I’m reviewing the reviews of Texas social studies curricula offered by the six people appointed by the Texas State Board of Education. David Barton, a harsh partisan politician, religious bigot, pseudo-historian and questionable pedagogue, offers up this whopper, about fifth grade standards.:
In Grade 5 (b)(24)(A), there are certainly many more notable scientists than Carl Sagan – such as Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse, etc.
Say what? “More notable scientists than Carl Sagan . . . ?” What is this about?
It’s about David Barton’s unholy bias against science, and in particular, good and great scientists like Carl Sagan who professed atheism, or any faith other than David Barton’s anti-science brand of fundamentalism.
David Barton doesn’t want any Texas child to grow up to be a great astronomer like Carl Sagan, if there is any chance that child will also be atheist, like Carl Sagan. Given a choice between great science from an atheist, or mediocre science from a fundamentalist Christian, Barton chooses mediocrity.
Currently the fifth grade standards for social studies require students to appreciate the contributions of scientists. Here is the standard Barton complains about:
(24) Science, technology, and society. The student understands the impact of science and technology on life in the United States. The student is expected to:
(A) describe the contributions of famous inventors and scientists such as Neil Armstrong, John J. Audubon, Benjamin Banneker, Clarence Birdseye, George Washington Carver, Thomas Edison, and Carl Sagan;
(B) identify how scientific discoveries and technological innovations such as the transcontinental railroad, the discovery of oil, and the rapid growth of technology industries have advanced the economic development of the United States;
(C) explain how scientific discoveries and technological innovations in the fields of medicine, communication, and transportation have benefited individuals and society in the United States;
(D) analyze environmental changes brought about by scientific discoveries and technological innovations such as air conditioning and fertilizers; and
(E) predict how future scientific discoveries and technological innovations could affect life in the United States.
Why doesn’t Barton like Carl Sagan? In addition to Sagan’s being a great astronomer, he was a grand populizer of science, especially with his series for PBS, Cosmos.
But offensive to Barton was Sagain’s atheism. Sagan wasn’t militant about it, but he did honestly answer people who asked that he found no evidence for the efficacy or truth of religion, nor for the existence of supernatural gods.
More than that, Sagan defended evolution theory. Plus, he was Jewish.
Any one of those items might earn the David Barton Stamp of Snooty-nosed Disapproval, but together, they are about fatal.
Do the scientists Barton suggests in Sagan’s stead measure up? Barton named four:
Wernher von Braun, Matthew Maury, Joseph Henry, Maria Mitchell, David Rittenhouse
In the category of “Sagan Caliber,” only von Braun might stake a claim. Wernher von Braun, you may recall, was the guy who ran the Nazi’s rocketry program. After the war, it was considered a coup that the U.S. snagged him to work, first for the Air Force, and then for NASA. Excuse me for worrying, but I wonder whether Barton likes von Braun for his rocketry, for his accommodation of anti-evolution views, or for his Nazi-supporting roots. (No, I don’t trust Barton as far as I can hurl the Texas Republican Party Platform, which bore Barton’s fould stamp while he was vice chair of the group.)
So, apart from the fact that von Braun was largely an engineer, and Sagan was a brilliant astronomer with major contributions to our understanding of the cosmos, what about the chops of the other four people? Why would Barton suggest lesser knowns and unknowns?
Matthew Maury once headed the U.S. Naval Observatory, in the 19th century. He was famous for studying ocean currents, piggy-backing on the work of Ben Franklin and others. Do a Google search, though, and you’ll begin to undrstand: Maury is a favorite of creationists, a scientist who claimed to subjugate his science to the Bible. Maury claimed his work on ocean currents was inspired at least in part by a verse in Psalms 8 which referred to “paths in the sea.” Maury is not of the stature or achievement of Sagan, but Maury is politically correct to Barton.
Joseph Henry is too ignored, the first head of the Smithsonian Institution. Henry made his mark in research on magnetism and electricity. But it’s not Henry’s science Barton recognizes. Henry, as a largely unknown scientist today, is a mainstay of creationists’ list of scientists who made contributions to science despite their being creationists. What? Oh, this is inside baseball in the war to keep evolution in science texts. In response to the (accurate) claim that creationists have not contributed anything of scientific value to biology since about William Paley in 1802, Barton and his fellow creationists will trot out a lengthy list of scientists who were at least nominally Christian, and claim that they were creationists, and that they made contributions to science. The list misses the point that Henry, to pick one example, didn’t work in biology nor make a contribution to biology, nor is there much evidence that Henry was a creationist in the modern sense of denying science. Henry is obscure enough that Barton can claim he was politically correct, to Barton’s taste, to be studied by school children without challenging Barton’s creationist ideas.
Maria Mitchell was an American astronomer, the second woman to discover a comet. While she was a Unitarian and a campaigner for women’s rights, or more accurately, because of that, I can’t figure how she passes muster as politically correct to David Barton. Surely she deserves to be studied more in American history than she is — perhaps with field trips to the Maria Mitchell House National Historic Landmark. It may be that Barton has mistaken Mitchell for another creationist scientist. While Mitchell’s life deseves more attention — her name would be an excellent addition to the list of woman scientists Texas children should study — she is not of the stature of Sagan.
David Rittenhouse, a surveyor and astronomer, and the first head of the U.S. Mint, is similarly confusing as part of Barton’s list. Rittenhouse deserves more study, for his role in extending the Mason-Dixon line, if nothing else, but it is difficult to make a case that his contributions to science approach those of Carl Sagan. Why is Rittenhouse listed by Barton? If nothing else, it shows the level of contempt Barton holds for Sagan as “just another scientist.” Barton urges the study of other scientists, any other scientists, rather than study of Sagan.
Barton just doesn’t like Sagan. Why? Other religionists give us the common dominionist or radical religionist view of Sagan:
Just what is the Secular Humanist worldview? First and foremost Secular Humanists are naturalists. A naturalist believes that nature is all that exists. “The Cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be.” This was the late Carl Sagan’s opening line on the television series “Cosmos.” Sagan was a noted astronomer and a proud secular humanist. Sagan maintained that the God of the Bible was nonexistent. (Imagine Sagan’s astonishment when he came face to face with his Maker.)
Sagan’s science, in Barton’s view, doesn’t leave enough room for Barton’s religion. Sagan was outspoken about his opposition to superstition. Sagan urged reason and the active use of his “Baloney-Detection Kit.” One of Sagan’s later popular books was titled Demon-haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark. Sagan argued for the use of reason and science to learn about our world, to use to build a framework for solving the world’s problems.
Barton prefers the dark to any light shed by Sagan, it appears.
More resources on the State Board of Education review of social studies curricula
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
May 21, 2009 at 9:23 pm Question: What do Don McLeroy and a catfish have in common?
Answer: A distant ancestor.
This might help to explain some of the behavior we’re seeing.