Project 2061: Visions of Science, Visions of Ourselves

By Mark D. Hartwig
Dennis A. Wagner
Origins Research, Spring/Summer 1991

Although America has long been a world leader in science and technology, American science
education is nothing to brag about. When compared with students from 12 other countries,
American 12th graders ranked 9th in physic, 11th in chemistry and 13th (dead last) in biology
(International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1988). An
international study involving 13-year-olds yielded similarly dismal results. Out of twelve student
populations, Americans ranked ninth, only slightly ahead of Ireland, French Ontario, and French
New Brunswick (Lapointe, et al., 1989).

National studies are distressing as well. According to the most recent report from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, there have been slight improvements in students
understanding of everyday science facts and rudimentary concepts. But, students ability to
reason scientifically has seen no gains and has possibly even declined (Applebee, et al., 1989).
Indeed, only 7% of our high school seniors could infer relationships and draw conclusions using
detailed scientific knowledge (p.22).

In response to this gloomy situation, science educators have launched several initiatives aimed at
reforming science education in America. Perhaps the most widely publicized initiative is Project
2061, a massive reform effort sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. In 1989, the AAAS completed Phase I of this project, the purpose of which was to
establish a conceptual basis for reform by spelling out the knowledge, skills, and attitudes all
students should acquire as a consequence of their total school experience form kindergarten
through high school (AAAS, 1989a, p. 3). Phase II of this project, involves transforming the
above into several alternative curriculum models for the use of school districts and states (p.3).
Finally, in Phase III, the emphasis shifts to carrying forward a widespread collaborative
effort...in which many groups active in educational reform will use the resources of Phase I and
Phase II to move the nation toward scientific literacy (p. 4).

Project 2061 promises to be a highly influential effort. It has already had a profound influence on
other reform efforts, including Californias Science Framework, the authors of which
acknowledged their debt to Project 2061. Consequently, anyone who wishes to understand
current trends in science education must become familiar with this particular reform effort.

In this article, we evaluate those aspects of Project 2061 that we think are especially relevant to
the creation/evolution debate today. Because the scope of Project 2061 is extremely broad, we
will not attempt a comprehensive review. We will limit ourselves, therefore, to three substantive
areas: the nature of science, the history of science, and evolution. We will also limit ourselves
primarily to two documents.

The first document, Science for All Americans, is the overview report drafted by the staff of
Project 2061. The largest of all the documents, this report summarizes the purpose of the project
and broadly outlines the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that every student should acquire
between kindergarten and twelfth grade in the areas of science, math, and technology. The
second document, entitled Biological and Health Sciences, is one of five reports generated by
panels of specialists in certain areas. This particular panel report presents several
recommendations about the knowledge and skills that constitute literacy in the biological and
health sciences. The other panel reports provide a similar service in the areas of mathematics; the
physical and information sciences and engineering; the social and behavioral sciences; and
technology. A comprehensive review would consider all of these documents. But for the present,
the two documents we have named will provide us with ample material.

The Nature of Science

The theorist who maintains that science is the be all and end all that what is not
in science books is not worth knowing is an ideologist with a peculiar and
distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the
cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of
science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to
distort it

Nicholas Recher, The Limits of Science.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of modern Western culture is its high regard for science.
It is difficult to overstate the prestige of science in our culture. This prestige is evident not only
in the vast sums of money that governments and corporations pour into scientific research, but is
evident on a more mundane level, as well. Consider, for the example, the effect of calling
something scientific. In our culture, this is an effective way to win arguments and sell products.
Conversely, while it is almost laughable to call a person or idea heretical, the charge of being
unscientific (or pseudoscientific) is frequently enough to consign people and ideas to the
lunatic fringe.

Given the important role that science plays in our culture, it is essential that the educated citizen
understand what science is really all about. Recognizing this, the project staff of Project 2061
have devoted the first chapter of Science for All Americans to discussing the nature of science. In
this part of our review, we consider the image of science portrayed in that chapter and evaluate
its adequacy as a genuine reflection of this highly regarded enterprise.

The chapter on the nature of science is divided into three sections. In the first section, they
discuss what they call the scientific world view, i.e. certain basic beliefs and attitudes that
scientists share concerning what they do and how they view their work. These have to do with
the nature of the world and what can be learned about it. Conveniently, these beliefs are
summarized by the subheadings in this section: the world is understandable, scientific ideas are
subject to change, scientific knowledge is durable, and science cannot provide complete answers
to all questions.
The second section describes the nature of scientific inquiry and enumerates certain features of
science that give it a distinctive character as a mode of inquiry. Again, these features are
summarized under separate subheadings: science demands evidence, science is a blend of logic
and imagination, science explains and predicts, scientists try to identify and avoid bias, and
science is not authoritarian.

