PZ Myers. 2005 Feb 01. We're losing, you know. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/were_losing_you_know/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, February 01, 2005
We're losing, you know
From the NY Times:
Dr. John Frandsen, a retired zoologist, was at a dinner for teachers in Birmingham, Ala., recently when he met a young woman who had just begun work as a biology teacher in a small school district in the state. Their conversation turned to evolution.
"She confided that she simply ignored evolution because she knew she'd get in trouble with the principal if word got about that she was teaching it," he recalled. "She told me other teachers were doing the same thing."
Even where evolution is taught, teachers may be hesitant to give it full weight. Ron Bier, a biology teacher at Oberlin High School in Oberlin, Ohio, said that evolution underlies many of the central ideas of biology and that it is crucial for students to understand it. But he avoids controversy, he said, by teaching it not as "a unit," but by introducing the concept here and there throughout the year. "I put out my little bits and pieces wherever I can," he said.
He noted that his high school, in a college town, has many students whose parents are professors who have no problem with the teaching of evolution. But many other students come from families that may not accept the idea, he said, "and that holds me back to some extent."
"I don't force things," Mr. Bier added. "I don't argue with students about it."
All true, and it has been true for a long time. Evolution wasn't mentioned even once in my high school days. Not once. It's ignored in my kids' high school.
And this despite the fact that…
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science.
And this despite the fact that…
These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science. Americans, he said, have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it and the rest undecided.
In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.
"In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution," he said. Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution, he said. "It has not been a Catholic issue or an Asian issue," he said.
Indeed, two popes, Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996, have endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist. "I have yet to meet a Catholic school teacher who skips evolution," Dr. Scott said.
It's also no consolation to tell you all that they are coming for you next.
But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.
"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."
Look at us. We should be so ashamed. This country is an embarrassment.
"Wise men lay up knowledge, but the babbling of a fool brings ruin near."
"But I say that wisdom is better than might, though the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heeded. The words of the wise heard in quiet are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."
We've got to change tactics. We need to get much more aggressive in forcing these issues in our schools—it's like watching whole generations of our kid spiralling down the drain.
-
It's not a new trend. In my high school biology course (mid 1980s, Philadelphia suburbs), we simply skipped the chapter on evolution, and the zoology sections were basically memorizing a catalog of phyla and their characteristics.
Since I was a biology major in college, I quickly caught up in undergrad genetics and evolution classes, but if I hadn't studied science, I'd probably still be completely ignorant.
My computer files still contain some of the essays I wrote in high school. One of them, for a philosophy class, was on the impossibility of lungfish evolving. I hadn't the foggiest notion about genetics, but I thought it demolished evolutionary biology. Shudder.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 10:00 AM - This is still mindblowing to me. I live in the Netherlands, where I think I ingested the basics of evolution in primary school, but definitely not much later. A few months ago, Douglas Rushkoff mentioned on his blog that about 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution - and I'm afraid I didn't believe him at first. Thank you for the insight into how this remarkable situation happened (and keeps happening!), even if it's a sad story.
-
It is interesting that the Catholics are doing so much better than the secular schools. I went to a Catholic HS, and we covered both the (most basic) theory and quite a bit of the history of evolutionary thought. My little sister goes to a public school about 10 blocks to the west, and there's no mention of evolution at all in her bio class this year. I find it pretty ironic that an organization that took 1900-odd years to stop celebrating masses in Latin could be doing so well in this area.
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 10:17 AM
- It is an embarassment, and I think that's the angle that should be pushed. The anti-evolution campaign is gradually being taken up by more and more empty-headed conservative pundits (O'Reilly being an example), but there are still plenty of grown-up conservatives who understand that it's anti-scientific nonsense. It's those people we should be going after, to convince them that this particular effort is discrediting their entire political outlook. How can a serious person take conservative political thought seriously if it denies evolution?
-
It's not just science education...it's everywhere. This article talks about how high-schoolers don't really know what's so important about the first ammendment: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/
Education as a whole is lacking...and our Secretary of Education's biggest concern seems to be a cartoon bunny visiting a kid with lesbian parents. Woo and yay for our children.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 10:48 AM -
I went to a suburban Philadlephia high school in the late 1970's. We actually had an anti-evolutionist as a biology teacher. I remember hearing how mutations were all harmful, but that's about all I can bring back after all this time.
Instead, we watched him feed mice to the snake.
I never did learn anything about biology until my 20's, when I started reading Gould.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 10:51 AM -
I was fourtunate enough in 10th grade (back in 1972) to have an advanced biology class that not only covered evolution, but also required me to write a report discussing whether Ramapithicus was a hominid or not. What's sad is that I've noted fundie web sites that crow about how it was generally assumed that Ramapithicus was a hominid before 1982, but the reality was that that it was always something that was not settled.
That said, much of what I've later learned about evolution was due to reading popular writers such as Gould and Sagan, and later books by Ernst Mayr. I freely confess thought to being confused by some of the posts PZ has made here on genetics. I'm afraid I'd be in that unfortunate third category in his current class.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 11:35 AM -
If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution. Rather, you should concentrate on critical thinking, which is far more effective at getting people to be rational about things. Teach them that and they'll repudiate creationism on their own. Teach them science and they may be rational about what they learn but not in other areas of life, as several studies show.
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 11:40 AM
-
"If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution. Rather, you should concentrate on critical thinking, which is far more effective at getting people to be rational about things."
I'm not sure how to read this - is Alon Levy really proposing that we not teach science? If science is taught well (a big if, I'll grant you) what students learn is critical thinking. I'm skeptical of calls to arms to teach "critical thinking" as a subject of its own. If anything, we should teach "critical thinking" as part and parcel of all disciplines. What is sadly true is that too often tradition subjects are "taught" as compendia of information rather than as active processes of inquiry.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 12:06 PM -
Count me as another one who went to Catholic hs and was taught evolution (although one of my good friends, a Lutheran, didn't believe in it, but she did do very well in the class by learning it even though she refused to accept it, heh). We also dissected cats and studied the embryonic development of chicks and ducks, although after we opened the first shell and found a beating heart, our biology teacher (who was not himself Catholic, I don't think) felt kind of bad, so we studied the rest of that unit with the book, and then all the chicks and ducklings hatched and we played with them until one girl, who lived on a farm, agreed to take them home.
