A month ago I described the Bryan Leonard dissertation story, reporting that in light of several concerns raised by three senior faculty members at the Ohio State University, Leonard’s supervisor had requested a delay in Leonard’s defense. Now the Discovery Institute spin machine has ramped up its whining with this publication of a statement from the two ID creationist members of Leonard’s committee, Robert DiSilvestro and Glen Needham (hereinafter “D&N”). While one could fisk it in detail, I will here just touch on a couple of the highlights (lowlights?).
More below the fold.
The first misrepresentation is right up top in the Discovery Institute’s title: STATEMENT BY BRYAN LEONARD’S DISSERTATION COMMITTEE. But what follows is not a statement from Leonard’s dissertation committee. It is a statement from the two ID creationist members of the committee. Neither Paul Post, Leonard’s advisor who requested the delay in the defense, nor Dr. Joan Herbers, the Graduate School Representative on the committee, are signers of the D&N statement. So in fact it’s a statement from the creationist half of Leonard’s committee.
The D&N statement claims
At the last minute, certain persons in the OSU community appeared to be trying to derail Mr. Leonard’s candidacy using highly questionable tactics. Rather than first contact his dissertation committee or dissertation advisor directly with any concerns they might have had, they have campaigned against Mr. Leonard in the news media and on blog sites.
That’s simply false. In fact, none of the three persons in the “OSU community” who raised concerns about the affair have sought out the press or blogged anything. I wrote the original blog entry on Panda’s Thumb, and notification of that entry to the press went out over my signature. While I know people in the “OSU community”, I am wholly independent of that institution. One of the three faculty members appropriately released the letter to a reporter when asked for it, knowing (after consultation with the graduate school) that it is a public document.
The D&N statement goes on
If these persons have legitimate concerns, they ought to be raised through proper university channels, not in the media.
And in fact, that’s exactly what the concerned faculty members did: raised their concerns through the appropriate university channels. DiSilvestro and Needham, on the other hand, are using the Discovery Institute as a conduit. Channels, anyone?
D&N’s statement then lists several specific points of complaint. The first is an interesting one, and provides a nice insight into the thinking of creationists. D&N claim that because the Ohio State Board of Education adopted (in 2002) a standard “… encouraging teachers to teach about ‘how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory’”, Leonard was justified in asking (in his research) “When students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain or change their beliefs over time?” Note the slide from the standards language — “how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze” — to the creationist-tinged “both supporting and challenging macroevolution”.
We don’t know exactly what “scientific data” Leonard taught that allegedly challenges “macroevolution”, but if the original model lesson plan he wrote is any guide, it came straight out of Jonathan Wells’s Icons of Evolution. In the original model lesson plan that Leonard wrote there were nine so-called “Aspects” of evolution that were offered as debate topics for students. Eight of the nine were straight out of Wells, including such Wellsian favorites as homology and peppered moths, all of which Wells butchered (see here and here and here for general reviews of Wells’s book by scientists, and especially see here for detailed critiques of each of Wells’s claims). Wells’s book was among the “resources that supports (sic) or challenges (sic) aspects of evolution”, along with a hodge podge of references to the scientific literature, including one reference to an alleged Nature paper whose only existence is on creationist web sites. The creationist “resources” Leonard provided in the original lesson plan also included a so-called “National Association” with no employees and no dues-paying members, whose sole income is tax-deductible donations from the Washington tax attorney who is its executive director. After considerable debate, the Ohio State Board of Education eliminated Wells’s book from the references, along with stripping out other inappropriate creationist material.
If Wells’s “Icons” were what Leonard taught as “how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory” the suggestion of the three faculty members that Leonard was unethically teaching false information seems perfectly appropriate. Teaching creationist-inspired trash science to high school students in the course of doing doctoral research is not ethical.
The chronology of events contradicts D&N story line. D&N claim
Instead, it [Leonard’s dissertation] looks at the impact on students of teaching a curriculum that includes scientific information and interpretations for and against macroevolutonary theory (an approach called for in the Ohio science standards).
The new science standards were adopted in 2002 and the scrubbed model lesson plan was accepted by the State BOE in March 2004. But in his testimony before a committee of the Kansas State Board of Education earlier this year, Leonard said he has been using the approach in question for years:
Q. And in your high school you’re teaching 10th grade biology?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Teaching it how?
A. Well, the way in which I teach it is similar in a way in which basically we wrote the lesson plan that was— that— that serves as the curriculum mono [sic] lesson, entitled Critical Analysis of Evolution. So that particular lesson plan, I was the original drafter, however I had a number of people who were involved in generation, shaping and the molding of that particular lesson. Went through an extensive peer review process. And the way in which I teach evolution in my high school biology class is that I teach the scientific information, or in other words, the scientific interpretations both supporting and challenging macroevolution.