The third and final section describes science as an enterprise that has individual, social, and
institutional dimensions. In this section the authors assert that science is a complex social
activity, that it is organized into content disciplines and conducted in various institutions, that
there are generally accepted ethical principles in the conduct of science and that scientist
participate in public affairs both as specialists and as citizens.

Although the chapter is, in general, a carefully written document, the authors present a seriously
distorted picture of the nature of science. To appreciate the nature of this problem it will be
helpful to borrow a term from the social sciences: ethnocentrism. Although this term is
frequently misused as a general expression of disapprobation roughly synonymous with close
mindedness, intolerance, or bigotry it also has more legitimate use as a technical term. As used
in the social sciences, ethnocentrism refers roughly to the tendency of many social groups to
view the world exclusively in terms of their own cultural categories, i.e. to judge everyone by the
groups standards. It refers, as well, to the tendency of a social group to assume that their own
customs and thought patterns are superior to those of other groups. Ethnocentrism is also
frequently marked by a tendency to lump together all outsiders as foreigners or barbarians or
simply as all those other folks. The result of this lumping together is that those inside the social
group understand very little about the outside world and arguably understand less than they
might about their own.

When we look at Science for All Americans, we see that the authors portrayal of science suffers
from something closely akin to ethnocentrism or what some observers might call scientism.
First of all, the authors account is marked by a singular tendency to make science the measure of
genuine knowledge:

There are many matters that cannot usefully be examined in a scientific way.
There are, for instance, beliefs that by their very nature cannot be proved or
disproved (such as the existence of supernatural powers and beings, or the true
purposes of life). In other cases, a scientific approach that may be valid is likely to
be rejected as irrelevant by people who hold to certain beliefs (such as in miracle
fortune-telling, astrology, and superstition). Nor do scientists have the means to
settle issues concerning good and evil ) p.26).

The implications here is that if something is not scientific, it is not genuine knowledge. (Note
also the apparent implication that science deals with matters that can be proven or disproven.)
This is scientific ethnocentrism or scientism pure and simple. As philosopher J. P. Moreland
puts it:

According to this view, science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality. If
something does not square with currently well established scientific beliefs, if it is
 not within the domain of entities appropriate for scientific investigation, or if it is
not amenable to scientific methodology, then it is not true or rational. Everything
outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which
rational assessment is impossible. Science, exclusively and ideally, is our model
of intellectual excellence (1989, p. 104).

To be fair, the authors probably do not mean to imply that all deciplines outside of science are
irrational. Indeed, they would probably assert that many academic disciplines do use scientific or
quasi-scientific methods, and to that extent can discover reliable knowledge. However, to assert
this is still to use science (rather than, say sound reasoning) as the standard of rationality and
thereby fall into the grip of scientism once more.

In contrast to this view, in which science is the paradigm of rationality, consider the following
statement by philosopher John Ekes:

A successful argument for science being the paradigm of rationality must be

based on the demonstration that the presuppositions of science are preferable to
other presuppositions. That demonstration requires showing that science, relying
on these presuppositions, is better at solving some problems and achieving some
ideals better than its competitors. But showing this cannot be the task of science.
It is, in fact, one task of philosophy. Thus the enterprise of justifying the
presuppositions of science by showing that with their help science is the best way
of solving certain problems and achieving some ideals is a necessary precondition
of the justification of science. Hence philosophy, and not science, is a stronger
candidate for being the paradigm of rationality (1980).

Consistent with a scientific outlook, the authors tend to over emphasize the durability of
scientific knowledge. For example, the authors make the following assertion:

The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in
science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and to
become widely accepted. For example, in formulating the theory of relativity,
Albert Einstein did not discard the Newtonian laws of motion but rather showed
them to be only an approximation of limited application within a more general
concept . Moreover, the growing ability of scientists to make accurate
predictions about natural phenomena provides convincing evidence that we really
are gaining in our understanding of how the world works. Continuity and stability
are as characteristic as change is, and confidence is as prevalent as tentativeness
(p. 26).

The authors are certainly correct in their assertion about the prevalence of confidence in science.
But is it really true that continuity and the modification of ideas rather than their outright
rejection is the norm? The history of science seems to tell us otherwise. Compare the
Copernican model with the Ptolemaic model, nineteenth century creationist biology with
evolution, oxygen theory with phlogiston chemistry, place tectonics with contracting world
theories. Were these mere refinements?
Even when theories retain many points of commonality with their predecessors, it is not
necessarily true that simple refinement has take place. For example, when two theories share the
same terminology, it is often the case that the terminology refers to very different things. Were
Dalton and Bohr really talking about the same thing when the spoke about the atom? Were
Newton and Einstein referring to the same underlying concept when they spoke about mass?

