by Bob Collins of Alabama Citizens for Science Education
Following are Bob Collins's comments on the Preface for the 2004 Alabama Course of Study: Science (ACOSS) draft standards. Quotes from the draft standards document are in light blue.
(This page is the HTML version, but you can also see read Bob Collins's remarks
as comments on the original Word document (Right-click, Save As).)
Comments by Bob Collins
The Preface of the draft standards begins:
PREFACE
The Alabama Course of Study: Science (Bulletin 2005, No. 20) provides the framework for the K-12 science education program in Alabama's public schools. Content standards in this document are minimum and required (Code of Alabama, 1975, §16-35-4). They are fundamental and specific but not exhaustive. When developing a local curriculum, each school system may include additional content standards to address specific local needs or focus on local resources. Implementation guidelines, resources, and/or activities may also be added.
The 2004-2005 Science State Course of Study Committee and Task Force made extensive use of the following documents in developing the minimum required content: Alabama Course of Study: Science (Bulletin 2001, No. 20); National Science Education Standards published by the National Research Council (NRC); Project 2061's Science for All Americans; Benchmarks for Science Literacy published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); and Pathways to the Science Standards published by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
In addition, Committee members read articles in professional journals and magazines, reviewed similar documents from other states, and examined national evaluations of state standards. Members attended state and national conferences, listened to and read suggestions from interested individuals and groups throughout Alabama, and discussed each issue and standard among themselves.
The following position statement regarding scientific theories is included in this document. The word "theory" has many meanings. Theories are defined as systematically organized knowledge, abstract reasoning, speculative ideas or plans, or systematic statements of principles.
|
This is just plain wrong. A scientific theory is a specific statement that is testable, makes predictions, can be proven false by observation and/or experimentation, and explains the facts in ways that generate more theories that meet the above criteria. The above description is classic creationistspeak. It is no stretch to say that if a student accepted the above definition of "theory", they would never understand the most basic concepts about how science works.
Scientific theories are based on both observations of and assumptions about the natural world.
|
This is very incomplete. The "assumptions" that science is based on are things like "gravity has always worked the same way", "atoms behave consistently", etc. Again, this is a classic creationist technique, which seeks to put all "assumptions" on equal footing, i.e., put basic principles of science on the same footing with their "assumption" of frequent supernatural activities.
They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
|
This is true, but incomplete. Again, this is taken directly from creationist rhetoric. Newton (see below) expanded Copernicus' theories, and Einstein expanded Newton's theories, but neither disagreed with Copernicus' basic theory - that the Earth orbited the Sun, and not vice versa.
Many scientific theories have been developed over time. The value of scientific work, however, is not only the development of theories but also what is learned from the development process. The Alabama Course of Study: Science was developed within the context of trying to establish scientific literacy, not to question or diminish one's beliefs and/or faith.
|
This is clearly inappropriate. Science does not threaten anyone's faith, and to make a statement like this to students, which might cause some students to see science and faith as in opposition to each other, does our students a grave disservice.
To that end, this document includes many theories and studies of scientists' works for examination by students. The works of Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein, to name a few, have provided a basis for much of our knowledge of the world today.
The theory of evolution by natural selection, a theory included in this document, states that natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific explanation for the diversity of living things. Since natural selection has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in a population, it is assumed, based on the study of artifacts, that it produces large changes, even though this has not been directly observed.
|
The preceding statement is utterly false. Literally dozens of examples of evolution of new species have been observed in microorganisms. The HIV virus is one obvious example of a new species whose evolution has been observed within living memory. Hundreds of examples of the evolution of new species have been observed in plants. The widely held belief that natural selection has only been shown to operate within species has no basis in scientific fact.
Because of its importance and implications, students should understand the nature of evolutionary theories.
|
What "evolutionary theories? There's only one. Creationists want you to think they have a "theory" too, hence "theories".
They should learn to make distinctions between the multiple meanings of evolution,
|
What "multiple meanings"? Once more, creationistspeak to muddy the waters.
to distinguish between observations and assumptions
|
Note the word "assumptions" again. Is evolution the only scientific theory that involves assumptions?
used to draw conclusions, and to wrestle with the unanswered questions and unresolved problems still faced by evolutionary theory.
|
When the theory of evolution, one of the best supported theories in all of science, is singled out in documents like this for specific comment in connection with the validity or lack thereof of scientific theories a very strong and inappropriate message is sent to children. This message is that the theory of evolution may be less well supported than other scientific theories. Probably the theory of gravitation is the only one better supported than the theory of evolution. Why not mention other scientific theories in the context of their validity or lack thereof? The only reason for doing it this way is that fundamentalist creationists have made a big stink in various parts of this country about evolution because they object to it on religious grounds. This is a scientific matter and it deals with the science classroom. It is not a religious matter and it does not deal with classes in which religion is appropriately discussed. It is unwise and incorrect to use this theory to discuss the validity of theories in general.
There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life. With the explosion of new scientific knowledge in biochemical and molecular biology and exciting new fossil discoveries,
|
Alabama fossil discoveries do not have anything to do with the origin of life. The only fossils that could relate to this are the very ancient microscopic fossils found in rocks more than 3 billion years old. We do not have any of those rocks in our state. The fossil discoveries that may be made in Alabama in the future can be very informative about evolution, which relates to changes in organisms, or about questions relating to paleoecology and other subjects, but not about the when and how of their ultimate origins.
Alabama students may be among those who use their understanding and skills to contribute to knowledge and to answer many unanswered questions. Instructional materials chosen to implement the content standards within this course of study should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
|
With all of the controversies in science today, stem cell research, genetically modified food crops, global warming, deforestation, pollution and cleanup of PCB's, nuclear waste, lead and arsenic in drinking water, and a host of others, why leave them out and mention only evolution, one of the most conclusively proven tenets of science? Would it not be more productive to have students evaluate evidence related to controversies for which there is true, scientifically-based reason to disagree?
The following comments were made by a colleague, a professional paleontologist:
The following statement is unacceptable:
"Since natural selection has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in a population, it is assumed, based on the study of artifacts, that it produces large changes, even though this has not been directly observed."
What are "artifacts"? Fossils are not artifacts, and they are not indirect evidence.
"They [students] should learn to make distinctions between the multiple meanings of evolution, to distinguish between observations and assumptions used to draw conclusions, and to wrestle with the unanswered questions and unresolved problems still faced by evolutionary theory."
"Multiple meanings" is a codeword.
Also, I don't see why students at this level need more than a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. Without a great deal more information, they are not qualified to "wrestle with the unanswered questions and unresolved problems". All that does is to invite inappropriately religious discussion in the science classroom. |
