know that this whole debate isn’t about religion, but let’s say intelligent design were testable, then God’s involvement in the diversity of organisms we see would be testable and therefore “natural.” Isn’t God supposed to be supernatural? I think the statement “nature is all there is” leaves only the idea that there is something outside of nature, and that idea is God. I always thought God’s domain was religion, not science.

With the new definition, both the naturalist and the supernaturalist are free to make “testable” explanations.

I’d be interested in knowing what testable explanations Mr. McLeroy would have for supernatural phenomena such as palm reading.

The debate can now shift from “Is it science?” to “Is it testable?”

But since science can only study the testable, isn’t this redundant?

The next step in resolving this controversy is simply to use the scientific method to weigh in on the issue of evolution.

The scientific method has been weighing in on evolution for 150 years (actually, more than that), and the theory of evolution is still a Theory. It still stands. That means 150 years of data support evolution. How much is enough?

Consider the fossil record. What do we actually observe? What are the data?

I don’t want to oversimplify here, but the data abound. If you want a list, email me.

Stephen Jay Gould stated: “The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. [This is called 'stasis.'] These species appear … without obvious ancestors in the underlying beds, are stable once established and disappear higher up without leaving any descendants.” ”…but stasis is data…“

Mr. McLeroy is a big fan of quote mining, and that is what he is doing here. Unfortunately, Mr. McLeroy has turned quote mining (i.e., misrepresenting content by selecting only part of what was said) into something he makes jokes about. Quote mining is no joke. It is the stuff of misinformation and misunderstanding. What Mr. McLeroy fails to point out is that Gould is talking about an evolutionary concept called punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium does not disparage the fact of evolution, it only proposes a new idea about the rate at which it happened.

Once we have our observations, we can make a hypothesis. The controversial evolution hypothesis

I bet by now you can see the problem I’m going to point out: evolution isn’t a hypothesis.

is that all life is descended from a common ancestor by unguided

As opposed to guided? What could possibly guide evolution other than natural causes? Wouldn’t that be a supernatural cause? Wouldn’t that involve divine intervention? Isn’t that religion?

natural processes. How well does this hypothesis explain the data?

Exceptionally well, if you take into account the enormous body of scientific evidence we have. If you’re interested in learning more about this, email me, and I can send you long lists of resources.

A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question.

Mr. McLeroy’s line of reasoning obfuscates the fact that what he just said in the previous sentence is that the new curriculum asks Texas students to question scientific theory. I’ve already covered why it’s silly to talk about questioning a scientific theory. On the other hand maybe he means students should question the mechanism of evolution, which is indeed an exciting area of debate in biology. In order to understand why this isn’t something we should recommend, bear with me through another example. If I wanted to question syntax of the Portuguese language, first I’d have to learn Portuguese. Also, Latin and maybe several other languages before I could be competent to make real judgment about language usage. The same goes for science. A newbie biology student can’t be expected to debate something as complex as evolutionary theory (look how much trouble we adults have with it!). First, there would be introductory biology and other courses. Perhaps a degree in biology. Maybe more than one degree in biology before the person could be competent to debate such things. It isn’t that scientists think students should be kept from discussing evolution and its mechanisms; it’s that scientists know that students aren’t capable until they first learn the basics.

It states: “The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.” It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.

I have to say, I am a Ph.D. in biology with plenty of experience in the areas that this standard refers to, and the wording is confusing to me. That’s because it was not written by a scientist. Common ancestry is itself neither sufficient nor insufficient. Are we talking about evidence for common ancestry? Then there is plenty, which is why there is a theory of evolution. Common ancestry is the very stuff of the theory of evolution. Again, debating a theory is like debating whether a table is a table.

And the standard is not religious but does raise a problem for the evolution hypothesis in that stasis is the opposite of evolution, and “stasis is data.”

So what Mr. McLeroy is saying is that stasis (which he has neglected to define scientifically for the reader) has only two explanations: evolution and “question mark.” The only alternative to fill in the “question mark” spot is supernatural. Anything outside the natural is outside the realm of science. We’ve reached the same dead end again…

If we are to train our students, engage their minds and, frankly, be honest with them, why oppose these standards?

Opposing these standards has nothing to do with dishonesty. “Strengths and weaknesses”-type language just isn’t science. You don’t have to believe me, just ask the experts.

If the standards do not promote religion and they are not unscientific

I hope I have successfully argued that the standards McLeroy prefers are unscientific. They are not explicitly religious, but they do, by McLeroy’s own logic, allow for investigation of the supernatural, which is outside the realm of science.

and they deal directly with the data, then possibly these standards are being opposed for ideological reasons.

Why would scientists nationwide, worldwide have an ideological problem with this issue? This is conspiracy theory on a monumental level.

This supports the argument that this culture war exists, not because of the religious faith of creationists, but because of the rejection of the empirical demonstration of science by academia's far-left and the secular elite opinionmakers.

Mr. McLeroy has come full circle and said that this culture war exists because scientists reject science. We’re talking about 1000’s of people who have dedicated their careers to studying science. Does it make sense that they would undermine the field for which they have such passion? That doesn’t make sense to me. What is it that Mr. McLeroy and those who agree with him know that the scientists have missed?

McLeroy is chairman of the State Board of Education. dmcleroy@att.net