A Letter to the Senate and Governor of the State of South Carolina
28 February 2005
Senator [---------]
Member, Education Committee
SC State Senate
......, Columbia, SC
Dear Senator [---------]:
We, the undersigned, ask you to defeat Senate Bill s. 114. Among the bill’s aims is the establishment of “The South Carolina Science Standards Committee". This new committee’s charge would be to: "(1) study science standards regarding the teaching of the origin of species; (2) determine whether there is a consensus on the definition of science; (3) determine whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools” (s. 114). We oppose this amendment for the following reasons:
1) We see no need to alter the definition of science.
There already is broad consensus with regard to the definition of science. A survey of textbooks will demonstrate complete agreement with Webster’s Dictionary that science is “systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world ... derived from observation, study, and experimentation.” All scientific understanding is predicated on repeatable observations, testable hypotheses and experimentation; all explanations derived from this process are couched in terms of natural laws and principles with no recourse to the supernatural. Science and its methods have been spectacularly successful in our search for understanding the physical universe, from physics, chemistry and biology to medicine and moon rockets. There is no rational basis for revising its definition.
2) There is no scientific “alternative” to evolutionary theory.
Using the methods of science, evolutionary biology has continued to increase our understanding of all aspects of the biological world, including the origins of new species. Our insights into these processes have dramatically deepened over the last thirty years with the advent of powerful molecular techniques undreamt of back when Darwin first proposed a mechanism for change in organisms over time. Repeated testing of our ideas and conclusions has shown us that there are several routes to forming new species. Furthermore, our findings indicate new species may form even faster than we had earlier suspected.
These activities and their outcomes are the results of the on-going testing of evolutionary theory via the processes of the scientific method. In everyday English “theory” is often synonymous with the word “hunch” or “guess”. However, a scientist uses “theory” in a very specific way, one that is far from that casual sense. A scientific theory is a well-tested set of observations and conclusions that explain and predict all relevant information regarding a natural phenomenon. Theories guide us to the next questions in every area of science including our understanding of atomic decay, the structure of atoms, gravity, plate tectonics and evolution. None of these is a mere guess; all have withstood years of testing and all have made predictions, borne out by experimentation, concerning what the next finding should be. Because they have survived rigorous testing, these theories continue to act as the fundamental explanatory structures in their scientific realms and they have displaced earlier, erroneous attempts at explanation and prediction.
No one proposes that students learn non-scientific “alternatives” such as the existence of “phlogiston” to account for combustion; schools do not waste precious instructional time with the ideas from proponents of a flat earth, a geo-centric solar system or non-atomic bases for the structure of matter. Similarly, there exists no testable alternative to evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of organisms on our planet. Thus, we have no scientific alternative to teach, and introduction of such ideas into a science curriculum takes that curriculum out of the realm of science. It would be like demanding that French grammar be taught in a math curriculum. It is not a relevant idea.
3) Based on statements made to the press it is clear the real basis for introducing this bill is to undermine the teaching of evolution and to promote “intelligent design” as an alternative in science classrooms.
Senator Michael L. Fair, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the Greenville News that "his intention is to show that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative that should be taught in the public schools" (May 1, 2003). Intelligent design is an off-shoot of the broader religious notion of creationism. Both creationism and intelligent design invoke the concept of a “higher power” as an explanatory device for natural phenomena and thus neither is a “viable scientific alternative” to anything. Supernatural entities are not bound by natural laws and can act independently of any such restrictions. Because intelligent design relies on supernatural intervention as the agent of change it is automatically outside the realm of science. Such ideas as creationism and intelligent design are not appropriate explanations in a science classroom because they do not adhere to the limitations science places on itself.
We respectfully request that you defeat Bill s.114. It does nothing to strengthen science education in South Carolina and, in fact, it makes a mockery of the notions of what science is.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. William Rogers, Professor of Biology, Winthrop University....
Co-signatories to the letter:
(Ed: 122 Signatories were listed below as of 4. March, 2005.)
---------------------
Ed: Thanks,to Dr. Rogers Dad, for allowing me to post this letter.