Furthermore, even though a theory is successful at making predictions, this in itself signifies
little about its approximate truth. Consider the following list of successful theories that were
later rejected as false:

The humoral theory of medicine

The effluvial theory of static electricity
The phlogiston theory of chemistry
The caloric theory of heat
The vibratory theory of heat
The vital force theories of physiology
The theory of circular inertia
Theories of spontaneous generation
(from Laudan, 1985,p.121).

Thus, while refinement certainly takes place within specific theories, it is misleading to say that
modification rather than rejection is norm in science.

Finally, in addition to overemphasizing the durability of science, the authors of Science for All
Americans also overemphasize its distinctness. As we noted earlier, the distinctive features of
science are that it demands evidence, is a blend of logic and imagination, explains and predicts,
and is not authoritarian. Moreover, the practitioners of science try to identify and avoid bias.

But is science really distinguished from other disciplines by these characteristics? Consider
prediction, for example. Is it true that all scientific explanations involve prediction? No. Many
theories, especially in the historical sciences, make no predictions at all, but merely offer
explanations after the fact. Conversely, one might also argue that

Disciplines outside science use prediction as well. Historians predict that future
events will obtain given certain circumstance or that new data will continue to
verify certain explanations of a historical period after further research, and these
predictions often are based on historical generalizations Theologians can also
make predictions. For example, one could predict that if certain spiritual
disciplines are practiced, then certain religious experiences or certain patterns in
ones family system will follow. Again one could predict that if religious
awakening takes place, then certain results based on New Testament teaching
should follow (Moreland, 1989, pp. 38-39).

A similar point could be made about the objectivity of scientists i.e. about their willingness to
identify and avoid bias. Science is not unique in the emphasis it places on avoiding bias.
Moreover, in actual practice, dogmatism is a persistent characteristic scientific practice as
Kuhn (1962) and many others have pointed out.

By overemphasizing the distinctiveness of science, the authors reveal not only an idealized
image of science but an impoverished understanding of the outside world and all those other
disciplines. And once again, we see scientific ethnocentrism raising its head.

On examining the portrayal of science in Science for All Americans, it is difficult to escape the
conclusion that scientism rather than science is the guiding light of the authors. Given that
Project 2061 is intended to guide science education in our country for the next several decades,
this is serious indeed. For if science educators succeed in implementing the recommendations of
this document, science education will merely perpetuate the biases of our countrys educational
elite substituting slogans and platitudes for serious understanding.

The History of Science

Thought and memory each morning fly

Over the vast earth
Thought, I fear may fail to return,
But I fear more for Memory.

The Lay of Grimnir, The Elder Edda.

History has always been important to human civilizations. By learning about history we seek to
understand our identity and perhaps even discover something about our destiny. All too often,
however, history shades over into folklore and mythology, becoming an ideological tool rather
than a vehicle of understanding. Historian Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy understood this well when
he wrote:

Pragmatic research is easily replaced by mythology; forgeries are welcomed

which do away with petty particularities. The eyes of eternity scorn accurate
detail and date (Rosenstock-Huessy, 1938 p.124).

Mythology is a potent tool for shaping minds. Masquerading as history, it can forcefully
communicate the truth of whatever ideas it embodies and make empty platitudes seem like
inescapable certainties. This power, long recognized by rules, has been used time and again to
consolidate power and legitimize all manners of actions and ideas. It is virtually important,
therefore, to pay close attention to the kind of history that is being taught in schools. We must be
sure that this history presents a balanced picture of the past, rather than someones narrow
ideology. As Rosenstock-Hussey warned, History-writing, in any responsible sense, cannot
compromise with any groups one-sided myth or tales or holidays (1938, pp.124-125).

For that reason, it is important to examine what the authors of Science for All Americans have to
say about the history of science and how it should be taught. Indeed, it is doubly important
because the history of science has been abused in the past, and the effects of this abuse are with
us today.
In particular, John William Draper (1847) and Andrew Dickson White (1896) first made popular
the notion that science and religion have long been at war with one another. Although this view
has been thoroughly debunked by more recent scholarship (Linberg and Numbers, 1986), the
warfare myth still holds sway over popular imagination. Worse yet, this myth has been used
countless times to ridicule or intimidate those of a religious persuasion and the view still
prevails that religion and obscurantism go hand in hand. We must ensure, therefore, that the
history of science is not taught in a way that perpetuates this kind of mythology.

