Pharyngula

You're right. When I saw that story, I hightailed it to Scienceblogs to be sure you and Ed Brayton knew about it. He's sorta on the wrong side.

Wisconsin's proposal could be a lot worse -- as I understand it, it doesn't specifically say "intelligent design" is banned. But -- good heavens! -- think about what would have happened had the legislatures gotten into writing what was good and holy about cosmology, say, in 1910, or 1920 . . . or 1960.

The support of science is good. Write that into the standards. Demand high standards in the science curricula. But don't say "here be dragons" when we really don't know. That's the same error the anti-evolution people make.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 8, 2006 9:49 AM

You know, at first glance, as an evolutionary scientist, my response was, it's about damn time, but after finishing your article I agree with you entirely. Science standards are created to guide science teaching and that should be enough. There shouldn't be a law requiring a teacher to stick strictly to the standards any more than there should be one requiring english teachers to concentrate solely on Shakespeare. Too much conrol of curricula is what's hurting science education right now. Science isn't constrained by dogma, it is constrained by natural law, and that should be the only point made by our law makers.

Posted by: Brad Hoge | February 8, 2006 9:59 AM

picking and choosing and saying which specific ideas ought to be taught and making them part of law is just plain wrong.

I didn't interpret it that way. I think what the legislation is saying is that anything taught as science has to meet the definition of science laid out by the NAS. I don't think it lays out "Theory A can be taught, Theory B cannot", but rather is doing what you're wanting -- leaving out specific issues, but simply saying that if you're going to teach something (whatever it is) as science, it has to meet the definition of science as given by the NAS.

But, I haven't seen the actual legislation, just the press reports. Before anyone gets too worked up, let's see what it actually says.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 8, 2006 10:01 AM

I've posted the actual text of the bill. It's not specific at all to ID, it only requires that you can't teach it in science classes if it isn't actual science according to the NAS definitions.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 8, 2006 10:16 AM

I just read that MNDaily article. The guy just rehashes the same crap, and predictably, citing Behe to support his argument.

That guy didn't even try to hide where he's coming from. Is it worth reading? Probably not since it's the same crap over and over. But at least we know his name and can challenge him publicly.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 8, 2006 10:22 AM

Ed Brayton posted the actual text of the bill:

SECTION 1. 118.018 of the statutes is created to read:

118.018 Science instruction. The school board shall ensure that any material presented as science within the school curriculum complies with all of the following:

(1) The material is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes.

(2) The material is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences.

I also do not see this as preventing speaking about historical scientific ideas or pseudoscience (if one wished to address these things), unless teachers treat them as real science. Also, if the ID camp gets its act together and actually comes out with real research and real models with testable predictions, it could potentially be reallowed in the classroom.

Posted by: CS | February 8, 2006 10:24 AM

Based on the actual text of the bill, and not the description in the ens article, I approve of the bill. Intelligent Design is not singled out by name, it jsut doesn't meet the standards specified, which we all knew already.

Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | February 8, 2006 10:44 AM

Both the Courts and the politicians should stay out of science.

What is the evidence that shows IDists are trying to change the definition of science? From what I have read all IDists want is to be able to follow the data/ evidence to where it leads- even if it leads to the metaphysical, or just implies it.

So IF we keep what is taught to what is "testable", wouldn't that leave out most, if not all, of what is being debated?

As Dr. Behe said- "How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process?"

Or perhaps how can we test the claim that a population of single-celled organisms could "evolve" into anything but a population of single-celled organisms? Sure we can deduce it happened, but only under the assumption that it can/ did.

What I say is to present the data to the students and allow for open and rigorous debate given the available options. We exist- what, exactly, are the options to that existence? I see three:

1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes
3) A combination of 1 & 2

It should be noted that bioth "intelligence" and "design" are natural processes. It should also be noted that the origin of nature could not have been via natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature. Meaning it is futile to try to "define" ID out of science because the anti-ID position cannot live up to the same standards.

Here is a question:
When Karl von Linne was trying to figure out the Created Kinds and developed binomial nomenclature, was he conducting scientific research?