Q. How long have you been doing it?
A. I’ve been doing it for about— I think this is probably about my fifth year. About five or six years now.
In other words, Leonard’s been “doing it” since around 2000, years before any Ohio State Board of Education actions. D&N’s appeal to some sort of sanction for Leonard’s teaching by the Ohio State BOE would require time travel.
One final note. D&N’s story about the composition of Leonard’s committee boils down to a simple claim: It’s someone else’s fault. They absolve both themselves and Leonard of any responsibility for adhering to the requirements of the program in which Leonard seeks a Ph.D., instead blaming it on bad advice from unnamed “appropriate university offices”. When I did my degree, it was my responsibility to ensure that the process conformed to the requirements of my department and the graduate school, right down to the width of the margins in my dissertation and the nature of its binding.
That’s all I intend to comment on now. DiSilvestro’s and Needham’s claim that the three OSU faculty members did not follow appropriate channels is false, their claim that the faculty members “have campaigned against Mr. Leonard in the news media and on blog sites” is flatly false, and the concern that Leonard may have unethically taught trash science in the course of his disssertation research is valid.
I invite commenters to elaborate on their favorite misrepresentations in the DI’s spinning of this matter. I’ll moderate comments as I deem necessary and appropriate.
RBH
48 Comments
shiva · 14 July 2005
When Leonard plans to study the effect on high-schoolers of being taught two different points of view on a subject what are his grounds to assume or take as proven that the two points of view are equally valid in terms of the science? Rather than frame this study as the effect of two diverse points of view it should be framed as the effect of teaching a scientifically established theory vs. a poorly conceived explanation that has found no scientific approval whatsoever. If indeed Leonard wanted to study the question of divergent explanations he should have chosen some other subject. As a rule at the school level better established theories are taught with a brief look at current controversies - in the sciences. The objective is to help students to develop an understanding of fundamentals and a scientific temper, not to confuse them. If Leonard has not made it clear that the lesson plans he has used on ID are faulty, inaccurate and so with motivation; he is in the process of passing off bad theory as legitimate science. While studying the process of learning Leonard cannot and must not conduct this study with reference to a discredited and unscietific theory.
G · 14 July 2005
With apologies for beating those who usually bang this drum to the punch...
One gives too much credit to the neo-creationists by calling ID a theory, even if one calls it a bad theory, a discredited theory, or an unscientific theory. There is no actual theory of Intelligent Design. None. Never has been. Never will be.
bill · 14 July 2005
Joseph O'Donnell · 15 July 2005
I beat someone to death just yesterday with my origin of species, doesn't everyone?
Les Lane · 15 July 2005
I note that Paul Post, Leonard's thesis advisor, has a link to Veritas Forum on his page. Looks like the whole committee is a Christian fundamentalist operation.
RBH · 15 July 2005
Les Lane · 15 July 2005
Link to Veritas Forum @ OSU:
http://veritas.org/OSU/
note also the feedback page:
http://www.veritas.org/OSU/feedback.htm
RBH · 15 July 2005
One can make too much of this. Looking at the speakers lined up for the Veritas Forum there, it's a fair variety, including a Unitarian Universalist astronomer. Unlike DiSilvestro and Needham, Post has not publicly associated himself with the ID creationist movement as far as I know.
RBH
steve · 15 July 2005
Bruce Thompson · 15 July 2005
Jason Spaceman · 15 July 2005
Moses · 15 July 2005
Mike · 15 July 2005
Careful RBH. Door left open to mistaken impression. The lesson plan was not scrubbed clean of creationist references, though I'm relatively certain that's not what you meant. There is at least one doozy (Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler and Adler, 1986.) and probably more.
There is one major troubling thing about N&D's DI press release not mentioned. Needham and DiSilvestro are insisting that a political body, in this case the Ohio Deparment of Education, should override the concensus opinion of the scientific community on what constitutes scientific knowledge. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer demand for a Stalinist model of party controlled science.
Russell · 15 July 2005
tristram · 15 July 2005
Let's face it--many people in that group are baldassed liars. And when confronted with their lying they deny, change the subject, blame someone else...And this is the group that claims to be religious, with the moral high ground? For how long will the public tolerate such blatant dishonesty before they begin to feel beshitted by all of the dung that's flung so furiously by this group? Are there no members of the group with enough integrity to call for an end to the dishonesty, or at least distance themselves from the liars?
Russell · 15 July 2005
frank schmidt · 15 July 2005
As has been brought out before, did Leonard have approval or an exemption from the OSU Institutional Review Board?
