The Opinion piece by Mano Singham raises some important points about
teaching and propaganda, but it misses some even more important ones.
Having seen the creationist propaganda here in Kansas, I can say with some
confidence that there are big differences between introductory science
teaching and creationist proselytizing. Singham is correct that
introductory physics courses ask students to believe scientific
conclusions without adequate evidence. There is not enough time in the
courses, nor do most students have the background needed, to follow all
the evidence. Singham is also correct that we want students to apply
critical thinking rather than to blindly trust authority. Still, I think
he lets his students who doubt science off the hook too easily.

A strong response is needed from science educators when we see events like
the Kansas State Board of Education letting creationists rewrite their
science standards. (For an update on science standards in Kansas, see
Physics Today, October, page 73.) In introductory courses, we should step
up our efforts to teach students the basics of the scientific method,
including its strengths and weaknesses, the realms where it works well,
and the realms where it does not. We can maintain a respect for religion
and other "ways of knowing" while asserting that science is the best
method we have for learning about how nature works. Although we may not
display all the evidence for and against a theory like special relativity,
we can tell students that it meets our criteria of internal consistency,
predictive power, and experimental verification. We can also tell them
that all the evidence they might want is in the science library in
peer-reviewed journals.

Let's contrast good science teaching with the propaganda of creationists.
The so-called intelligent design movement offers no real scientific
theories, no verifiable or falsifiable predictions, and no documentation
in the scientific literature. One can quickly boil down its position to a
simple argument based on authority. Whereas a good introductory science
class can show students how scientific theories evolve when new evidence
is uncovered, creationists have a history of reiterating the same tired
arguments despite growing contradictory evidence. We can and should help
our students see these differences between science and pseudoscience.

I don't think Singham's advice to students to "believe things only when
they make sense to you" is quite right. Has quantum mechanics ever really
made sense to anyone? We should accept things in science when the experts
appear to have good evidence and to have followed proper scientific
procedures. The degree of acceptance should be based on the strength of
the evidence and should never be absolute. If we can show our introductory
science students the methods of scientific research and model for them the
style of scientific argumentation, if we can help them to distinguish a
real scientific argument from empty rhetoric and authoritarian propaganda,
then we will have done an important part of our jobs as science educators.

Phil Baringer
University of Kansas
Lawrence

POWRÓT