Posted by: Joe G | February 8, 2006 10:47 AM

Joe G wrote:

What is the evidence that shows IDists are trying to change the definition of science?

Read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute, the primary proponent of ID:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Or check out Behe's testimony in the Dover trial, admitting that under his proposed definition of science even astrology would be science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Their goal is to change the definition of science so that theistic, supernatural explanations have equal weight with those that are materialistic. In other words, "God did it" would be of equal value to "Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen".

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 8, 2006 10:55 AM

I find it incredible that Dembski is offering a cash award to the first teacher to break this law when it in place, suggesting (through a link to the Alliance Defence Fund) that it is an issue of freedom of speech. Apparently, he didn't read the text of the bill either.

I think that this bill would divert attention to the real issue, that ID is a set of untestable ideas founded in religion, and that they have to change the definition of science to get it in the curriculum. That's the public discussion that I want to hear.

Posted by: Inoculated Mind | February 8, 2006 11:05 AM

Quoting Viking:
"As Dr. Behe said- "How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process?""

/shrug... who says the process was "Darwinian", whatever that is? By similar, if redundant, token, we might ask Professor Behe, "How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced (ultimately) by an "intelligent designer"?

As we constantly beg, "Show us some science."

I am mulling over exactly what I think about the proposed legislation. I think I tend toward the camp that says don't legislate... let the scientists teach the science. I would hope that serious institutions would police their own offerings as was done in Caroline Crocker's case at George Mason U. However, being from Alabama, I have to admit it is refreshing to see a state political discourse that actually shows signs of hoping to do something positive for science education.
Uncle Don

Posted by: Don Culberson | February 8, 2006 11:24 AM

Don Colberson said:

... I would hope that serious institutions would police their own offerings ...

Unfortunately that hope has been shown to die a-borning, with state after state introducing legislation specifically designed to contravent what the scientists base their science on. It's time to fight the war that's being waged rather than pining for a peaceful past that's long since gone.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | February 8, 2006 11:36 AM

I dunno either. At first I agreed with the "vehemently opposed" camp until reading those excerpts from the bill. But I'm still uncomfortable with government legislating about what can be taught as science. Moreover, the law does specify the NAS as a standard...that might be risky. How do we qualify who we choose as a standard, and insulate it from politics?

Posted by: rrt | February 8, 2006 11:47 AM

I find attempts to legislate good science, even with the best intentions, to be almost as bad.

I disagree. I support the legislation of excluding pseudoscience from science classrooms, the reason being that while "scientific review" obviously means nothing to a "science teacher" teaching ID, the law would still protect the children from their idiocy...much like "equality" meant nothing to Jim Crow states, but the Supreme Court decision banning segregation made them comply with the ideal anyway.

I'm not a scientist, and I do fully understand why you as a community would want to maintain as much independence from legislation as possible. However, the bill does defer to the NAS. I find it perfectly appropriate that the government should legislate to force their own institutions (i.e. public schools) to follow a standard, and I believe the NAS is an appropriate standard for science classes to follow.

Posted by: Nate | February 8, 2006 11:53 AM

I, too, agree that this law looks like a good law, and a very generalized restriction still allowing for the individual schools and educators to build their curriculum as they feel is best. This law seems only to say that anything presented as science must actually be science according to a respected national body, and I can't imagine that being a bad thing. If this law said 'x must be taught in y manner,' then I would be opposed, as well, but in this case it seems like such a broad guideline as to be analogous to 'do stuff with numbers in math' or 'read in your lit classes.' It shouldn't really be necessary to lay that stuff out, but if people were trying to teach calculus in literature classes I'd be all for a law laying out the definition of a literature class as well, rudimentary as that would be, because obviously some are still unclear on the concept.

Posted by: rabbit | February 8, 2006 11:58 AM

I think the law is meant to deter certain religious teachers and boards of education from trying to teach religious issues as science, as well as to ensure the accuracy of the science that is taught. I don't see it as affecting science itself, just the teaching of it. It would be nice, if such measures weren't needed, but, in this day and age, the teaching of accurate science needs all the help it can get.

