Reality Check 101

Objectivity is supposed to be the hallmark of scientific research and education.  The freedom to doubt, ask questions and form alternative solutions are supposed to be the guardians of objectivity.

 In April, Tennessee became the tenth state too protect that process within its public education system.  Seven states have done so through state science standards and three, including Tennessee, have now done so legislatively.

The new amendment to Tennessee’s Title 49 provides that schools must “endeavor to create an environment … that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.”  Section 1, paragraph (c), stipulates that teachers are “permitted”, not commanded, to help students address “scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”

So, in Tennessee, teachers are now free to do science with their students.  Together they may use the scientific method – observe, hypothesize, test, interpret and theorize.  All is good, right?  Wrong.

The loud and distorted responses from critics demonstrate another reality.  A post by Cara Santa Maria of the Huffington Post is typical.  She wrote in a blog entitled “Monkey Bill Becomes Law, Imperils Science in Tennessee” that the law would “[encourage] teachers who are already inclined to attack evolution and climate science to do so.  Unlucky students may be subjected to creationist or climate-change-denying rants“.  She also prophesies the filling of “blackboards with religious propaganda and anti-science rhetoric” (all emphases mine).  She then goes on to liken such intellectual child abuse to teaching about a flying spaghetti monster as science.

Because the law recognizes the obvious, that teaching “biological evolution … global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy”, critics are panic-stricken.  How dare the children of 40% of Americans who recognize creation or another 38% who hold to theistic evolution examine questions and theories which challenge the 16% who are dyed-in-the-wool secularists (figures according to the latest Gallop Poll on the subject)?

The fact is that within the scientific, educational and media establishments, only certain facts are allowed to be observed, only certain questions may be asked (tested) and only certain conclusions are tolerated.  As David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute has aptly pointed out, whenever anyone doubts the claims of scientists (not genuine science), they are assumed to have parted ways with reality.

Here is a thought.  What if the 16% are wrong and leading the youth of the 78% down the primrose path?  To put it another way, what if there are actually good, scientifically sound reasons to challenge the unverifiable claims of the establishment?  What if there are answers to the questions of origins which acknowledge the obvious – design and order.  What if good science includes beginning with what is certifiably in front of everyone’s eyes?  What if the scientific establishment is wrong – again?

If it is left up to the naysayers, no student would leave the public education system with the competency to truly do scientific thinking critically.  They would be products of the herd. That result does not reflect freedom of speech, critical analysis or good science.