The authors of Science for All Americans discuss the history of science in the tenth chapter,
entitled Historical Perspectives. The first section of the chapter (actually the first page)
contains some general recommendations on how this topic should be approached. The remainder
of the chapter then briefly describes ten selected episodes in the history of science.

The approach advocated in Chapter Ten is best stated in the authors own words:

There are two principal reasons for including some knowledge of history among
the recommendations. One reason is that generalizations about how the scientific
enterprise operates would be empty without concrete examples. Consider, for
example, the proposition that new ideas are limited by the context in which they
are conceived; are often rejected by the scientific establishment; sometimes
spring from unexpected finding; and usually grow slowly, through contributions
from many different investigators. Without historical examples, these
generalizations would be no more than slogans, however well they might be
remembered. For this purpose, any number of episodes might have been selected.

A second reason is that some episodes in the history of the scientific endeavor
are of surpassing significance for our cultural heritage. Such episodes certainly
include Galileos role in changing our perception of our place in the universe;
Newtons demonstration that the same laws apply to motion in the heavens and
on earth; Darwins long observations of the variety and relatedness of life forms
that led to his postulating a mechanism for how they came about; Lyells careful
documentation of the unbelievable age of the earth; and Pasteurs identification
of infectious disease with tiny organisms that could be seen only under a
microscope. These stories stand out among the milestones of the development of
all thought in Western civilization (p. 111).

On the surface, at least, this is not an unreasonable approach. Nonetheless, there is cause for
concern; for the approach advocated here stands very close to the border between history and
mythology. As the above excerpts make clear, the emphasis is not on carefully studying the past
to discover what it can tell us. Rather, the approach is more akin to storytelling i.e. using
history to illustrate and drive home certain truths about the scientific enterprise.

This approach is not necessarily bad in itself. But its inherent selectivity leaves room for serious
abuse. When the selection and description of historical events is driven by preestablished ideas,
history can become little more than an endorsement of these ideas and is bereft of any power
to falsify erroneous notions. It becomes tame history, easily conformed to the demands of
ideology and political expedience.

It could be argued, of course, that storytelling is unavoidable at the elementary or secondary

school level. After all, the effective presentation of material at these levels necessitates a certain
amount of simplification and selectivity. There is a difference, however, between packing
things down to make them understandable and packing them down to illustrate a theme.
Depending upon ones purpose, different criteria will be used to select the facts and ideas that
will be presented. The resulting historical accounts could thus vary tremendously.

In addition to being particularly vulnerable to abuse, the approach advocated in Science for All
Americans seem rather shallow when compared to other possible approaches. In many ways, the
2061 approach comes across like a science history version of NFL Highlights. While theres
nothing really wrong with this, consider the different approaches that might have been taken. For
example, instead of studying a hodgepodge of events, one could wrap a comprehensive history of
science course around any number of interesting questions:

1. How did what we call natural science emerge over the course of history? How did it
come to be regarded as distinct from natural philosophy?

2. What were the forerunners of natural science?

3. What intellectual factors or ideas influenced its development?

4. How did political, social, and cultural factors influence its development? Why did
modern science Develop in Western Europe, rather than other parts of the world?

5. What has been the relationship between religion and science in Western society? How
have they affected each other?

Not only would such an approach be more comprehensive and systematic than the 2061
approach, it would probably give students a much better understanding of the historical and
sociological context of science as a way of knowing.

As mentioned earlier, the bulk of this chapter is devoted to describing ten episodes in the history
of science. These episodes were chosen according to the dual criteria of exemplifying historical
themes and having cultural salience. The overall emphasis is on significant discoveries and
changes that exemplify the evolution and impact of scientific knowledge.

The episodes listed had to do with the following areas of scientific knowledge: the planetary
earth, universal gravitation, relativity, geologic time, plate tectonics, the conservation of matter,
radioactivity and nuclear fission, the evolution of species, the nature of disease, and the
Industrial Revolution.

Although the authors state that these episodes clearly meet their criteria of exemplifying
historical themes and having cultural salience, they provide no definitions of these criteria. Thus,
while one might agree that the episodes are interesting or important, it is never quire clear what
really guided their selection. Given the dangers involved in the selective approach that the
authors have chosen a clear statement of the selection criteria seems imperative. Yet, the authors
provide no such statement.

In view of the above, it is enlightening to examine some of the particular episodes that the author
chose especially their accounts of the Copernican Revolution and the vindication of plate
tectonics. To these we now turn.

