Andrew Coulson at Cato misses the point

Andrew Coulson over at Cato has a post from a few days ago arguing that mandating the teaching of Evolution is bad policy. He makes a few points attacking, what I think, are various pillars of freedom chosen specifically to try and get a rise out of those who defend teaching evolution as the best scientific theory available. While he makes a few interesting points, I think overall the article misses why so many invest as much as they do to try and protect teaching the best science available.

Coulson starts off creating a false dilemma.

The most intense opposition to this proposal comes from people who want the theory of evolution taught to all children regardless of parental wishes. Anything less, they argue, would doom America to a new Dark Age of scientific backwardness.

First, I disagree that the most intense opposition is from those who think it will send us into a "Dark Ages". I think the most intense opposition comes from those of us who want the best science taught in science class. Yes I'm sure that there are those out there that think we'll sink into the "Dark Age of scientific backwardness" if Evolution isn't taught in schools across the country. While that may be true, it is not the only reason the most intense defenders defend evolution. I would bet that the one of the main reasons is that those defending teaching Evolution are doing so because it is the best explanation that we have for the way things are. Denying this is denying the vast amount of evidence collected over the past 150 years which is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of all scientists and scientific institutions that deal with sciences related to evolution. Teaching anything along side evolution as an equally viable theory is dishonest and is a disservice to the students. The result of doing so may send us backwards but equally or more important is the ethics of teaching bad or dishonest subject matter to the students. Putting ID or Creationism up as an equally viable theory to evolution confuses the facts and is dishonest.

Then comes the attack on the pillars.

As someone who agrees wholeheartedly that a natural process of evolution is the best explanation of how human beings came to be, allow me to suggest why the ram-evolution-down-their-throats approach is illiberal, undemocratic, divisive, ineffective, and counter-productive.

I'll try to take each one on it's own. First up is "Illiberal".

It is illiberal because it makes the government the sole arbiter of absolute truth, and this is wholly at odds with a founding principle of our nation: freedom of thought and belief. If we accept the principle that government is in possession of absolute truth, and that this truth is derived from the application of scientific methods to natural observations, then where would we draw the line? Why would we stop at mandating evolution? Why, in particular, would we allow parents to pass along any religious views at all to their children?

While I see where he is trying to go here and this may be more the case now that our President is who he is, if the system works the way it should, the government should be deferring to the experts in the related fields to decide what are the best science standards. It's true that Freedom in general is a founding principle of our nation but truth must be taken into account especially when education is the goal. With the way Bush is trying to insert political appointees into every aspect of our country this could be an issue but that doesn't change the fact of where the evidence points in this case. Evolution is still the best explanation for where we are and therefore should be what is taught. The last sentence is just pure hogwash. The setting and teaching of good solid standards in no way has any bearing on what parents can teach their children at home or at their church. Saying that it does is logically unsound and is pure fear mongering.

Is there more evidence that Moses, Jesus or Mohammed communicated directly with God than there is that human beings were created by him and in his image? If it is the government’s role to impart a secular scientific explanation of human origins to all children, why would we not also instruct them that their parents’ religious beliefs are unsupported by scientific evidence and should be discounted in favor of natural explanations of historical religious figures? Doing so would clearly be government as Orwell’s “Big Brother” rather than the government envisaged by our Founding Fathers. The same is true of the ram-evolution-down-their-throats policy.

Either Coulson is deliberately being dishonest or he doesn't understand. It's not the goal of the government to impart any sort of religious or non-religious doctrine on students period. Religion is not the realm of government and saying that teaching the best science is choosing a secular side is missing the point. The teaching of the best science standards should be about ...teaching the best science standards. It has nothing to do with promoting secular ideas over religious ones. It's about equipping the students with the best knowledge available. If some choose to make a religious argument about that fine, but that is outside the realm of of the goal of the education system. Arguing that evolution is not the best science is great but until the evidence and research shows otherwise, Evolution will stand.

Next is "Undemocratic". I'll skip the polls he put up showing that more people don't accept evolution because that is beside the point.

So if we chose to mandate what is taught about human origins, and we are true democrats, we should mandate equal time for creationism and evolution. Given the public’s views on the subject, exclusively mandating the teaching of naturalistic evolution is oligarchy, not democracy.

If that is the case any poll on public education should be considered. Should we now teach Young earth theory despite all the massive amounts of geologic evidence that refutes it? I'm betting that polls will show that most that want creationism taught will feel similar to Young Earth Theory? Are education standards now subject public whim instead of actually being rooted in good education?

Next up is "Divisive"

It is indisputable that mandating a minority view on human origins in the official government schools has been hugely divisive from the beginning. Advocates of such mandates contend that comity and consensus are fostered by the need to battle over what will be taught in public schools. But the Scopes “monkey trial” is now 80 years in the past and we are still arguing over the same question — and with just as much alacrity. As Neal McCluskey’s paper shows, the notion that our battles on the subject have promoted comity and consensus is patently contradicted by the facts.