Senator [---------]
Member, Education Committee
SC State Senate
......, Columbia, SC
Dear Senator [---------]:
We, the undersigned, ask you to defeat Senate Bill s. 114. Among the bill’s aims is the establishment of “The South Carolina Science Standards Committee". This new committee’s charge would be to: "(1) study science standards regarding the teaching of the origin of species; (2) determine whether there is a consensus on the definition of science; (3) determine whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools” (s. 114). We oppose this amendment for the following reasons:
1) We see no need to alter the definition of science.
There already is broad consensus with regard to the definition of science. A survey of textbooks will demonstrate complete agreement with Webster’s Dictionary that science is “systematized knowledge of nature and the physical world ... derived from observation, study, and experimentation.” All scientific understanding is predicated on repeatable observations, testable hypotheses and experimentation; all explanations derived from this process are couched in terms of natural laws and principles with no recourse to the supernatural. Science and its methods have been spectacularly successful in our search for understanding the physical universe, from physics, chemistry and biology to medicine and moon rockets. There is no rational basis for revising its definition.
2) There is no scientific “alternative” to evolutionary theory.
Using the methods of science, evolutionary biology has continued to increase our understanding of all aspects of the biological world, including the origins of new species. Our insights into these processes have dramatically deepened over the last thirty years with the advent of powerful molecular techniques undreamt of back when Darwin first proposed a mechanism for change in organisms over time. Repeated testing of our ideas and conclusions has shown us that there are several routes to forming new species. Furthermore, our findings indicate new species may form even faster than we had earlier suspected.
These activities and their outcomes are the results of the on-going testing of evolutionary theory via the processes of the scientific method. In everyday English “theory” is often synonymous with the word “hunch” or “guess”. However, a scientist uses “theory” in a very specific way, one that is far from that casual sense. A scientific theory is a well-tested set of observations and conclusions that explain and predict all relevant information regarding a natural phenomenon. Theories guide us to the next questions in every area of science including our understanding of atomic decay, the structure of atoms, gravity, plate tectonics and evolution. None of these is a mere guess; all have withstood years of testing and all have made predictions, borne out by experimentation, concerning what the next finding should be. Because they have survived rigorous testing, these theories continue to act as the fundamental explanatory structures in their scientific realms and they have displaced earlier, erroneous attempts at explanation and prediction.
No one proposes that students learn non-scientific “alternatives” such as the existence of “phlogiston” to account for combustion; schools do not waste precious instructional time with the ideas from proponents of a flat earth, a geo-centric solar system or non-atomic bases for the structure of matter. Similarly, there exists no testable alternative to evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of organisms on our planet. Thus, we have no scientific alternative to teach, and introduction of such ideas into a science curriculum takes that curriculum out of the realm of science. It would be like demanding that French grammar be taught in a math curriculum. It is not a relevant idea.
3) Based on statements made to the press it is clear the real basis for introducing this bill is to undermine the teaching of evolution and to promote “intelligent design” as an alternative in science classrooms.
Senator Michael L. Fair, one of the bill’s sponsors, told the Greenville News that "his intention is to show that Intelligent Design is a viable scientific alternative that should be taught in the public schools" (May 1, 2003). Intelligent design is an off-shoot of the broader religious notion of creationism. Both creationism and intelligent design invoke the concept of a “higher power” as an explanatory device for natural phenomena and thus neither is a “viable scientific alternative” to anything. Supernatural entities are not bound by natural laws and can act independently of any such restrictions. Because intelligent design relies on supernatural intervention as the agent of change it is automatically outside the realm of science. Such ideas as creationism and intelligent design are not appropriate explanations in a science classroom because they do not adhere to the limitations science places on itself.
We respectfully request that you defeat Bill s.114. It does nothing to strengthen science education in South Carolina and, in fact, it makes a mockery of the notions of what science is.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. William Rogers, Professor of Biology, Winthrop University....
Co-signatories to the letter:
(Ed: 122 Signatories were listed below as of 4. March, 2005.)
---------------------
Ed: Thanks,
<< Home