The first episode the authors discuss in the Copernican Revolution. The title of this episode is
Displacing the Earth from the Center of the Universe. In their description of this episode, the
authors briefly describe the work of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, tracing the
development of the Copernican model up to the time of Galileos trial. Unfortunately, although
the authors facts seem fairly accurate, the overall picture is distorted by important omissions and
by the way in which the facts are presented.

Despite much evidence to the contrary, it is still popular to think of the Copernican Revolution as
a classic example of warfare between science and religion. To their credit, the authors of Science
for All Americans scrupulously avoid making any blatant pronouncements to this effect. They
also demonstrate appropriate restraint when discussing the life of Galileo and wisely avoid
dwelling upon the ever-popular persecution theme when mentioning his trail.

Nevertheless, there are some serious deficiencies in the overall account. First, there is no real
indication of the extent to which the scientific community actively opposed the Copernican
model. In Science for All Americans we read:

Most scholars perceived too little advantage in a sun-centered model and too
high a cost in giving up the many other ideas associated with the traditional earth-
centered model ([p.112).

Moreover, in discussing Galileos accomplishments, the only active critics that we hear about are
clergy who still believed in Ptolmeys model. In point of fact, some of Galileos earliest and
most bitter opponents came from the scientific establishment. Most astronomers ridiculed
Galileo and even accused him of fraud. Indeed, some academics went to amazing lengths to
discredit Galileo. Consider, for example, the behavior of Giovanni Magini, professor of
astronomy at Bologna:

Magini became the first academic to draw clergy into such scientific
controversies. He prompted a young religious zealot, Francesco Sizi, to publish an
incredible book advancing semireligious arguments that there should only be
seven planets, and claiming the supposed moons orbiting Jupiter to be an illusion.
Although only a popgun, Sizis book showed the lengths to which Galileos
opponents would go (Hummel, 1986, p.90).

Magini was not alone in employing such tactics. Following the publication of Galileos
Starry Messenger, several professors at Pisa formed an alliance with some courtiers at Florence.
This little resistance movement, known as the Liga, was led by Florentine philosopher Ludovico
delle Colombe.

From about 1611-1613, the Liga made concerted attempts to refute Galileo in the areas of
astronomy and physics. Failing that, they resorted to making Galileos discoveries a religious
issue. Galileo responded to their religious objections in his widely circulated Letter to Castelli,
but his opponents distorted his theological arguments, and soon drew theologians into the fray:

As copies of that letter circulated freely, battle lines were drawn, with both
theologians and courtiers taking sides. Although Galileo had intended to silence
illogical objections to Copernicus, his enemies turned his arguments into an
occasion for innuendo, misrepresentation and rumor. Throughout 1614 the
scientist was accused of undermining Scripture and meddling in theology
(Hummel, 1986, p. 95).

Given this kind of opposition from the scientific establishment, it is remarkable that the account
in Science for All Americans mentions only the clergys opposition. A more balanced view of
history reveals that Galileos principle opponent was not the religious establishment, but the
academic establishment, which essentially used the power of the Catholic church to accomplish
their own authoritarian aims both in the incidents which lead to the Condemnation of 1616 and
those which led to Galileos trial in 1633. By omitting the scientific communitys important role
in the Galileo affair, the authors present a seriously distorted account of this historical episode.

The account is also distorted in its treatment of Galileos accomplishments. The authors rightly
point out Galileos many important contributions: that he built and made several significant
observations with the newly invented telescope; that he provided important evidence for the
Copernican model; that he rebutted many commonly held arguments against a spinning, orbiting
earth; and that he demonstrated inconsistencies in the Aristotelian account of motion.

Unfortunately, the authors neglect some important points. In particular, they neglect to tell us
that although Galileo mustered many important arguments for the Copernican model, none of
them were entirely conclusive. Conclusive physical evidence was not provided until the mid-
nineteenth century with the Foucault pendulum and stellar parallax. And ironically, the argument
that Galileo considered to be most compelling turned out later to be wrong.

This is no trivial point. If Galileo had actually made his case, the history of science might have
turned out differently. Contrary to popular believe, church officials were hardly inflexible or
intolerant in their views of the Copernican model. Writing to a theologian who had authored a
scriptural defense of Copernicuss views, Cardinal Robert Bellamine, the foremost Catholic
theologian of Galileos day, remarked.

If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the
earth in the third sphere, and that the sun does not revolve around the earth but the
earth around the sun, then we would have to use great care in explaining those
passages of Scripture that seem contrary But I cannot believe that there is such a
demonstration until someone shows it to me (Cited in Shea, 1986, p.121).
Galileo failed to provide such a demonstration. Thus, although most Catholic theologians of the
day were deeply committed to a literal view of Scripture, it is not true that they rejected the
Copernican model despite overwhelming empirical support. Overwhelming empirical support
did not yet exist. And the authors of Science for All Americans do a disservice by failing to
mention this.

