Science Without Agenda
This past weekend I attended the California Homeschool Network convention in Ontario, CA. I was given the opportunity to speak on Science Without Agenda along with Blair Lee, the writer of RSO Chemistry (1). This is a conversation that I’ve wanted to have for a very long time, and it’s something I am very passionate about. I thought I would reiterate my portion of the workshop here for those who couldn’t attend the convention.
Science Without Agenda
Before I begin, let me just say that Pandia Press is a nonsectarian company. Our courses are not creation-based. We are also not interested in promoting any environmental, social, or political agenda. And I will be talking rather negatively about publishers that are. Is everyone still here? Great. [At this point in the workshop one woman did walk out. Oh well.]
Who can tell me the title of this workshop? ["Science Without Agenda," they all said.] The title of this workshop is a lie, as I will soon explain.
I think it’s about time homeschoolers talked about the elephant that is in the room at every homeschool convention: most homeschool science curricula, and sadly a lot of school science textbooks too, are written by people with an agenda that is religious or political in nature. In other words, most science curricula publishers have an agenda that is greater than their desire to teach your children science. How many are surprised by that? [No one was.] I thought so. But no one talks about it. We just shrug along with our sharpie markers, crossing out material or skipping material or adding to material to make a science textbook something we can at least stomach. But think about this for a minute, you’re only catching material that is obvious or you know is untrue. For example: the earth is only 6000 years old and there may still be dinosaurs roaming around. (And if you believe that, I have a flat earth I’d like to sell you.) How many of you are biologists, chemists, or geologists and can pick out the subtle manipulation of data?
I really appreciate Dr. Jay Wile. Who knows who he is? Have you heard of Apologia? He is the writer of the science textbooks for Apologia Ministries. And I say I appreciate him because he is bold face and outright about his agenda. I quote: “Apologia Ministries exists to give the home-schooled student a scientific education that will help him or her make a reasoned defense of the Christian Faith.” That’s a wonderful statement. It’s wonderful because when you buy Apologia you know what you are getting. You’ll be getting a literal view of the bible, the science often be damned. [I actually said this and then immediately regretted it, because there were children present. I hope I have been forgiven, but it is true.] And if that is your belief too, then you can be confident in your purchase of Apologia books. If that is not your belief, then you know you need to stock up on sharpie markers. No, I’m not worried about Apologia, I worry about publishers with hidden agendas.
In the world today it seems we are bombarded with messages from people who have an agenda. You can’t turn on your TV or drive down the road without seeing them. It’s a shame that we have to be on the defense with our school curricula too. It’s very hard to find objective information. American Heritage defines objective as: “having actual existence or reality . . . based on observable data . . . undistorted by emotion or personal bias.” David Rosnik the writer of the great book, The Price of Truth. How Money Affects the Norms of Science, writes: “Objective science is based on reasoning and evidence, not on personal prejudices, feelings, opinions, economic issues, or moral, social, religious, or political beliefs.” Unfortunately, a lot of what is written in HS science texts would not meet these criteria of objective data.
But what about school science textbooks? Surely those are objective. Well sadly, no. To know that, you have to know who writes these books. When I was looking for science writers for this series I posted on “science writer” sites. And who responded were science textbook writers. The very writers that write the textbooks found in classrooms across the country. (I know that because I read their resumes.) I had over 50 writers vying to write this series (yes, times are tough even for science writers) and I had to reject every single one of them. Not only was their material very dry and booooring [you must roll your eyes as you read that word], almost all of it was steeped in environmental propaganda. Now I’m as environmentally aware as the next guy. I care about our earth and I think human beings have had and can still have huge impacts, positive and negative. But when science books are written from an environmental agenda, make no mistake—the data will often be skewed to meet that agenda. One of the best examples of this is teaching global warming in elementary school and calling it science education (as is the practice in many public schools). The problem with this is that global warming is complicated high school and college-level chemistry and physics. If you are not teaching the science behind global warming, and you really can’t to elementary-age children, then you are not teaching science. At best, it is a social program or environmental awareness. At worst, it is propaganda.
When I started Pandia Press, I did so with the intention of creating history and science courses without bias, because that is exactly what I could not find that in the home school market for my own kids. I was able to find quality math and English programs, but not a single history or science program fit the bill. So I published courses that I hoped parents of any faith would be comfortable with. The programs Pandia Press publishes teach critical thinking skills and rhetoric, which is the art of communication (both written and spoken). We do this in order that students may express their own beliefs, make assertions in creative writing, thesis statements, and essays. And in the area of science, students can express their views through hypotheses and defend their views through following the scientific method. You see science doesn’t have to be void of feelings and beliefs. We just think it more appropriate to give your children the bases and true science information so that they can form and express their own point-of-view, rather than us telling your child what they must think or feel about controversial topics. This is where opinions and beliefs belong, in the mind of the critical thinking student, not in her textbooks.
Very quickly I want to address the difference between science theory, law, and hypothesis. I want to explain the difference because many people say “well evolution is only a theory, it’s not a law.” Or you will hear people describing creation or intelligent design as scientific theory. Now you may believe in creation or intelligent design, but they are beliefs not scientific theories, and I will explain why.
First of all you probably know that a hypothesis is a reasonable prediction of observable phenomenon, or an educated guess. [Surprisingly most of the audience did not know what a hypothesis is. So much for our public schools.] A hypothesis has not been proven yet, and it is an important first step in scientific method.
A scientific law is a simple, universal, and absolute truth, usually expressed as a mathematical equation. The law of gravity and Newton’s laws of motion are scientific laws.
When we speak of scientific theories we are not using the term theory the same way you use it when you say,”I have a theory about why you’re always late.” No, when we use the term theory in science we are speaking of an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypothesis and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Scientific laws and theories are accepted as true by the scientific community as a whole. The difference between a law and a theory in science is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law is a single action. Theories can never become laws, they will always be theories. They are too tentative and complex to be laws. But theories are based on scientific laws. And a theory must be falsifiable. This means it must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. Theories must evolve and change as we gather more data. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism and intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They do not follow the scientific method of proven hypotheses, and they are not capable of modification, since they are based on the bible which I don’t think is being modified anytime soon. [Imagine hearing that new evidence has led creationists to now think the earth was created in five days, and the "separation of waters" appears to have happened on the first day, not the second. I did not say this, but I wanted to] Theories are born out of scientific discoveries. In other words, the discoveries come first and then a theory begins to develop based on new data. When science is based on religious beliefs, this process is reversed. First there is a solid, unchangeable belief. Then the “scientist” tries to find evidence to prove his belief. True scientific theories are never “proven” and not the answer to everything in every situation. They are an attempt to explain a set of observable phenomenon. Theories can be refuted, and some have been. For example, Aristotle synthesized the Theory of Spontaneous Generation over 2000 years ago. This theory was refuted by Louis Pasteur, and replaced with germ theory and cell theory, creating the bases of modern biology.
So I told you the name of this workshop is a lie. We do have an agenda. Our agenda is academic. Our intention is to teach your children science. You can always be assured that the writers of RSO will put aside personal views and beliefs and focus only on bringing you real, true science law and theory. We present the information and allow you and your children to develop your own beliefs based on that information. We will never tell you what to believe. Whether you choose RSO or not, I implore you to always look at who is writing your science programs, consider their agenda, and decide if that is what you want skewing your child’s science education.
