I'm O.K., You're Biased

The NY Times has a great article with the heading "I'm O.K., You're Biased." This is one reason why I am a "macroevolution agnostic." I believe that many people on both sides of the debate cannot evaluate the evidence in an objective, rational manner, but are quite confident that they can:

Research suggests that decision-makers don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors.

When our bathroom scale delivers bad news, we hop off and then on again, just to make sure we didn't misread the display or put too much pressure on one foot. When our scale delivers good news, we smile and head for the shower. By uncritically accepting evidence when it pleases us, and insisting on more when it doesn't, we subtly tip the scales in our favor.

Phillip Johnson acknowledged his worldview and potential bias at the beginning of his book Darwin On Trial. I respect such openness, and he gains credibility in my eyes because of this honesty.

There are many that I would call Darwinian fundamentalists who seem to believe that they are above bias. Many seem to be completely unaware that they have a worldview that will likely influence how they evaluate the evidence. I am therefore more skeptical of their claims.

One of my previous posts with a lengthy discussion of this issue is here.

Orwellian Newspeak in Oklahoma: You Be the Judge

Here is what Alan Leshner, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said about the proposed Academic Freedom Act in Oklahoma:

The sponsor of the measure says it would encourage critical thinking by exposing students to all sides of the scientific debate about evolution. That sounds reasonable, at first. But this is the sort of code language that supporters of intelligent design doctrine have tried to inject into science education standards in other communities and states nationwide -- not to promote science, but to promote a narrow religious agenda.

So I raise this question: Is "encourag[ing] critical thinking by exposing students to all sides of the scientific debate about evolution" really just "code language" for "promot[ing] a narrow religious agenda"? It seems to me that looking at the alleged "code language" that is being "injected" into Oklahoma law is the best way to decide.

So here is the operative language of the Act, which has only six sentences (for the full text see this post):

A. Every public school teacher in the State of Oklahoma, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.

B. No public school teacher in the State of Oklahoma shall be terminated, disciplined, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.

C. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.

D. The rights and privileges contained in the Academic Freedom Act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins of life. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards for public schools.

E. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

Can anyone point me to the "narrow religious agenda"? Who is the one using "code language" here? Doesn't Leshner think people are going to read the actual text of the law and see that it does quite the opposite of what he is alleging? When will scientists realize that this kind of propaganda only reduces the credibility of scientists, and, as a result, hurts science in America?

Leshner suggests that "critical thinking" really means "promoting a narrow religious agenda." For similar logic, read here.

If you wonder if such legislation is necessary, read here.

Full Text of Oklahoma Academic Freedom Act

The following text was taken from this document.

***************************************************************

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

2nd Session of the 50th Legislature (2006)

HOUSE BILL 2107 By: Kern

AS INTRODUCED

An Act relating to schools; creating the Academic Freedom Act; stating legislative finding and intent; providing rights and protection for public school teachers to present certain scientific views; providing employment protection for public school teachers who present certain information; providing academic protection for students who subscribe to certain scientific positions; clarifying application of rights under the act; providing for construction of the act; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 11-115 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Academic Freedom Act".

SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:

The Oklahoma Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold positions regarding scientific views. It is the intent of the Legislature that the Academic Freedom Act expressly protects those rights.

SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 11-116 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. Every public school teacher in the State of Oklahoma, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.

B. No public school teacher in the State of Oklahoma shall be terminated, disciplined, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning.

C. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student, in any public school shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific views.

D. The rights and privileges contained in the Academic Freedom Act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins of life. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards for public schools.

E. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

SECTION 4. This act shall become effective September 1, 2006.

50-2-7816 KB 01/09/06