At this point, the reader might object to the criticisms being leveled at the authors. After all,
nobody can expect them to cover every aspect of the Copernican Revolution especially not in a
brief synopsis. The issue, however, is not a lack of minor qualifying remarks. The issue is one of
emphasis: i.e. how the authors use their limited space to describe an historical episode. As this
review shows, the authors have presented a one-sided account that significantly distorts the
events of the Copernican Revolution. The result is not history, but myth.

To see this a little more clearly, consider another famous episode in the history of science: the
battle over plate tectonics. As with the acceptance of the Copernican model, the vindication of
plate tectonics represented a major scientific revolution. Moreover, this revolution in geology
had several things in common with the Copernican Revolution. First and most obviously, both
episodes involved a battle against deeply entrenched views. Although geological science did not
have behind it the long centuries of tradition that astronomy had, the new views still challenged a
time-honored view of geology. As one scientist in the late 1920s remarked, If we are to believe
Wegeners hypothesis, we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and
start all over again (cited in Miller, 1983, p.52).

Both episodes also involved not only skepticism toward the new ideas, but downright hostility.
For example, the president of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia characterized
the theory of continental drift as utter rot. A geologist at a meeting of Englands Royal
Geographical Society in 1923 remarked that the currently accepted view (the contracting-earth
theory) was so well established that nobody who valued his reputation for scientific sanity
would espouse continental drift.

Pursuing the similarities even further, we find that in both the Copernican episode and the plate
tectonics episode, hostility was directed not only toward ideas but toward people as well. We
have already seen how both the scientific and theological communities greeted Galileo. A similar
reception was accorded to Alfred Wegener, an early defender of the continental drift theory.
Geologist Phillip Lake, for example, state, Wegener is not seeking the truth, he is advocating a
cause and is blind to every fact and argument that tells against it. Consider also the following
account:

In November of 1928, Wegener was invited to New York to attend an

international symposium sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. He eagerly accepted the chance to explain his views, only to find that
the few voices of support raised at the meeting were quickly drowned out by a
chorus of hostile dissenters, who criticized not only his hypothesis but his
scientific credentials as well. One after another, delegates to the symposium stood
up to express, with crushing sarcasm, grave doubts about the possibility of
 continental drift. Some barely troubled to justify their rejection of the hypothesis;
others demonstrated errors of detail and used them to discredit the whole theory; a
few seemed unable to restrain their anger that the whole idea was being seriously
considered at all (Miller, 1983, p.51).

Wegener, of course, was never threatened with prison (that option wasnt available to his
opponents in the early twentieth century). But he did suffer as a result of advocating his theory of
continental drift:

Despite his undisputed talents as a teacher, and the continuing loyalty of his close
associates, Wegener remained a mere lecturer and was unable to obtain a
professorship in a German university. One heard time and again, a colleague
remembered, that he had been turned down for a certain chair because he was
interested in matters that lay outside its terms of reference (Miller, 1983, p. 51).

Like Galileo, Wegener was not entirely without supporters. Thus, he eventually took a position
at the University of Graz in Austria, where a sympathetic administration had created a position
especially for him. Nonetheless, the overall picture is that the scientific community harassed
Wegener, just as it did Galileo, with whatever means it could muster.

Turning to the presentation of this episode in Science for All Americans, we find only the barest
hint of what transpired in the battle over place tectonics. When the authors discuss Wegeners
contributions, they barely hint at the level of controversy surrounding his theory nor is there
any clue as to character of this controversy:

The idea had little acceptance (and strong opposition) until with the
development of new techniques and instruments still more evidence
accumulated (p.115).

Any parallels between the Copernican Revolution and the battles over plate tectonics are
completely ignored. This is even clearer when we look at the final paragraphs of each account.
Discussing the final vindication of continental drift, the authors proclaim:

The theory of plate tectonics was finally accepted because it was supported by the
evidence and because it explained so much that had previously seemed obscure or
controversial (p.115).

On the other hand, referring to the ultimate triumph of the Copernican model, they assert:

Criticism from clergy who still believed in Ptolemys model and Galileos
subsequent trial by the Inquisition for his allegedly heretical beliefs only
heightened the attention paid to the issues and thereby accelerated the attention
paid to the process of changing generally accepted ideas on what constituted
common sense. It also revealed some of the inevitable tensions that are bound to
occur whenever scientists come up with radically new idea (p. 113).
Note the difference in emphasis. In both cases, the new ideas are ultimately vindicated. But in
the case of Galileo, science wins the day over religious bigotry, while in the case of plate
tectonics, superior evidence naturally leads to acceptance of the theory. Although the words in
both quotations are true enough, they become utterly false when represented as the whole
picture or as an historical theme.

