CALIFORNIA SCIENCE FRAMEWORK LABELLED IRRESPONSIBLE

 

Colorado Springs, CO (October 1, 1990) -- Access Research Network, an

organization recently established to make scientific knowledge

accessible to the layperson, sharply criticized the new Science

Framework released by California last week, branding it an

"irresponsible document that sacrifices intellectual integrity for

political gains."

The California State Board of Education last week released the official

version of its new science education guidelines, which it approved last

November amidst bitter controversy over the document's treatment of

evolution.

This new document generated considerable opposition by

stating that evolution is a fact and by making it a central

part of the science curriculum.

Although certain passages referring to evolution as a scientific

fact were modified or dropped in last-minute wrangling, the

new Framework nonetheless takes a very strong position on teaching

evolution.

The Framework does not mandate course content, which is

determined at the district level, but it does set goals and standards,

Commenting on the new guidelines, Executive Director of Access Research

Network (ARN) Mark Hartwig claims that the Framework contains many

serious errors and misrepresentations:

"I just can't believe that California has adopted this

document as its Framework. The errors, inconsistencies, and

misrepresentations are absolutely astonishing for a

state with California's intellectual resources."

One of the more serious flaws, according to Hartwig, is the Framework's

treatment of the nature and history of science.

Hartwig contends that the Framework promotes a view of

science that philosophers call scientism, the view that

science is the only source of valid knowledge.

"In one place," says Hartwig,"the Framework states that science differs

from other areas of study because scientific knowledge is testable,

consistent, and objective.

That's just flat wrong. Testability, consistency, and objectivity

are the hallmarks of all good scholarship.

They're what separate good scholarship from bad scholarship, not science

from everything else."

Hartwig also asserts that the Framework seriously distorted an important

episode in the history of science, the famous Piltdown Hoax. In this

episode, scientists unearthed the pieces of a skull that they thought

belonged to a forerunner of the human race.

In point of fact, the "skull" was a forgery, consisting of a

filed-down ape jaw planted with fossil human teeth and a human

cranium.

Although the forgery was not discovered for forty years, and

is commonly regarded as a classic example of failed objectivity,

the California Framework, according to Hartwig, describes this

episode as an example of the self-correcting nature of science.

Actually, says Hartwig, "the forgery was not discovered until after

scientists had abandoned the theories that Piltdown had so

conveniently fit into.

It was a classic case of scientists seeing what they wanted to

see, and to call it an example of self-correction is a gross

misrepresentation."

Asked if there are misrepresentations in the Framework's treatment of

evolution, Hartwig replied, "Absolutely.

The document completely ignores substantial evidence that

contradicts the Darwinian model they present.

When you look at the scientific literature that's coming out,

and then look at the Framework, you have to rub your eyes. It's that

bad."

Hartwig also stated that one of the Framework's authors has

published material criticizing the very theories that the Framework

promotes.

At the root of the Framework's flaws, Hartwig believes, is the political

motivation of the document's authors:

"When you look at the document, it's very clear that

one of it's primary goals is to silence dissent

from anyone who questions evolution or philosophical

naturalism. In fact, the effect of this document has been

to disenfranchise an entire segment of California's population

--and one of the authors has even said this."

Hartwig was referring to Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian,

who, in an article for the National Center for Science Education

Reports, wrote "As for the religious right itself, the new Science

Framework leaves them totally disenfranchised from the public

educational system in California."

Hartwig believes that the authors' political agenda hindered their

objectivity, causing them to say things they wouldn't say in a

scientific journal.

"What they wanted to do," says Hartwig, "was to keep creationists

out of the classroom by fending off any possible criticism of

evolution.

Unfortunately, in order to do this, they had to misrepresent a

lot of material." This, according to Hartwig, was what made

the Framework was so controversial:

"Who wouldn't be offended? Even if you overlook the

authors' shabby intentions, the Framework itself is

an irresponsible document that sacrifices intellectual

integrity for political gains. It practically invited

controversy."

Access Research Network was established in response to the growing

concern over scientific illiteracy in America. Its purpose is to bridge

the gap between the world of science and the layperson; and to encourage

a sound understanding of issues related to science, technology, and

society.

More information may be obtained by contacting Access Research Network,

P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069 (719)633-1772.