Posted by: Steve Sutton | February 8, 2006 12:32 PM

So what are they calling this bill?

I propose: the "Honesty in Science Education" bill.

Let the Discovery Institute fight it.

Bring it on, please.

And PZ -- please think seriously about reconsidering and/or retracting your public rejection. There is nothing wrong with legislating education standards if the standards are properly written. Feel free to propose alternatives, as I did, but this sort of approach is EXACTLY what we've been needing to do for a long time: give the fundies a fat slap their faces (to coin a phrase).

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 12:37 PM

Eric

It's easier to organize a fight if you can label your enemies as partisan legislators

Are there any other kinds?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2006 12:39 PM

Glen

An example I used on PT against this bill is that conceivably it might be used against teaching high school students a bit about String Theory

Uh ... so what?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 12:54 PM

Great White Wonder wrote: "Someone has to decide what science is so teachers employed by THE GOVERNMENT know what to teach."

Maybe it's time to reexamine the idea of publicly PROVIDED (as opposed to FUNDED) education? Like the Post Office, and the National Library, perhaps city- and state-run schools can now be dispensed with?

It could be like single payer health insurance: you go to the teacher you like, and the government picks up the tab.

Posted by: Craig Ewert | February 8, 2006 1:08 PM

I agree with PZ.

We want to establish that ID is a religious view, that the constitution prohibits the use of public funds to promote a particular religious view, and that therefore it is unconstitutional to teach ID in a public school science class.

Passing a bill to prohibit the teaching of ID suggests that we think it could under some circumstances be permitted under the constitution. Such a bill is not only heavy-handed and stupid, it makes its supporters look weak because the larger issue is that such a bill is unnecessary; ID is already prohibited from being taught as science.

Posted by: PaulC | February 8, 2006 1:44 PM

PaulC

Passing a bill to prohibit the teaching of ID suggests that we think it could under some circumstances be permitted under the constitution.

Gosh, well, I happen to think that teaching ID is permitted under the Constitution, just not in public schools under the guise of "science" or as a religious idea that is more valid than any other religious idea (e.g., the religious idea that black people and white people shouldn't intermarry).

So what is your problem with the bill?

It sounds to me like those opposed to the bill are afraid of being "perceived" in a certain way.

My advice: stop being chicken shits.

We've seen what happens when the Discovery Institute and the fundies are allowed to frame the issues again and again and again. It's not healthy for science education.

So get with the program and stop the fucking whining.

I don't recommend a bill for that either; we just have to require a certain level of competence from the people setting the approved school curriculum.

Whose "we" Paul? How are these levels determined? How are they articulated? How are they enforced?

If that requirement fails (which it often does) then it's bad news, but a legislative prohibition is not the appropriate fix.

What is, Paul? If representative democracratic solutions are out of the equation, then what do you propose?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 1:56 PM

"We want to establish that ID is a religious view, that the constitution prohibits the use of public funds to promote a particular religious view, and that therefore it is unconstitutional to teach ID in a public school science class."

We already have. ;-)

Posted by: Steve Sutton | February 8, 2006 2:03 PM

"We want to establish that ID is a religious view, that the constitution prohibits the use of public funds to promote a particular religious view, and that therefore it is unconstitutional to teach ID in a public school science class."

We already have. ;-)

You know it, I know it, PZ knows it.

Now let's teach a bunch more of the rubes in Wisconsin what happened in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Remember those rubes? This legislation is for them.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2006 2:09 PM

I'm so ... mixed.

The idea that it's come to the point laws have to be created for everything - including the bloody obvious - bugs the hell out of me.

But I also think in the long-run this could save school boards and hence the taxpayers millions of dollars, as it seems there's a new ID school bill introduced everyday.

But ... something I wondered about during Dover ... aren't there already national standards schools must meet? How can they teach (to test) anything related to ID and meet those standards?

Posted by: haliaeetus | February 8, 2006 2:12 PM

David

You can be sure that the next thing we'd see introduced is a bill that defined what valid artistic expression should be, based on guidelines set by the National Endowment for the Arts.