After examining the accounts of the Copernican Revolution and the controversy over plate
tectonics, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the authors have regrettably crossed the
line from history to mythology. Only this is not the kind of mythology one might associate with
the tales of ancient Greece or Iceland. It is a modern mythology, a mythology that seems more
than a little reluctant to acknowledge that sometimes scientists can be their own worst
enemies a mythology in which the most terrifying nightmare is not the twilight of the gods, but
their triumph.

Evolution

In modern, that is, in evolutionary, thought, Man stands at the top of a stair
whose foot is lost in obscurity; in [medieval thought] he stands at the bottom of a
stair whose top is invisible with light.

C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image

One of the thrusts of Project 2061 is to teach science around a group of central themes. Chapter
11 of Science for All Americans identifies those themes as 1) systems, 2) models, 3) constancy,
4) patterns of change, 5) scale and 6) evolution. Theses are taught as ideas that transcend
disciplinary boundaries and prove fruitful in explanation, in theory, in observation and in
design.

In the most general terms, evolution is simply defined as change. Therefore, in Science for All
Americans, we find that the concept of evolution applies not only to the physical and biological
worlds, but also more loosely to language, literature, music, political parties, nations, and all of
science (p.129).

What seems to be lacking is a distinction between observable evolution and theoretical

evolution. In other words, what is subtly communicated is the conclusion that since nations
change, politics change, music changes, and life itself changes, then life must have changed itself
over billions of years from simple organism to the present human form. Much confusion would
been avoided if the authors of Science for All Americans and those of the accompanying panel
report on biological and health sciences would clearly define what kind of evolution they were
referring to throughout the project: evolution as a fact (things change over time), evolution as a
hypothetical process (organisms are related by descent through common ancestry) or evolution
as a hypothetical explanatory mechanism (neo-Darwinism) (Thomson, 1982).

In the biology panel report we find that Project 2061 promotes evolution not only as a central
theme, but as the unifying theme without which biology would not exist:
 Central to our understanding of the biological world is Charles Darwins concept
of evolution, which allows us to envision the history of life from its earliest
beginnings to the present day. In presenting evolutionary history, it is appropriate
to describe what biologists now think happened, giving the major pieces of
evidence as well as pointing out the gaps in the story; and it is also appropriate to
point out some of our past errors in telling the story. Current evidence that
evolution has indeed occurred and is occurring is so strong, however, that
although many details remain to be explained, evolution cannot be taught as
merely one of a number of plausible explanations for how life came into existence
(AAAS 1989b, p.3).

Although the panel members rightly advocate pointing out the gaps in the story, these gaps are
nowhere identified and the story of evolution is told with all the dogmatism of unassailable
belief. Apparently the gaps are only temporary voids of knowledge that will some day be filled
in. To the skeptic, however, the gaps represent critical points at which the theory will either be
vindicated or falsified. The following statements about the origin of life reveal that neither the
author of Science for All Americans nor the panel members leave much room for skepticism.

The earths present-day life forms have evolved from common ancestors reaching
back to the simplest one-cell organisms about three billion years ago (AAAS,
1989a, p.63).

Although we do not (and may never) know exactly how life in fact originated,
several quite plausible theories have been proposed for the spontaneous formation
of complex molecules on primitive earth and for their gradual coalescence into
reproducing entities (AAAS, 1989b, p.18).

Anyone who has read some of the more recent works on the topic (Shapiro, 1986 or Thaxton
et.al, 1984, Dose, 1988) would want to change quite plausible theories to highly improbable
theories.

Another area where there should have been a healthy spirit of questioning (AAAS, 1989a, p.
149) is in the area of protein homology. Instead of identifying the many examples of conflicting
evidence in protein homology (Ayala, 1978; Ambler & Wynn, 1973; Ambler et. al, 1979;
Schwabe, 1986; Schwabe & Warr, 1984; Denton 1986) and the wide state of confusion in the
field in general (Scherer, 1989), the authors of Science for All Americans simply state:

The closeness or remoteness of the relationship between organisms can be

inferred from the extent to which their DNA sequences are similar. The
relatedness of organisms inferred from similarity in their molecular structure
closely matches the classification based on anatomical similarities (AAAS, 1989a,
p. 60).