My h.s. biology class was cool. -
It is sad and not a very good portent for the future of the country. I am sure there will always be those who make it into the sciences (or just critical, logical thinking) despite the crappy educations they receive. But what happens when we have a society divided into a small, elite group of intelligent, educated people, and a large underclass of ignorant sheep?
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 12:37 PM
-
This trend is worrying. In my secondary school, my biology teacher told us that evolution was science and if we wanted to learn about creationism, we should go to church. Actually, we were also taught about creationism in school, but this was as a part of the Religious Studies syllabus, in which we were taught about the beliefs and cultural practices of all the major world religions, in a sociological rather than an evangelical way.
We also have crazy creationists trying to muscle in on schools in this country, but there is hope:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1244097,00.html#: Posted by on 02/01 at 12:42 PM -
So why not promote "teaching the controversy", as the Discovery Institute folks want. I'd rather kids get some evolution taught, even if they read ID crap alongside it. They are getting creationism at church, so school is the only chance to hear about evolution.
In some ways, it's a basic political deal. They teach their crap and we get some evolution taught in the schools. It's unlikely to happen in practice any other way.#: Posted by Nathan Newman on 02/01 at 12:51 PM -
Sadly, this does not surprise me. It's an explicit tactic of creationists and ID advocates. They figure that, if they can make the issue of evolution too much of a hot potato, a lot of teachers, rather than court controversy and complaints by parents, will simply either stop teaching it, downplay its importance, or exaggerate its shortcomings. Usually, they just neglect it or fail to teach it much. Sadly, the ID proponents are succeeding, and rationalists and scientists are losing.
In any case, it's odd that the Catholic Church, whatever its other shortcomings, is a model of enlightenment when it comes to evolution--at least compared to the fundamentalist religions that seem to predominate the debate. - I'm pretty sure we were being taught evolution as standard at school here (Britain) as soon as we were old enough to have distinct science classes. At least, in 1979 (when I was 12), when the x millions of us first sat down to gawp at David Attenborough's Life on Earth, we knew what it was he was talking about, and there was nothing controversial about it. In fact, most nature programmes on British TV (and there are a lot of them...) wouldn't make any sense without a basic knowledge of evolution. I've just had a look: Evolution is definitely part of the national curriculum for science from the age of 11, and probably earlier (haven't had time to check that). That is to say, essentially, schools *have* to teach it.
-
Alon wrote:
"If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution. Rather, you should concentrate on critical thinking, which is far more effective at getting people to be rational about things. Teach them that and they’ll repudiate creationism on their own."
I think this is an important point. Part of what enables this whole controversy is that there isn't nearly enough emphasis on science as a <i> process <i>. If people's view of science is that it's just an arbitrary list of observations about the world, it's easy to corrupt.
On another topic, we definately learned evolution at my high school, and I also rememember that we covered the history of how people have thought about these things. I specifically remember the "spontaneous generation" hypothesis, where people noticed, for example, that if you left some laundry in the basement, there would soon be some mice living in there: ergo, old laundry creates mice!!
That was great stuff.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 01:20 PM -
If "teaching the controversy" was done in a non-science class, without claiming authority as science, I might agree. That is not what they're arguing for. And, even then, I think this goes back to false equivalence. "Teaching the controversy" gives creationism too much credit. We shouldn't have to even consider it. This is not something as balanced as liberal vs. conservative. This is spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 01:22 PM
-
Yeah, what would he content of "teaching the controversy" be?
"Okay class, we're going to be learning a lot of stuff this semester. I should tell you though, that there are people who believe everything just happened magically, and they find evidence of this in an old book which the majority of folks view as being merely metaphoric".
End of "controversy" section.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 01:28 PM -
am a HS Bio teacher in Texas, 3/4 of our department have zero problem with evolution. 1 does as she is a fundy. But shes coming around. I also teach it as a unit but the other do 1-2weeks worth. We get a few comment now and again but nothing worth noting. MOST say no one has ever explained it to them before, INCLUDING adults. They have heard the propaganda but not the truth. This is partially the fault of educators. Period. People need to get a pair.
It is funny that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. They have many archaic notions that defy logic and common sense, and are scriptually wrong but that doesn't matter as they view the bible with suspition anyway. But in this matter you must give them kudo's.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 01:31 PM -
I graduated from HS in 2001, and my biology class definitely covered evolution. I went to Inglemoor High School in Bothell, WA. We learned quite a bit about organismal development, and we had several days dedicated to learning about human precursors (Lucy, of course, was a favorite because we spent the entire lecture watching a video about her discovery and the implications of her discovery). There are places out there where evolution is studied.
It's possible our class only covered it in such depth because we were in a two year advanced biology class (Int'l Baccalaureate), but I know other classes in my HS covered evolution too. It's definitely out there . . . so don't lose all hope. -
I’m pretty sure we were being taught evolution as standard at school here (Britain) as soon as we were old enough to have distinct science classes.
I must be as near Sharon's age as makes no difference, and I completely endorse everything she says.
I only did biology to O-level (not sure what the US grade equivalent would be, but we're talking age sixteen or thereabouts), and while I don't specifically remember any classes on evolution I'd be very surprised if the subject had never come up - and I would certainly remember if any alternative theories had been put forward.
