Page 44 - Acoustics Today Spring 2011

the full-page ad. I reminded him that he could withdraw his bill or privately ask the chair of the committee to delay it indefinitely. Two days later, he presented his bill to the com- mittee. A half dozen members of the audience spoke in favor of it, and a couple dozen of us spoke or raised our hands against it. The sponsor then said he agreed with those of us who had just spoken against his bill. The chair gave him an explicit opportunity to withdraw the bill. He did not with- draw the bill. I do not understand any of this. My expectation that logical persuasion can be effective with elected officials is still intact, but a little weaker now. The committee tabled the bill, by a one-vote margin, and it died on the table a month later.
Years ago, I listened to the news when I had time, voted on election day, and trusted people in positions of authority to do the right thing often enough. Now I monitor govern- ment websites to look for trouble, write letters to elected offi- cials, and show up at hearings and express my opinions on the handful of issues I follow closely.
Years ago, I did my thermoacoustics research without concern for the epistemology behind it. Now I also enjoy thinking about the philosophy behind scientific inquiry, impressed by its astounding productivity, within its limited realm of applicability.
When your neighbor asks for a little help, it might change your life. Embrace the opportunity.
Acknowledgement
Thanks to Glenn Branch, Sharon, and Marshall for thoughtful and thought-provoking suggestions about how to tell this story.
References
1 “New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards,” approved August 28, 2003, http://www.ped.state.nm.us/MathScience/dl08/Standards/Scien ceStandardsV2.pdf.
2 Discovery Institute, http://www.discovery.org/.
3 Wikipedia, “Wedge Strategy,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wedge_strategy.
4 Chris Mooney, “Polling for Intelligent Design,”
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/polling_for_id.
5 Wikipedia, “Teach the Controversy,” http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Teach_the_controversy.
6 Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge
to Evolution (Simon and Schuster Free Press, 1996).
7 William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between
Science and Theology (Intervarsity Press, 1999).
8 Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People: The
Central Question of Biological Origins, Second Edition (Haughton Publishing, 1993).
9 Genesis 1:21, (New Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation).
10 Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism (University of
California Press, 2004).
11 US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
“Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,”
www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.
12 National Center for Science Education, “Resources for
Teachers,” http://ncse.com/resources/teachers.
13 National Academy of Science Working Group on Teaching
Evolution, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science
(National Academy Press, 1998).
14 The “critically analyze...” lead-in appears in four of our stan-
dards, three of which are unrelated to evolution, so people who look at the entire document can see that this phrase was meant in the professional-educator’s meaning—“carefully analyze, using critical-thinking skills”— and not in the pejorative sense of “find fault with.”
15 The first link on http://replay.waybackmachine.org/ 20031209140726/http://www.nmidnet.org/NM_News.htm has the press release.
16 “New Mexico Science Education and the 2003 Revisions to New Mexico Science Standards,” http://www.lanl.gov/science/fellows/ docs/LAUR_03_6056.pdf.
17 “Sandia National Laboratories says that IDNet-NM “lab poll” is BOGUS,” http://www.nmsr.org/id-poll.htm.
18 Marshall Berman, “Evaluation of Intelligent Design Poll of Lab Scientists and NM Universities,” http://www.cesame- nm.org/oldwebsite/download/standards/idnetpolleval.pdf.
19 Marshall Berman, M. Kim Johnson, and David E. Thomas, “The History of the New Mexico Science Standards,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Volume 23, Numbers 5-6, Sep-Dec 2003, pp. 9-12, reprinted at http://www.cesame- nm.org/index.php/wikula/main/tag/ScienceStandardsHistory2003.
20 The New Mexico Academy of Sciences www.nmas.org, the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education www.cesame- nm.org, and New Mexicans for Science and Reason, www.nmsr.org.
21 Paul R. Gross et al., “The State of State Science Standards 2005,”
(Thomas B. Fordham Institute, December 2005) http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/ sosscience05.html.
22 Rebecca Keller and Michael Kent, “Schools’ Science Standards Will Serve Students Well,” www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_ columns/guest09-04-03.htm.
23 Marshall Berman, Kim Johnson and Dave Thomas, “Game Over
in Rio Rancho NM: Science 1, Wedge 0,” http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/game-over-in-ri.html
24 Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott, “The Latest Face of Creationism,” Scientific American 300, 92–99 (2009).
25 Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, and Ralph Seelke, Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers, 2007).
26 “Support Academic Freedom,” http://www.academicfreedom petition.com/freedom.
40 Acoustics Today, April 2011