Ok. Yes it would be great if we could all play nice together but that doesn't change the science. Repeat after me. Evolution is the best science available. Until (and that's a big if) Creationists or IDists come up with research, evidence and a working testable theory that is more viable than Evolution, it is the best science we have. Deceitfulness, while evident on both sides at some point in the history of the argument, if far and beyond more frequent on the side of the Creationists.

Moving on it's "Ineffective"

It. Doesn’t. Work. Proponents of mandating the teaching of evolution as the sole explanation of human origins assume that doing so ensures that view is learned. That belief is also contradicted by the facts. After well over half a century during which natural evolution has been the sole official explanation for human origins in the nation’s public schools, the American public’s beliefs on the subject break down as follows:

I'm not going to reprint the polls, you can go to the article to see them.

In other words, either a plurality or a majority, depending on the poll, reject the theory of evolution in its entirety. The next largest group believe evolution is just the way God decided to create the species, and only a small minority actually view an entirely natural process of evolution – what is ostensibly taught in our public schools – as the correct explanation.

He has a point.. somewhat. There has been a failure by the education system and by scientists in general on making science approachable. Granted science in general is a complex subject and takes some time to grasp the concepts that are needed to understand the overall workings. Evolution is no exception and may be one of the more complex theories overall. So we're starting from a hard point to begin with. But does that mean we give up? "It's too hard so fuck it. We'll throw Creationism in there because it's easier to just say God Did it."

Not all the blame lies on the scientists or on the education systems as an entity. The backlash against good science is so prevalent that some teachers find it hard to teach the subject without fearing some retribution from parents or from the particular institution where they are employed. That combined with the obvious other outside influences of family, ignorance, religion and hate that fight against good science it's no wonder that the polls show what they do. He makes some of these same points here but the implied idea doesn't cut the mustard.

The reasons for this are not hard to track down. In practice, public schools have marginalized and/or watered down the teaching of evolution to mitigate opposition to its teaching, which constrains how well it can be learned by students (and that means all students, not just those of creationist parents). Additionally, views taught in school are reconciled with those taught in the home, often to the detriment of the ones taught in school. There is only so much that formal schooling can accomplish when its teachings are at odds with the beliefs of parents. Those who approve of the mandating of instruction in natural evolution have a mistaken, romanticized view of how much “good” it actually does.

The point here is that just because it's been ineffective so far doesn't mean that we give up and decide to start teaching bad science. It means that new approaches to teaching the good science as well as new approaches to fighting bad science should be implemented.

Next up, "Counter-Productive" I skipped the first two parragraphs because he sums up his point here

There is growing political support for a national science curriculum, the public wants evolution/creation decisions decided at the national level, and the public thinks evolution and creationism should be taught alongside one another. This is not what the evolution oligarchs have in mind, and they should think about it long and hard before continuing to argue for a government-imposed truth on the subject. It may not end up being their truth.

Yes this is always a risk in an elected government... in any aspect of law. New representatives, if in great enough a number, can change the laws. Like I said before, if the decisions on what is good science is left to the ones doing the actual science, then overall we should be ok. Once politicians who have no business deciding what is and isn't good science get involved, be they Republicans of Democrats, then problems are sure to follow. How do we decide who are the ones doing the good science you ask? Well there are plenty of recognized institutions and organizations to suss that out. That's another subject and I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that could be sprung from it.

His conclusion sums up his argument which repeats his false dilemma and actually again misses the point.

Mandating the teaching of evolution does not accomplish what its proponents wish it to accomplish, and is undesirable and even dangerous for the reasons given above. There are many fields, including many sciences, in which it is entirely possible to work effectively no matter what one’s views on human origins. Just as it is entirely possible for religious believers to work in the sciences, though religious belief and the pursuit of truth through science are quite different (and arguably conflicting) epistemologies.

There is no evidence that a scientific Dark Age would ensue if families could easily choose schools that taught human origins as they wish them taught – any more than there is a Dark Age in America due to the far greater propensity of Americans to be religious believers than is the norm in Europe. The U.S. is both a world leader in science and technology and a leader among developed nations in religious belief. This may seem incongruous to many secular Americans, but it is the indisputable truth. Those who purport to care about truth might want to consider that one.

The point here is not a worry about some return to a scientific dark age, or that most people believe that the Christian story of creation is the real explanation, the point is what is the best science we have now and shouldn't that be what we are teaching in our schools? You can argue about whether or not evolution is the best science or not but in order for your argument to have any validity you have to have the research and evidence to back that up. Creationism and ID do not and therefore should not be taught. In other words, put up or shut up until you can. Science is not a democracy. Science is about using observation and research to explain how things work. Religious opinions shouldn't influence facts. Joe Sixpack's opinion, no matter what percentage of the population it is, does not change the fossil record.