Interestingly enough, at my school one of the biology teachers was also the school chaplain - but not only did this not colour his lessons in any way whatsoever (I'd definitely have remembered if it had!), he also had a decidedly secular approach to teaching religious studies as well, generally using the compulsory 90-minute slot to cover moral issues such as drugs, crime and teenage pregnancy from an entirely undogmatic standpoint - with the result that we actually learned something useful instead of collectively switching off at the first sign of Bible-thumping. -
DC relates the problems with "teaching the controversy" -- people learn the controversy, and not the facts.
We need a bumpersticker that says "Teach the scientific facts first."
PZ, we're not losing the war, yet. We have powerful allies for good academics in key places. Former Education Sec. William Bennett advocates that kids learn evolution. We may poke fun at his former gambling habit, but if we'd stop long enough to enlist him in the fight for solid academics, he'd have clout. I was looking last night at the "core curriculum" program offered by E. D. Hirsch, the guy who came up with the idea of cultural literacy. Since evolution is a key part of cultural literacy, his curriculum covers it. These guys are part of the conservative, better academics movement.
Prior to Bennett's tenure at ED, Sec. Ted Bell got a commission going to look at the idea of excellence in education. The report of that commission was quite stellar, really -- it talked about a "rising tide of mediocrity," and it noted that, had them nasty old Russkies done to our education system what we had allowed to happen, we'd consider it an act of war.
Soviet communism is at least so decrepit it's no big threat, if not completely dead. But the threats to our nation are no less severe. We shouldn't allow creationists to do to our schools what bin Laden did to the WTC. And if we phrase it that way, and if we accept a broader array of people on the side to fight against dumbing down education, we'll probably find a lot of support.
No one is for making textbooks stupid. No one is for teaching rot to kids, especially when good science is available. Even the staunch theological opponents of evolution will admit to liking high standards.
The question is whether we will have standards in science class. If we phrase it that way, we'll probably find a lot of allies.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 02:12 PM -
A former student of mine is now a high school teacher in a public school in the south. She had a good news/bad news scenario for teaching evolution. The good news: it is a required unit that is tested on the state-wide exams. The bad news: students have to have their parents sign permission slips in order to actually enter the class for that unit. If the parent doesn't sign the slip, then the student spends the 2-1/2 weeks in study hall. In a class of 26 students, only 5 students attended the evolution section (even worse than the 45% disbeliever number nationwide). Part of the problem: one of her colleagues refuses to teach the course because he "didn't come from a chimp." (Would be nice if he actually knew that none of us did) Also, her principal is apparently a baptist minister who would prefer to get rid of the evolution section all-together.
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 02:23 PM
-
Surprisingly, this is a good post. My unintelligent view is that evolution and design/creationism/whatever are not mutually exhaustive. But, so what.
Here's the conundrum, though:
We’ve got to change tactics. We need to get much more aggressive in forcing these issues in our schools
I respectfullly disagree. I think the tactics of the defend-Darwin-at-all-costs crowd has helped stimulate the challenge by the ID crowd. I think more aggressive tactics will stimulate it more.
It's like politics -- some misguided folks (like Myers), thinks the Dems were not aggressive enough and need more of a bull-dog like Howard Dean to lead the way.
I think the opposite. I think the Dems were too shrill, loud, and obnoxious (as exemplified by Dean), and that his ascendance, will further fortify GOP majorities.
One of these views is wrong -- it may well be mine. It will take a few more elections to determine whether the Flynn or Myers view is right.
But, I think it's a similar dynamic with this Darwin/ID stuff.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 03:11 PM -
Thats a sad story Ron, if it is true, I'll bet given the number of students it is a small rural school in which no one dares speak up. In short, they would certainly lose a court challenge.
Whats even worse is that some institution granted a degree to the buffoon that she teaches with. What student wouldn't take a 2.5 week study hall. I teach HS and you simply can't let the kids choose what they will or will not learn. Otherwise lunch, gym, and art would be overflowing all day and I'd be out of a job.
In my mind that school has a poor teacher, a poor curriculum, AND a crappy principal. None of that would fly here and I'm in a conservative area in Texas. I'm also disappointed in the parents. You should always want you kids to learn the best science has to offer.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 03:19 PM -
'Surprisingly, this is a good post. My unintelligent view is that evolution and design/creationism/whatever are not mutually exhaustive. But, so what.'
Thats not really the point. It's what can be and has been proved.
Not to mention on side doesn't care about proof thinking they are corect 100% of the time.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 03:22 PM -
So why not promote “teaching the controversy”, as the Discovery Institute folks want.
Because there is no controversy to teach. It's as simple as that. There is no scientific controversy about evolutionary theory. The only controversy is a religious one that has nothing to do with the actual evidence for life's origins. As such, that controversy has no place in science classes.
The entire objection to teaching evolution in schools starts from the premise that some people dislike the implications of evolutionary theory before the evidence is weighed in the balance. That's about as unscientific as you can get.
And don't get me started on the fact that kids will be taught the basic idea of evolutionary theory without learning about all the little wrinkles and unresoved questions in the field. This happens all the time in education. When I started junior high, we thought about atoms as solid balls of matter. That's a great way of explaining how metals behave in terms of malleability and ductility, or the different allotropes of carbon. Then we started considering that the atom consists of elctrons whizzing round a nucleus, which helped explain other things. At that time no one thought to ask the teacher how all the protons stick together in the nucleus, and I doubt our teacher would have been up to explaining the strong nuclear force anyway. Then we learned that electrons do not always behave like particles either - they can have wave properties. When I finished high school, we had just started to learn about the Bohr wave model of the hydrogen atom, and how this could explain hydrogen spectra. In my first year at university, we started on the Schrodinger wave equation. That's an entirely appropriate way to teach science, and it applies to biology just as much as physics.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 03:32 PM -
It is funny that the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. They have many archaic notions that defy logic and common sense, and are scriptually wrong but that doesn’t matter as they view the bible with suspition anyway. But in this matter you must give them kudo’s.
Who is kudo? Give them kudo's what?#: Posted by on 02/01 at 03:43 PM -
I went to a catholic HS and one of the first hand-outs we got in freshman biology was a sheet outlining how religion and evolution didn't conflict. I still have it with me.
