Lawrence Krauss writes in the New Yorker that the Trump administration is waging a “war on science” even before it has come into existence. A major front in the war: the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be education secretary.
DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to science. If her faith shapes her policies—and there is evidence that it will—she could shape science education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper understanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolution.
DeVos comes from a religious family with a long history of supporting fundamentalist religious groups. . .
The evidence that she has a long history, or any history, of “opposition to science,” is weak.
1) Her family has given money “to pro-life pregnancy centers that lie to women about the risks of abortion.” Only to the ones that lie? Is Krauss suggesting that it was a criterion for donations? Or is his assumption that all crisis pregnancy centers lie? (If so, the magazine’s famously fastidious copy editors should have switched his “that” to “which.”) Here’s a crazy thought: Maybe her family gave the crisis pregnancy centers money not because she hates science, but because she’s pro-life?
2) Her church says, “Humanity is created in the image of God; all theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theories of evolution that deny the creative activity of God are rejected.” Note that this statement does not deny evolution (again, check the use of “that” as opposed to “which”). The claim that God had a hand in creating humanity and that we are created in His image is not a distinctively “fundamentalist” view; it’s a Christian view. Take away that claim, and there’s not much left of Christianity.
3) Her husband said while running for office that students should be taught intelligent design alongside evolution.
That’s it. That’s her entire “long history of opposition to science.” A long history that includes not a single statement from her.
Krauss continues:
The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it. It should be easy, therefore, for Congress to make sure that DeVos isn’t planning to drive our educational system off a scientific cliff. During her confirmation hearings, DeVos should be asked whether she thinks it’s appropriate to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in biology classes, or whether young-Earth creationism should be presented alongside the reality of a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system in physics class. An answer in the affirmative to either question should disqualify her as the highest federal government official overseeing public education in this country. If Congress doesn’t exercise its obligation to insure the competence of Presidential appointees like DeVos, then voters need to hold them accountable in the next election.
If any senator asks this question, I hope DeVos will muster the patience to explain that the Department of Education does not (and should not) determine schools’ science curricula. It’s because it does not that Krauss is unable to explain how DeVos could “drive our educational system off a scientific cliff.”