If not, someone could go to jail. (Although teachers are allowed to try out curricular materials in an educational setting, I don't think the allowance applies to the gathering of data for research purposes.)
If yes, there is a lesion that needs to be addressed.
Art · 15 July 2005
I think one of the DI's statements on this issue include something to the effect that Leonard's project was approved by the IRB at OSU. I wouldn't expect an IRB to critique the content of a survey or similar study (and it shouldn't - this is the responsibility of the PI, advisory committee, and granting agencies, if relevant), other than to assure that the proper notifications and consents are in place, and that guidelines that pertain to minors are followed.
Shenda · 15 July 2005
Why are these two professors releasing this statement through the DI? Why not through the University or local papers? IMHO it seems unethical to release this statement through a special interest group.
This also shows that these professors are not acting in OSU's best interest, but rather in the interests of external agents.
Shenda
RBH · 15 July 2005
Jason Spaceman noted the Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Discovery Institute to recover documents associated with Leonard's situation.
The DI FOI request refers to the possibility of "outside Darwinist pressure groups" influencing the OSU process. I find it bizarre in the extreme that the Discovery Institute, the primary political lobbyist for Intelligent Design Creationism, worries about "outside pressure groups". This is the same DI whose representatives originally pushed for teaching IDC in Ohio in 2002, and whose operatives were ensconced in a room just up a short flight of stairs from the meeting room of the Ohio State Board of Education during its 2004 deliberations on the model lesson plan Leonard wrote. When the Board adopted the ID-friendly model lesson plan, the DI operatives were immediately -- within double-digit seconds -- at the bottom of the stairs with their press release in hand, already prepared. Anyone think the fix wasn't in?
RBH
Reed A. Cartwright · 15 July 2005
Ryan · 15 July 2005
Richard,
Thanks for your post. I think your are probably right about the attacks in the press- that they were not the result of nefarious plants on the part of OSU profs, but rather released through the usual channels. One point that is worth taking from the press release is that the argument that the dissertation committee was out of line or not properly made-up is not as strong as I originally thought. That was a big weakness of DI's defense of Leonard, but a couple facts (according to the two professors) clear up some of that concern: 1. The policy requiring two professors from his specific area on his dissertation committee is not widely known. 2. Several other committees had made similar infractions without anyone noticing.
This does not mean that the policy should not be followed, but it does put some credibility back on DI's side. We'll have to see how all this turns out.
R
RBH · 15 July 2005
With reference to my comment above about the DI's FOI request, I've finally thought of the appropriate phrase to describe the DI's fear that "outside Darwinist pressure groups" might be involved: breathtaking hypocrisy.
RBH
Russell · 15 July 2005
Pierce R. Butler · 15 July 2005
Is there any chance that someone could do a study based on follow-up interviews with students in the (at least) five classes that Leonard conducted ("taught" would certainly be the wrong word here), to see how much of his material they incorporated into their own worldviews, what effect this may have had on later education experiences, etc?
Another potentially worthwhile followup: any such student who was rejected from any college for using Leonard's material in an application essay, for instance, probably has very solid grounds for a court case.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 15 July 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 15 July 2005
TriciafromOhio · 17 July 2005
I know a few kids who took his classes, and EVERY SINGLE ONE thinks evolution is a crock. none have gone on to college. I'm waiting for august. I will get a copy of his syllabus, and proceed from there. They've done a good job burying this here. I won't let it die.
Russell · 17 July 2005
SEF · 17 July 2005
This form of child abuse in the name of a religion which makes such a big deal of its supposed morality and care for children is really sick.
TriciafromOhio · 18 July 2005
there was a tiny blurb on an op-ed page after the dispatch article. a lot of the parents around here are fundamentalist christians, so they don't have a problem with it. i am fighting an uphill battle.there are a small group of us parents against it, however.
a Creationist Troll, apparently · 18 July 2005
RBH · 18 July 2005
puzzled · 18 July 2005
RBH,
I notice that no contrary opinions are expressed in this entire thread. Are you deleting all dissenting opinions?
puzzled · 18 July 2005
Can one be sued for posting libelous comments on an internet blog? I'm wondering, because Hoppe calls OSU professors DiSilvestro and Needham creationists without any factual basis, that I'm aware of.
RBH · 18 July 2005
ts · 18 July 2005
RBH · 18 July 2005
ts · 18 July 2005
puzzled · 18 July 2005
puzzled · 18 July 2005
RBH · 19 July 2005
Philip · 19 July 2005
The lying liar and lying lies he tells. It's enough to make One's tongue catch fire!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 July 2005
Paul Flocken · 19 July 2005
RBH · 19 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 19 July 2005