I have to agree with Ed about teaching the facts first. Most people who object to evolution haven't actually learned about it or they have misconceptions about it. In order to have a rational discussion about the "controversy," the kids need to actually know what they both sides are saying.
Not to start a religious discussion here, but DC, I think your statement about "hearing the propaganda and not the truth" might apply to your view of Catholicism. -
Sadly, Cornelia Dean’s article accurately describes both what is practiced today and what has been practiced since at least the time of the Scopes trial, although I can only speak from my studies of the period from Scopes to the ‘60’s, and by personal experience from the ‘60’s to the mid ’90’s when I retired from textbook publishing.
The most widely used science textbooks in this country, and by extension the classroom teachers, omit almost any mention of evolution until high school biology and have done so for at least a century. If you don’t believe me, look at the science book your kid drags home, or visit your local school and ask to see their science texts. From the time of the Scopes trial until the ‘60’s, evolution was not even mentioned in high school texts lest the publisher or the school incur the wrath of the fundies. Only in the ‘60’s, with the Soviet success with Sputnik, did the Federal government put money into curriculum development that created the Biological Science Curriculum Study at the University of Colorado. That group, under the aegis of many leading lights in biology, produced three basic high school texts (plus some other material). All covered evolution in detail. They did achieve some commercial success, but were almost never adopted in the Old South, where the fundies railed against them in state hearings (I was there catching their spears in public) and the schools were too gun shy to make them available. But even in New York State, where the state regents exam omitted evolution, none of the three made any headway. Other texts of the period did add evolution, but as the BSCS texts died commercially, coverage of evolution in other texts declined as well. Texts today do cover evolution, but I suspect that most teachers either touch on it only lightly or not at all. The result? Few adult Americans have ever been exposed to evolution (other than those who are biologists) with many concluding that they don’t know about it because it’s flawed science. If he attended public high school, I strongly suspect that Rick Santorum has never had a lesson in evolution. Dubya, having attended Phillips Academy at Andover, probably has, but only if he took biology, since Yale has historically required two lab sciences for admission. I suspect that even most of our representatives at the local, state, and federal level have never been exposed to a genuine lesson in evolution taught by a biology major. And they’re setting policy!
When I was producing textbooks in the early ‘70’s, we had one earth science text under development. To try it out before committing ourselves to publication, I recruited schools and teachers to teach from it for a year. One of my hurdles was getting enough schools who were willing to cover evolution and would accept an "Old earth" scenario, and teachers in them who were similarly inclined. This was a problem. Some schools very much wanted to be a part of the pilot, but they were politically fearful of teaching evolution or an "old Earth." In two cases, even after the school committed, I found out the teacher using the trial material was a fundy who believed in creationism and would not teach evolution. Both teachers were "certified" earth science teachers, whatever that might mean! Anecdotally, that captures what we face today.
Biology, the discipline, and the ACLU may win the court cases—the large high profile symbols—but the fundies and the ID crowd are winning and have long been winning at the grass roots level. We need to change that. I'd even be willing to cede them the high profile symbols, provided evolution won at the grass roots. Anyone want to start a revolution?
I’m not sure what the answer is, but there are times when I think we need to start a corps of evolution police to ensure that biology from elementary through high school is taught in its entirety. The European and Japanese experience surely shows that kids are capable of grasping the subject, if given the exposure. We just have an anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-evolution mind set that infects the entire nation and need to do something about it.
Sorry for the rant, but I thought it relevant to Dean’s Times article. I also have thoughts about teaching rational analysis and critical thinking skills, which are, in may ways, far more important than evolution, but in which our public and private schools for the most part fail miserably. I’ve had some experience publishing texts that address that but with poor long term results. But I’ll leave that for another post.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 03:51 PM -
As a US citizen raised in Britain, I find all this deeply embarrassing. I'm younger than the other Britons here (I'm a dual citizen, if you must know) and I went to a public (ie private) school, so my experience wasn't the same. Nonetheless I was taught a lot of evolution and evolution related material (up to GCSE, when I dropped biology). Interestingly, my school was technically a Christian school, having been founded in 1390 something to help poor scholars become priests. But if you were to raise the topic of creationism you'd get laughed out of the room.
My foreign-based liberal instincts make me want to make the fact that America is totally isolated on this issue the centrepiece of the political argument. But I realise, especially after the election, that this is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Which is in itself deeply depressing. A large proportion of the population, it seems, operates on the principle that if the rest of the world thinks something, it must be wrong. Because they're socialists, or something. But there must be some way to exploit the fact that heavily Catholic countries accept evolution, heavily Muslim countries accept evolution, heavily Judaic countries accept evolution, heavily Hindu countries acceptevolution, and heavily Buddhist countries accept evolution. Most people in the US aren't biblical literalists. There's no reason why people who aren't shouldn't accept evolution.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 04:01 PM -
I respectfullly disagree. I think the tactics of the defend-Darwin-at-all-costs crowd has helped stimulate the challenge by the ID crowd. I think more aggressive tactics will stimulate it more.
The history of this debate suggests otherwise. The irony of the Cre/Evo debate is that creationism is, well, evolving. It started out in its modern form as "scientific creationism" in the 60s, with books by Whitcomb and Morris and others. A series of smackdowns in court in 1982 and 1987 (and others) forced the creationists to abandon a literalist Biblical approach to pushing creationism, and to focus on a theory of Intelligent Design that (in public at least) is purged of religious overtones.
It goes like this. Creationists want to bring religion into science classes. Religion has no place in science classes. When creationism is challenged, they change their tactics and try again. They will continue to do this until one side gives up and lets the other side win. ID-ots want to put God in science classes. It's as simple as that.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 04:19 PM -
I attended an Episcopal school through early high school and received a fairly solid education on evolution -- though none at all at the public school I attended afterwards. The only explicitly anti-evolutionary view I've ever been exposed to came in an organic chemistry class in college (fittingly, I suppose, since the theology courses I took at the time were taught by Southern Baptist preachers who believed in evolution).
