CALIFORNIA SCIENCE FRAMEWORK LABELLED IRRESPONSIBLE Colorado Springs, CO (October 1, 1990)

          CALIFORNIA SCIENCE FRAMEWORK LABELLED IRRESPONSIBLE


Colorado Springs, CO (October 1, 1990) -- Access Research Network, an 
organization recently established to make scientific knowledge 
accessible to the layperson, sharply criticized the new Science 
Framework released by California last week, branding it an 
"irresponsible document that sacrifices intellectual integrity for 
political gains."

The California State Board of Education last week released the official 
version of its newscience education guidelines, which it approved last 
November amidst bitter controversy over the document's treatment of 
evolution.  This new document generated considerable opposition by 
stating that evolution is a fact and by making it a central part of the 
science curriculum. Although certain passages referring to evolution as 
a scientific fact were modified or dropped in last-minute wrangling, the 
new Framework nonetheless takes a very strong position on teaching 
evolution.  The Framework does not mandate course content, which is 
determined at the district level, but it does set goals and standards, 
and strongly influences textbook publishers.

Commenting on the new guidelines, Executive Director of Access Research 
Network (ARN) Mark Hartwig claims that the Framework contains many 
serious errors and misrepresentations:  "I just can't believe that 
California has adopted this document as its Framework.  The errors, 
inconsistencies, and misrepresentations are absolutely astonishing for a 
state with California's intellectual resources."

One of the more serious flaws, according to Hartwig, is the Framework's  
treatment of the nature and history of science.  Hartwig contends that 
the Framework promotes a view of science that philosophers call 
scientism, the view that science is the only source of valid knowledge. 
"In one place," says Hartwig,"the Framework states that science differs 
from other areas of study because scientific knowledge is testable, 
consistent, and objective. That's just flat wrong.  Testability, 
consistency, and objectivity are the hallmarks of all good scholarship.  
They're what separate good scholarship from bad scholarship, not science 
from everything else."

Hartwig also asserts that the Framework seriously distorted an important 
episode in the history of science, the famous Piltdown Hoax.  In this 
episode, scientists unearthed the pieces of a skull that they thought 
belonged to a forerunner of the human race.  In point of fact, the 
"skull" was a forgery, consisting of a filed-down ape jaw planted with 
fossil human teeth and a human cranium.  Although the forgery was not 
discovered for forty years, and is commonly regarded as a classic 
example of failed objectivity, the California Framework, according to 
Hartwig, describes this episode as an example of the self-correcting 
nature of science. Actually, says Hartwig, "the forgery was not 
discovered until after scientists had abandoned the theories that 
Piltdown had so conveniently fit into.  It was a classic case of 
scientists seeing what they wanted to see, and to call it an example of 
self-correction is a gross misrepresentation."

Asked if there are misrepresentations in the Framework's treatment of 
evolution, Hartwig replied, "Absolutely.  The document completely 
ignores substantial evidence that contradicts the Darwinian model they 
present.  When you look at the scientific literature that's coming out, 
and then look at the Framework, you have to rub your eyes.  It's that 
bad."  Hartwig also stated that one of the Framework's authors has 
published material criticizing the very theories that the Framework 
promotes.

At the root of the Framework's flaws, Hartwig believes, is the political 
motivation of the document's authors: "When you look at the document, 
it's very clear that one of it's primary goals is to silence dissent 
from anyone who questions evolution or philosophical naturalism. In 
fact, the effect of this document has been to disenfranchise an entire 
segment of California's population--and one of the authors has even said 
this."  Hartwig was referring to Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian, 
who, in an article for the National Center for Science Education 
Reports, wrote "As for the religious right itself, the new Science 
Framework leaves them totally disenfranchised from the public 
educational system in California."

Hartwig believes that the authors' political agenda hindered their 
objectivity, causing them to say things they wouldn't say in a 
scientific journal.  "What they wanted to do," says Hartwig, "was to 
keep creationists out of the classroom by fending off any possible 
criticism of evolution.  Unfortunately, in order to do this, they had to 
misrepresent a lot of material." This, according to Hartwig, was what 
made the Framework was so controversial:  "Who wouldn't be offended?  
Even if you overlook the authors' shabby intentions, the Framework 
itself is an irresponsible document that sacrifices intellectual 
integrity for political gains.  It practically invited controversy."

Access Research Network was established in response to the growing 
concern over scientific illiteracy in America.  Its purpose is to bridge 
the gap between the world of science and the layperson; and to encourage 
a sound understanding of issues related to science, technology, and 
society. Not to mention forcing their occultism, called "Creationism,"
into the public school system.