The fundies already propose such bills ALL THE TIME.

This bill would do NOTHING to affect that behavior of fundies.

But it would show that Wisconsin gives a shit about science education. That's why the bill is called "Honesty in Science Education." Right? What is this bill being called by its promoters?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 2:50 PM

Personally, I would want legislation to contain a sort of pointer to some consultation process where appropriate experts are consulted. This unfortunately has the problem of expertise in general - how do you recognize an expert when you are ignorant yourself? Anyway, it does beat "hard coding" the current state of science (or any other subject) into the law as well as avoids avoid ossifying any particular means or approach to teaching it, which would be just as bad.

Posted by: Keith Douglas | February 8, 2006 2:57 PM

Passing a bill to prohibit the teaching of ID as science in a publicly funded science class suggests that we think teaching ID as science in a publicly funded science class could under some circumstances be permitted under the constitution.

Hope this clears things up.

Not really. States have a lot of laws that are redundant with the US Constitution. They even have their own Constitutions which are redundant with the US Constitution.

The existence of such documents suggests very little about what the Constitution says. I wonder why you would think otherwise, Paul? Seriously: do you have any evidence showing that vast numbers of people other than yourself are prone to this misconception and are unable to be educated as to the facts about how state laws and our Constitution interface?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 3:06 PM

It's not unconstitutional to teach pseudoscience, but it's certainly not a good idea. My first thought on reading this bill wasn't its application to Intelligent Design, but its application to such things as Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, bioenergy, homeopathy, Feng Shui, mind reading, spoon bending, vitalism, ghosts, pet psychics, etc.

If you look at the statistics, belief in these forms of pseudoscience is almost as high as belief in Creationism -- and it's a lot harder to connect them directly to religion. Plus, level of education doesn't seem to correlate with skepticism here: even intelligent people put a lot of weight on sincere testimonials and tend to think there is good, solid science supporting this stuff. The common assumption is that there's a controversy. Close-minded materialist scientists are ignoring the evidence. Sounds familiar.

So what happens if a public high school decides to teach homeopathy as an "alternative" view of chemistry, or "chi" as one way of doing physics? My guess is that this isn't unlikely. Legitimate nursing schools have already been invaded by odd forms of alt med and the media gets huge ratings when they promote psychic powers as true fact.

I don't know. Perhaps the public schools need some kind of legal rein on unscientific nonsense taught as science in general. No need to single out creationism.

Posted by: Sastra | February 8, 2006 3:13 PM

The fact that some fundamentalists may do the wrong thing with respect to legislating guidelines for the arts doesn't mean those supporting the sciences have to imitate them by trying to pass such laws themselves.

Proposing legislation to regulate public funding of arts is not "wrong." It's stupid -- in my opinion and yours.

If you think that proposing legislation to underscore solid science teaching in public schools is "stupid" then explain why. Thus far, I haven't heard any compelling arguments to support the idea that this legislation is stupid. All I've heard is chickens clucking.

I mean, what the fuck is the matter? Between Nathan Newman's "no courts" and this crowd's "no legislation" I'm a bit confused about what our strategy is.

Perhaps the strategy is just to sit back and keep reacting to whatever the fundies come up.

That sounds like typical Democratic Party behavior. Remind me -- has that been successful lately?

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 3:25 PM

I think there are better ways of caring about science education in Wisconsin than the passing of this proposed bill, however well-intentioned it may be.

Sure. No one claimed it was the best idea in the world.

The issue is whether this bill is bad for science or bad politics. And I don't see a compelling argument for either view.