This, I think, is part of the larger case that most people don't have any understanding of science, an indictment of teachers at all levels. If a majority of Americans don't believe that vegetables contain genetic material (as per today's news report), then what percent understand *any* science at all?
I'd also suggest that Americans, and probably laypeople in general, hold science in reverence. After all, nobody says that you need to be a dispensationalist theologian (or an appellate trial lawyer, for that matter) to understand a tough subject -- it's a "rocket scientist" or a "brain surgeon." The perceived barriers to understanding science are so high that most people decide that they'll never be able to scale them, and thus view scientists with mingled reverence and suspicion -- an explosive combination.
Perhaps it would help if science writers and journalists focused less on results and more on process. Science is seen by most laypeople as a process of Big Discoveries, and thus they (A) don't understand *how* research in different disciplines is carried out; and (B) *why* the Little Failures are as important as the Big Discoveries. When people understand the limits of a discipline, they're more likely to understand its capabilities, as well.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 05:22 PM -
Ginger Yellow: If war broke out between the US and Britain, what side would you be on? If the US, then you are an American and we welcome your strengths and loyalty. If Britain, then you are an economic opportunist and should get the fuck out.*
*Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
If you are an American, then I'm sure you share these sentiments.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 05:22 PM -
Wow, Richard, that was a really stupid post.
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 05:36 PM
-
That was a particularly bellicose and jingoistic post from Richard. He's done better. I've seen it.
Of course, as in every thread, I'm anxiously awaiting Harry Eagar to turn up and do some kind of comparison to the eeeeevil Mohammedans.#: Posted by paperwight on 02/01 at 05:40 PM -
What sort of twit would pick a war with the British?
On the other hand, what sort of twit would pick a war with the science that brings healing to medicine?
Um, maybe that's the same hand. I think I see the problem.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 05:44 PM -
Oh I thought Ginger Yellow was an American living in Britain. If so, he probably only goes to America to visit relatives and take advantage of your Bush-crippled economy to buy some discount goods!
And if Britain and the US went to war, I don't think it would much matter whose side anyone was on, as the nukes would put an end to both sides fairly rapidly.
I also think you've been watching too many Mel Gibson movies. In real life, we're not all bad guys. Honest!#: Posted by on 02/01 at 06:28 PM -
In real life, we’re not all bad guys. Honest!
Oh? So why is it that so many bad guys in James Bond movies are British? Huh?#: Posted by on 02/01 at 06:52 PM -
They're not. James Bond is British, the bad guys are Russian! It's all the other films where the bad guys are British. I think hollywood works by the Yanks taking credit for British achievements (eg U-571) and blaming all the ills of the world on us. It's just another form of racism!
Anyway at least we're not a bunch of fundie creationists like you lot!#: Posted by on 02/01 at 07:27 PM -
Actually, Bond is also sometimes Scottish and sometimes Irish. Now, there's a couple groups of people who should think the British are villains.
#: Posted by paperwight on 02/01 at 07:32 PM
-
Ginger Yellow said,
Heavily Catholic countries accept evolution, heavily Muslim countries accept evolution, heavily Judaic countries accept evolution, heavily Hindu countries acceptevolution, and heavily Buddhist countries accept evolution...
Yes, well... every Christian in this country thinks that those other country's religious folk are going straight to hell.
Unfortunately, this fact nullifies your (otherwise logical) reasoning:There's no reason why people who aren't [biblical literalists] shouldn't accept evolution.
As of yet - in the USA - the propositions for any compatibility between science and religion are null and void, as well.
This grave situation which may ultimately merit the utilization of (otherwise) drastic methodologies.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 07:42 PM -
Alon Levy says in part:
If you worry for the future, then you should not concentrate on evolution.
Alon's point is right on. Take bitchphd's Lutheran friend: If she learned the material enough to pass it, I'd say she had learned critical thought. There's nothing wrong with skepticism but there's everything wrong with not knowing science.
But Richard says:
If war broke out between the US and Britain, what side would you be on?
(I may be missing some deep sarcasm here, and I hope I am, but if I'm not the following comments apply.)
Since when was how somebody would behave in a hypothetical war a litmus test of their true feelings or beliefs? It is simply an invalid means of forcing a dichotomy on a situation which is inherently not dichotomous. The most interesting opinions are close to the middle. If a dichotomy is forced, they'll land on one side or the other, pretty much randomly, with no gain of information. So what's the point?
Of course, you might say I'm an Anglophile -- although you'd be wrong -- as the most intelligent conversation and news I read and listen to comes from the BBC, The Economist, and the Financial Times. The coverage on BBC Five Live of the tsunami tragedy in human terms was simply terrific.
IMO, the problem of teachers refusing to get into controversial waters is less one of whether or not anti-evolution is winning and more of the decline of the "reality-based community". In short, employers have taught employees that embracing controversial opinions in the workplace has severe consequences for their careers, especially if such opinions might be contrary to the sentiment of management. It doesn't matter if the controversial opinions are right, in a legal, ethical, or moral sense.
The going sense in the States is that it's idiotic to put your job on the line for merely moral or legal reasons, let alone ethical ones. If that's the new sense of propriety here, it's completely understandable why teachers act the way they do, whatever they personally believe. That's why when I hear of teachers who resign rather than adopt a school board promulgated equivocation on some scientific subject, be it evolution or global warming, I am really heartened. But it is so rare.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/01 at 07:43 PM -
Don't forget: Thursday is National Okay to Fart At Breakfast Table Day!!!!!!
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 07:44 PM
-
hotrockhopper said,
Anyway, at least we’re not a bunch of fundie creationists like you lot!
Okay, okay. You've got us on that one.
However, I believe it is your Prime Minister who has been (and will be) smilingly licking a certain Fundie Creationist's Presidential balls.