Again it is ironic that Science for All Americans on one page (150) encourages students to
experience science as a way of knowing, not as a body of static unalterable truths, while
elsewhere telling them that there is no longer a debate about whether evolution occurred only
on the minor details of how it occurred (p. 118). Indeed, the authors go on to imply that educated
scientists all accept evolution as fact and that the only people who reject evolution are members
of the general public with religious convictions.

Much of our criticism on these topics could easily have been avoided if the authors had identified
the evidence for evolution as simply the best that evolution theory has to offer today, and then
devoted ample space to the gaps in the story of evolution. After all, science is a process, not
unalterable truth.

Even more distressing than the treatment of evolutionary theory as fact is the evolutionary
mental framework or world-view that Project 201 promotes in the name of science.
Throughout Science for All Americans and the panel report we find multiple references to the
need for mental visions of reality: or conceptual frameworks on which to hang the facts of
biology. Had this framework been some lower-level model for organizing specific concepts, we
would have fewer concerns. But instead we find on the third page of the panel report that the
goal of the new biology is to give each person a sense of humankinds evolutionary place in
cosmic time. Implied in the text that follows is the conviction that if we have the right mental
vision of reality we will then know how to properly deal with drugs, AIDs, abortion, and
environmental problems. This point is driven home a few pages later:

Earth abounds in a diversity of living creatures, which all interact to some degree.
Each type shares properties common to all life, and yet each is different, as a
consequence of millions of years of chance evolutionary events. Identifying the
differences and tracing their origins provides the mental framework for
comprehending the place we humans have in the biosphere, as well as our present
impact on it (AAAS, 1989b, p. 16).

This is not science. This is a world-view namely, philosophical naturalism

masquerading as science: We are a consequence of chance evolutionary events that took
place over millions of years, and if we grasp this mental vision of reality we will be able to
properly interact and react to life around us.

Organizing concepts are necessary and appropriate in science education. But when they
are as broad as the ones in Project 2061, science becomes a tool for promoting
philosophical and ideological viewpoints. Although science educators may find these
viewpoints attractive, even compelling, they are not thereby warranted in passing off
these views as science. Our students and our society deserve better than that.

References

Ambler, R.P., Daniel, M., Hermoso, J., Meyer, T.E., Bartsch, R.G. & Kamen, M.D.
(1979). Cytochrome c2 Sequence Variation among the Recognized Species of
Purple Nonsulphur Photosynthetic Bacteria. Nature, 278, 659-660.

Ambler & Wynn (1973). The Amino Acid Sequences of Cytochromes c-551 from Three
 Species of Pseudomonas. Biochemical Journal, 133.

Applebee, A. N. Langer, J.A. & Mullis, I.V.S. Crossroads in American Education.

Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1989.

Ayala, F. (1978). The Mechanisms of Evolution. Scientific American, September.

Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Burnett Books, 1985.

Dose, K. The origin of life: More questions than answers. Interdisciplinary Science
Reviews, 13, 1988, 348-356.

Draper, J. History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. New York: D. Appleton
and Co., 1874.

Hummel, C. The Galileo Connection. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1986.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1988). Science

Achievement in Seventeen Countries: A preliminary Report. New York,:
Pergamon Press.

Kekes, J. The Nature of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield, 1980.

Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1962.

Laudan, L. Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Linberg, D. and Numbers, R. God and Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1986.

Miller, R. Continents in Collision. Alexandria, VA: Time -Life Books, 1983.

Moreland, J.P. Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1989.

Rescher, N. The Limits of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Rosenstock-Hussey, E. Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man. Norwich, VT:

Argo Books, 1969.

Shapiro, R. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. New York:
Summit Books, 1986.

Shea, W. "Galileo and the Church." In D. Lindberg and R. Numbers (Eds.) God and
Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Scherer, S. The protein molecular clock: time for a reevalution. Evolutionary Biology 24
(September 1989).

Schwabe, C. (1986). On the Validity of Molecular Evolution. Trends in Biochemical

Sciences, 11, 280-282.

Schwabe, C. & Warr, G. (1984). A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic

Potential Hypothesis. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 27, 465-485.

Taylor, P. and Auden, W. (Trans.). The Elder Edda. London: Faber and Faber, 1969.

Thaxton, C., et.al., The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. New
York: Philosophical Library, 1984.

Thomson, K. The meanings of evolution. American Scientist, 70, September - October

1982, 529-531.

White, A. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York:
D. Appleton and Col, 1896.

This article originally appeared in Origins Research, 14:1 (Spring/Summer, 1991).

Copyright 1991, Mark Hartwig and Dennis Wagner. All Rights Reserved.
Used with permission.