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 3:29 PM

To haliaeetus,

There is already national and state level legislation in place which require certain standards to be met. You should be able to find them easily enough through your state's department of education website.
Michigan has a fairly nice site which provides a chart listing both the state school aid acts as well as the federal acts which require adherance.
The stick which makes the local school district adhere to those standards is having funding withheld. The decision to withhold funding comes from the state department of education or in some cases the state treasurer. (Part of MCL 388.1617a)
I'm certainly not an expert in school financing, but I doubt that the stick is used very often. There are a number of forms available on the Michigan website for corrective action plans, which implies to me that the department of education will prefer to work with the district to improve the education rather than beat them with the loss of funds to comply.
The point is, the stick for maintaining state standards is already at the state level legislative level, is part of state law. Many of the standards are also at state level, and some of the do include some very specific guidlines on what should be taught to meet the state standards. For example, the Ensuring Early Childhood Literacy policy, or Revision of the Mi Curriculum Framework.
Most of these policies are from the Michigan department of Education. However, these policies can be overwritten by legislation by the Michigan legislature. Or added to, for example according to the MCL, all teachers are required to take an oath to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Michigan. This is a legislative act (MCL 388.401-388.402) passed in 1935 and has never been repealed.
Whether you think it is appropriate for a legislature to set educational standard or not, they have done so in the past and they will in the future.
We know that the creationist have already realized it, and have continually attempted to create legislation which would trump even rational state department of education standards. I see no problem with fighting back, and the text of the proposed legislation seems loose enough to allow even the discussion of theories.
After all, while the law would be on the books for enforcement of the guidelines when necessary, it will not be used until a complaint is filed. I don't think any complaints would be filed about a discussion of string theory, but it may well be against a teacher who claimed that creationism is science.

I'd take that risk.

My $0.02.

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | February 8, 2006 3:32 PM

The fact that some fundamentalists may do the wrong thing with respect to legislating guidelines for the arts doesn't mean those supporting the sciences have to imitate them by trying to pass such laws themselves.

Proposing legislation to regulate public funding of arts is not "wrong." It's stupid -- in my opinion and yours.

I disagree. I think it's wrong for the state to start legislating just which scientific ideas are or are not allowed to be discussed in the classroom. It's wrong when fundamentalists do it regarding the arts, and I think it serves no useful purpose for the sciences either, as there have been and will continue to be times when something deemed scientifically invalid (Wegner's theory of continental drift for instance) turns out to have merit. That doesn't mean we allow pseudoscience to be taught in the classroom, it means we don't make state legislators the arbitors of what constitutes science. Sure, they may defer to the NAS right now, but any law can be changed, and keep in mind that Wisconsin's governor has a line item veto power which allows for individual words and even letters to be struck out, so it pays to be very careful about what you wish for.

Posted by: David Wilford | February 8, 2006 3:52 PM

Gotta disagree with you on this one, PZ. To pass legislation that a public school science program limit it's curriculum to what is actually considered "Science" by mainstream "Scientists" seems to me to offer no risk of harm or limit, and yet prevents idiots from teaching whatever they choose to believe AS science. Also prevents the greatest risk to real science education, the old "hey, the MAJORITY believes it, we need to teach what the majority believes" line of non-reasoning...

mikey

Posted by: hemlok | February 8, 2006 4:00 PM

Mikey

To pass legislation that a public school science program limit it's curriculum to what is actually considered "Science" by mainstream "Scientists" seems to me to offer no risk of harm or limit, and yet prevents idiots from teaching whatever they choose to believe AS science. Also prevents the greatest risk to real science education, the old "hey, the MAJORITY believes it, we need to teach what the majority believes" line of non-reasoning...

Worth repeating. Can anyone rebut the logic of Mikey's comment? I'm still waiting.

Before answering, please consider that *if* the consensus of US scientists decides that science includes supernatural crap, all of our "Constitutional" arguments are pure shit and it doesn't really matter what the Wisconsin statute says, does it?

I urge the Chicken Littles running around here (including PZ) to wrap their heads around this fact.

We need more legislators like the brave legislators in Wisconsin and less diaper-crapping by alleged science supporters who run in fear whenever rightwing nutcases like Dembski shout "You'll be sorrryyyy!!!"

Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 8, 2006 4:14 PM

How do we qualify who we choose as a standard, and insulate it from politics?

Posted by: rrt | February 8, 2006 11:47 AM

RRT has summed up EXACTLY why this bill is a bad idea!