It looks like we're in this together!
Uh, I mean... shit.
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 07:48 PM -
So what, now we have to refer to rocks as God's droppings, and dinosaurs as Jesus horses (cred to Jimmy Fallon & SNL). I mean really, as long as students can fill in bubbles with pencils, what other knowledge could they possibly have a use for..
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 09:00 PM
-
Richard: Take a pill, man. What makes it illegitimate to work and live somewhere other than the country you are most attached to? Why must everyone who moves to the U.S. become an 'American' in the knee jerk patriotic sense of that word?
Anyway, the right answer to 'what side would you be on' has got to be 'depends'! A future, fascist America could provoke a war-- or a future peaceful American paradise could be visciously attacked by lunatic limeys. But both are way-over-the-top, wild-eyed scenarios. (I hate to say it, but the first strikes me as marginally more plausible...) The point is that any form of 'patriotism' so reflexive that the answer does not depend on the circumstances is shameful and immoral.#: Posted by Bryson Brown on 02/01 at 09:30 PM -
Well, a more careful look at the previous material makes my last a little odd, since Richard's attack was on a US born dual citizen living in England. But the point stands: Unconditional loyalty is no better in morals than blind faith in epistemology.
#: Posted by Bryson Brown on 02/01 at 09:34 PM
-
I had high school biology in the late 60's in California, and we covered evolution very well, I thought. Until I read Keanus' post above, I'd thought that we had fallen away from a time when we were a little more fearless and forthright.
As it happens we used the BSCS texts. I suspect that our teacher would have covered evolution even with a different text; he did sex education as well. There may have been some squeamishness about sex, but I don't remember any controversy about evolution.
I'm not sure how one would usefully go about teaching "critical thinking" without teaching science. Don't theologists consider their own thinking critical, even when it leads it what appear to be nonsensical conclusions?
If we're to teach intelligent design it should not be as part of biology. Perhaps a general science course could include it in a separate unit along with geocentric astronomy.#: Posted by on 02/01 at 10:20 PM -
Perhaps the answer is not how are we going to stick it to the creationists and keep ID out of public school, but where are we going to get the money to send all our kids to Christian private schools? (he says only half seriously)
#: Posted by on 02/01 at 11:36 PM
-
And of course by "answer" I mean question. We need a post modification option.
#: Posted by on 02/02 at 01:47 AM
-
Bryson Brown is right about Richard. If a war broke out, I'd be on the side that was right. If it was Britain's War of Independence from a fascist USA, I'd support Britain. If it was a neo-colonial attempt by Britain to incorporate the USA into the Commonwealth, I'd be on the American side.
Ginger Yellow, in Israel evolution is not as controversial as in the USA, but you don't have to take biology in high school at all, and one ultra-religious party mocked evolution in its campaign commercials back in 1999, putting a picture of a chimp with the caption, "grandfather," with the narrating rabbi saying, "everybody knows the world was created in six days."
Shaggy Maniac, I'm not proposing that high schools not teach science. I'm proposing that they focus on science as a process, as you say, rather than just teaching students names of phyla and their characteristics. I'm proposing that they focus on why things in history happen rather than on memorizing dates.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 02:44 AM -
Richard, I don't accept the premise of your question, and I resent your monopolising of Americanness, but I'll answer it anyway. In principle, I'd side with the country that I thought was in the right, as I would in any conflict. For example, I like to think I'd have joined the International Brigades in Spain in the 30s, although obviously I might not have. In practice, however, I'd probably do whatever it took to protect my family. I'm only human.
Jeebus: "every Christian in this country thinks that those other country’s religious folk are going straight to hell" That's not true, though. It's true of the fundamentalists, and it may be true of some (most?) evangelicals, but not all Christians, and certainly not all of the people who reject evolution. As I've argued before, it's not the fundies we need to persuade. You cannot debate with someone who insists on the literal truth of the Bible above all other authority. It's the ones who just don't know any better that can and must be reasoned with. Many of them are suspicious of atheism, but respectful of faith in general. While they might instinctively respond negatively to an argument along the lines of "Well the British and the French and the Japanese all accept evolution", I think one along the lines of "Billions of Catholics, Hindus and Muslims around the world accept evolution. Evolution doesn't threaten their faith, why should it threaten yours?"
Alon, I'm well aware that there are religious nutjobs in Israel, having witnessed first-hand some of them go apeshit when a group of women tried to pray at the Wailing Wall. I'm also aware that they do not represent anything like the majority.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 04:31 AM -
DC said:
Thats a sad story Ron, if it is true, I’ll bet given the number of students it is a small rural school in which no one dares speak up. In short, they would certainly lose a court challenge.
Yes, it is a very poorly funded school. I'm not sure how rural it is, but it's definitely not in the city. I gave her some references (ncseweb, for example) to help her. According to her, for the faculty member who refuses to teach the evolution section, they do bring in a substitute for the 2-1/2 weeks (how's that for a message to the class??). Also, her entire budget for her class for the year is, according to her, $30. That is not a typo. They are not allowed to do anything with animals, to the point that, when she found a dead spider with an egg case and brought it in to the class, her principal made her get rid of it because it was "unsanitary."
I wish I were making this up. However, even with all of these hurdles, she is happy to be teaching there (ah, the energy and passion of the youth!! thank deity). So I take that as a good sign. At least I know that those students are exposed to someone who received a real biology education, IMO, since I was one of the people responsible for teaching her! So there's reason for optimism.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 05:21 AM -
Alon, I’m well aware that there are religious nutjobs in Israel, having witnessed first-hand some of them go apeshit when a group of women tried to pray at the Wailing Wall. I’m also aware that they do not represent anything like the majority.
Well, that's true... though they're a very powerful minority. As for Hinduism and Islam, do you have any evidence that these religions accept evolution? Islam sports some real reformers, who obviously do, and people who believe the Earth is flat, who obviously don't, but the question is where the mainstream lies. Given that the majority of practitioners of both religions are third-world villagers without much exposure to science, my hunch is that these religions are majority creationist. Islam and Hinduism don't have the hierarchy of Catholicism that can change religious doctrine top-down.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 05:34 AM -
PaperWight:
Actually, the Scots are British (I should know I'm half Scottish, and they had as much to do with the Empire as the English. Also, it was the Scots who took over England, not the other way round (James I of England, III of Scotland). Scotland also does rather well out of being part of the UK (well better than it would by itself anyway), which is why the SNP are on the verge of collapse.
True the Irish did get screwed though, but they have had a go back in the 80s and 90s, when US "charity" NorAid was sponsoring the IRA to do such friendly things as blow up Manchester city centre and the BBC, as well as Irish towns and terrorise the population of Ulster. Fair enough they did have a reason to do these things, and hopefully if Ian Paisley stops being such an arse there might be a resolution soon, but terrorism was not always as out of fashion with the US right as it is now.
Doh you've made me sound like some kind of Empire apologist now, you swine! But there are always 2 sides to every story.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 06:01 AM -
Living in a small midwest farming community, I am pretty confident that neither of my children have gained any understanding of evolution from their high school education. Unfortunately neither of them have any interest in science, other than what has rubbed off on them at home. I see a connection here. One of the more facinating aspects of science is the integration of biology, geology, ecology, genetics, climatology, etc. around the evolutionary core. If evolution is not central to the teaching of these sciences, providing integrative links that promote wonder and understanding, how do we impart an appreciation for science that will lead to a more scientifically literate population?
I would agree with others in some of the above posts, that this failure is indicative of a general mediocrity of education occurring in many small rural school districts.
The importance of the evolution issue cannot be understated. A public that does not appreciate how species have evolved will have little understanding of how species go extinct.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 08:11 AM -
Hotrockhopper, this is totally off the topic, but I thought you had to go back considerably further back in British-Irish history to find out why the Irish don't like the British. You know, thinks like trying to kill off the natives so the British could settle their lands. Kind of like the Americans did with their natives.
#: Posted by on 02/02 at 08:38 AM
-
Mark, I don't think they actively tried to kill them off, just steal their land, and not give them any potatoes.
It is quite amazing how the whole wingnut community appears to be regressing further and further back in time. They appear to be at the stage at which people tried modelling Noah's Ark according to the bible. (17th century I think). The original attempt failed when they realised just how big it would have had to have been to fit in all the new species that were being discovered by the explorers going off to Africa, Asia, America etc. What is happening in the school system, with teachers being affraid to teach evolution sounds like the Spanish Inquisition or the Witch Hunts, both in the victimisation of intellectualism and otherness. Their Man of God president is embarking on new crusades too. The only consolation is that at this rate, they should all revert to paganism and dance around naked in wood clearings by about 2015!#: Posted by on 02/02 at 09:02 AM -
'Not to start a religious discussion here, but DC, I think your statement about “hearing the propaganda and not the truth” might apply to your view of Catholicism'
I don't think so. Why would you assume I haven't heard the truth of the Catholic religion. My view of Catholicism is what it is based on reason, logic,the bible, and the doctrines themselves. I have no problem with what people believe, but they believe equal amounts of strange stuff.
just because they buy into evolution doesn't give the rest of their doctrines a free pass from reason.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 09:43 AM -
Gladys—Sometimes you just have to put things in blunt terms. While I respect people with inate diplomacy, I have come to realize that it is a quality I will never enjoy. My view stands, dual—schmual. You are either an American or you are not. Unfortunately, the State Department does not recognize any renouncing of citizenship unless they bear arms against the US. Nothing pisses me off more than parasites.
#: Posted by on 02/02 at 10:00 AM
-
We're winning some battles though ... From today's NYT.
"It's a fait accompli, it's over: Dean's going to be it," said Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who runs the umbrella political organization for all the unions in the A.F.L.-C.I.O.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 10:09 AM -
Ginger Yellow -
I may have been riding the slippery slope when I said that all American Christians think all the other nation's religious people are going to hell.
But, in the context of your argument, my original premise is on the mark.
You suggest that we should tell the USA Christians:
Billions of Catholics, Hindus and Muslims around the world accept evolution. Evolution doesn’t threaten their faith, why should it threaten yours?
But, in reality, this argument is shrugged off just like the rest of them.
For (American) Christians, another's ability to accept (concede) secular ideas is a sign of weakness in his/her faith and beliefs.
Regardless, since when do Christians not think that eventually, all those other relgious people are going to hell?#: Posted by on 02/02 at 10:18 AM -
I always find it weird that conservatives (forgive me for making assumptions, but it seems reasonable here) who go on about the evils of the federal government in the same breath attack people for not being sufficiently "loyal" to the nation state they happen to have been born in. There's a lot of things I like about America. There's a lot of things I like about Britain. There's lots of things I dislike about both of them. I'll defend America when it's in the right and criticise it when it's in the wrong. If you want me to take a "My country, right or wrong" approach, then you're out of luck.
And I'd be delighted if you could tell me in what way I'm being a parasite. If I ever earn enough money as a non-resident, I'll pay US taxes as well as British taxes, yet I won't be able to benefit from Medicare when I retire, or Medicaid if I lose my job. I can't even vote in non-federal elections. I didn't cost the US education system a penny. I'm registered with the Selective Service, and if America were attacked I'd gladly serve. Likewise if Britain were attacked. What exactly is parasitic about my behaviour?#: Posted by on 02/02 at 10:36 AM -
"The only consolation is that at this rate, they should all revert to paganism and dance around naked in wood clearings by about 2015!"
Oh boy! I'm now looking forward to my xxth birthday, so I can wear my special birthday suit!#: Posted by on 02/02 at 11:11 AM -
My view stands, dual—schmual. You are either an American or you are not. Unfortunately, the State Department does not recognize any renouncing of citizenship unless they bear arms against the US. Nothing pisses me off more than parasites.
And, so, logic necessarily dictates, Richard, that you have the same impression of Israeli-Americans, since Israel also allows dual citizenship. In the British case I can understand it, since it's a holdover from empire. I don't know the history in Israel.
If so, such a position would imply strong opposition to U.S. financial support for Israel. Is that the case?#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/02 at 11:18 AM -
Richard:
You are either an American or you are not. Unfortunately, the State Department does not recognize any renouncing of citizenship unless they bear arms against the US. Nothing pisses me off more than parasites.
I am a British citizen living and working in the US on a Green Card. I pay my taxes (without representation....oh, the irony....), and as a permanent resident I am even technically eligible for the US draft (except that at the moment I'm a little too old for it). I can't vote, and I can't sit on juries.
First question: Am I a parasite?
Next year I will be able to apply for US citizenship, which would give me the added advantage of being able to vote. I have given this matter some thought, both before and after the recent election here. If I did apply for US citizenship, Britan would still regard me as a British citizen, and I could still hold a British passport as well as a US one.
If I become a US citizen but keep my British passport, does this make me any more of a parasite than I am currently, and if so, how?#: Posted by on 02/02 at 11:44 AM -
For everyone who wishes to reject Science, I say: go for it.
And please stop using electricity, eating processed foods, driving your SUV, and making calls on your cell phone. Move out of your modern home, quit wearing manufactured clothes, and so on. Reject Science and you reject the same civilization that made it possible for you to have a hunk of processed wood with ink stains on it that you shake in people's faces to "prove" they're wrong about the shape of the Universe, and that instead you (and your heavily edited book) are "The Answer". Show some conviction in your faith. Kiss goodbye the life that Science provides you, and embrace the "nasty, brutish and short" life that Religion offers instead.#: Posted by Steven Staton on 02/02 at 11:46 AM -
Ginger Yellow: Your last post dampens some of my ire. I was under the impression (MattH, consider my arm extended for smacking) that you were in residence in the US. Good on you for registering for the draft. Yes, my views are also at once patriotic and critical. I think the last four administrations have aided and abetted illegal immigration but Bush is by far the worst, turning loose Federal prosecutors on anyone who tries to close the door.
#: Posted by on 02/02 at 11:46 AM
-
So why is it that so many bad guys in James Bond movies are British?
How do you know? Most continentals who speak English do it with a British accent. If they spoke in their native tongues, Americans would be truly clueless.
On the other hand, it might be that Americans have the sophistication of a garden slug and pride themselves in it, something Clemens often commented on and used as a comedy device. Their distrust of British and French is like envy in disguise.#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/02 at 12:21 PM - Steven: You seem to be offering a false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy. As much as I detest creationists trying to foist their religion on everyone as "science," just because one rejects one scientific discipline (evolution) on the basis of one's religion doesn't mean that the only non-hypocritical alternative is to reject all of science and its fruits.
-
...rather than just teaching students names of phyla and their characteristics...
<b>Alon Levy</a>, oh don't worry, soon it will be endless memorizations of genomes.
#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/02 at 12:29 PM -
...rather than just teaching students names of phyla and their characteristics...
Alon Levy, oh don't worry, soon it will be endless memorizations of genomes.
#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/02 at 12:29 PM -
What was that?
#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/02 at 12:30 PM
-
Bryson Brown: FYI, when a person takes the oath of citizenship in the US, they swear allegiance to this country. So if a person joins us and then claims "dual citizenship" they are, in effect, going back on their word. In the case of Ginger Yellow, it appears he was born here but raised in Jolly Old, so as some readers less-quick-to-take-offense noticed, my attitude coppage was misplaced.
In a past life, I wasted a week's worth of liberty standing guard on a stupid (VERY stupid) born-and-raised American woman. She had married an Afghan, written a refutation of her citizenship and was living the full-on life of an Afghan wife w/brood. Suddenly, the Khaqis (Commies) shoot their way to power, slaughtering folks in a fine immitation of Old Joe and she suddenly wants to go home AND take her hubby. The Embassy had her "screw America" letter on file, and me and the rest of the Detachment had to stand back-to-back watches to keep an eye on her oddness (she was a wack job) while our politicos got hubby out of the chop-shop. Moral? Cut 'em loose. Once gone, you should be gone forever.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 12:36 PM -
False generalization, Richard.
#: Posted by Jan Theodore Galkowski on 02/02 at 12:39 PM
-
Nothing pisses me off more than parasites.
Nothing pisses me off more than patriots, except religious fanatics. Loyalty to a state is as senseless as loyalty to a printer; loyalty to a nation is as senseless as loyalty to the set of all black-haired people whose family name begins with a K.
Unfortunately, the State Department does not recognize any renouncing of citizenship unless they bear arms against the US.
The IRS does, which is what renouncers care for.#: Posted by on 02/02 at 12:46 PM -
I wonder, how the US education will look with curricula containing ID/creationsism, New Math (purified of any racist or gende sins) and Whole Language?
#: Posted by on 02/02 at 12:51 PM
-
Is it scientifically possible that some bipedal hairless apes never fully developed their cerebellums and are incapable of processing any reason at all beyond thinking "It's time for another brewski" and "Him too sober; must hit"?
#: Posted by Kevin Hayden on 02/02 at 12:52 PM
-
I wonder, how the US education will look with curricula containing ID/creationsism, New Math (purified of any racist or gende sins) and Whole Language?
What's New Math?#: Posted by on 02/02 at 01:00 PM -
" ... distrust of British and French is like envy in disguise."
It might be more like compensation for a feeling of inferiority, usually displayed as a constant braggadocio by the militarists and ultranationalists. Most Americans are ignorant of other cultures and of the standard of living in other places. They think we have the highest standard of living, the highest technology, the best medicine, the best cars, the best everything. Unfortunately for us, that turns out not to be the case.#: Posted by
