The LA Times, withan article called "Testing Darwin's Teachers":
"Two decades of political and legal maneuvering on evolution has spilled over into public schools, and biology teachers are struggling to respond. Loyal to the accounts they've learned in church, students are taking it upon themselves to wedge creationism into the classroom, sometimes with snide comments but also with sophisticated questions - and a fervent faith."
The LA Times focuses on the challenges' distruptiveness. Personally, I think it's great. with so many teachers injecting inappropriate political dogmatism into their instruction elsewhere, the willingness of students to stand up for their personal beliefs and challenge authority is a positive in my books.
I'll add that a teacher who doesn't know and understand science in enough depth to handle this, and can't learn the lessons of persuasion well enough to put it forward in a strong but respectful way... probably needs to find another line of work. When they're replaced by someone who can cope, the subject will become stronger. As it needs to be, these days.
Think of it as evolution in action.
Joe, I think you mean 'evolution under natural selection' ;)
Sounds good in theory, but might not work as well in practice. Teachers who struggle to answer difficult questions aren't necessarily going to suffer any consequences from that, not least because a teacher who feels that his or her authority is threatened can easily turn it into a disciplinary matter. Also, it depends on how much the young creationists are willing to engage in debate rather than just be disruptive, and whether there is even enough time in the lessons for this level of discussion. In some classrooms there will be a discussion from which everyone benefits, and in others just a clash of wills. Results will be very mixed.
Critical thinking is the number one thing we should be teaching our kids.
Unfortunately, as you progress in education, you realize that much of what you learn as a kid has been simplified and boulderized. They turn the good stuff into baby food so you can digest it better. Later on they tell you the pieces don't all fit together as nicely as you first thought.
Because of this, teachers can make two choices. They can teach the kids to accept what they teach on faith, or they can teach the kids to question everything. Teaching kids to accept it on faith makes teaching science no different than religion. In this instance, the creationists have every right to come in and challenge what's being taught.
I think it's good for everybody. The kids learn better reasoning skills, the teachers have to think through the "whys", and the school system is actually providing some value. People get a feel for the depth of the issues.
Not every teacher may be up to this, however. But that's a longer discussion about the quality of teachers, not the quality of a good education. You can't change reality simply because of a poor teacher.
The quality of discussion will depend largely on the extent to which theologically untenable dogma drives the argument from one side ... and to which scientifically untenable dogma drives it from the other.
What I mean is this: six, strict, 24-hour days are just plain lousy theology, and inconsistent with the broad panoply of both Old and New Testament scripture.
Similarly, from GOO to YOU via the ZOO has some significant scientific problems. Darwin's work stopped (going backwards in time) at the "Cambrian explosion" of life about 550 mya [=million years ago]. That leaves almost 4,000 million years unaccounted not addressed by Darwinian theories.
The sorts of problems that arise -- and my first two degrees are in geology -- are things like the very sudden appearance of membrane-bound, self-replicating, colonial cellular organisms roughly 4,000 mya.
The first 500 my or so of Earth's development were such an incredibly hostile environment (hot, dark from dust, acidic from volcanoes, and so on) that it's called the Hadean Period ... as in Hades. Yet in almost mere geologic moments after it settled down we start seeing these stromatolite colonies -- they left mineral concretions that preserved their forms well enough to be identified.
The reason they were so easily identified as stromatolites is that the organisms still exist today, essentially unchanged in four billion years.
The point is that you can have a good discussion provided the Christian kids aren't such literalists that when Jesus says, "I am the door" they insist there must be hinges and a knob somewhere.
A good discussion also subsumes a reasonable level of scientific understanding on the part of those teaching science, along with, you know, maybe a bit of an open mind. Given the way teachers are recruited, educated, and licenced neither of those is a safe assumption.
Finally, you have to have a lack of dogmatism on the part of the educational system. That, sadly, is too often not the case. I was working as a substitute teacher last year and went into the stromatolite issue as part of a cellular biology unit.
Though I never once mentioned creation or even hinted at it -- merely describing the problem -- word got back to the teacher that I was challenging evolution. I have been black-balled as a substitute ever since. Too threatening, I guess.
Little wonder, then, that our children so regularly leave school with woefully inadequate factual knowledge and nearly a complete inability to reason.
The post-modernist dogmatism of the educational establishment and its adherents is every bit as psycho-sclerotic and ill-founded as the six-24-hour-days crowd. From what I've seen it's also far more widespread and every bit as hostile to free enquiry.
Andrew Zalotocky: “it depends on how much the young creationists are willing to engage in debate rather than just be disruptive, and whether there is even enough time in the lessons for this level of discussion.”
Yes.
A creationist will copy a list of Intelligent Design talking points from the Discovery Institute web site. The creationist won’t really understand the science behind those points and won’t really care since he already has his religion-supplied answer. The game is to stump the teacher. Since the talking points were designed by intelligent, well-educated creationists, well versed in criticizing evolution, the teacher will soon be beyond his depth. The class will be left with the impression that science is just another belief system.
I don’t have an answer to this problem. Some topics are difficult and require ability, education, and work to fully comprehend. Perhaps the science teacher could just direct the students to a website such as the Panda’s Thumb, http://www.pandasthumb.org/, where the ID arguments are rebutted.
#5. I hear you.
But I don't think there has to be "an answer to the problem." Science is full of holes. That's why we still have scientists doing stuff. The teacher's job isn't to promote one vision of reality, it's to promote inquiry and the scientific method as a way to make factual progress.
So it's okay to let the students attempt an ambush. The teachers don't have to know all the answers, they have to teach the kids to think for themselves. Going to the web site is a good way to do that. Understanding the fact that by feeling strongly about a subject may impair your ability to reason well. I think we make a mistake when we think that somehow the teachers must be the arbitrers of truth. They don't. They have to teach the kids to teach themselves. The kids will figure it out.
There's something to be said for the Scoratic method. The classroom doesn't have to be a debating arena.
Would I be happy with a kid who was a creationist in a biology class? Sure thing. As long as the kid knew the relevant science and was able to explain BOTH sides of the debate reasonably well, that's a smart kid. Maybe the kid thinks the moon is made of green cheese. Sure thing. Explain the reasons why and why not this statement is true. Show me source material to support and refute your argument. Explain the consequences your belief can have on other areas, like the cheese business.
At some point you have to use faith anyway, you can't get around that. Nobody here understands particle physics -- we simply have faith that others do and it works for them. The question is whether or not you are using your brain and critically thinking, right? Because if you are doing that, you can parrot back to me the answer any way I want it. If not, then I am not teaching you, I am programming you. There's a difference.
#6: But I don't think there has to be "an answer to the problem." Science is full of holes.
I know that and you know that. Unfortunately, not everyone does. In my younger, feistier days, I used to argue with creationists and their ilk all the time, and "stump the evolutionist" was developed into an art form.
Many of them did not know the basic tenets of science. Or worse, were the ones that (I suspect) did, but knew that they were arguing for a crowd that did not. And so the mere act of refinement of position on science's part became a point for them to attack. The line of attack generally went, "Well, in 1950, the theory said this. But then, in 1975, it was changed to this. And now in 2000, the theory is this. Why should we believe you this time?"
As though it were a courtroom drama, and the creationist was making an attack on the credibility of a witness. It was very difficult to know if the carefully reasoned responses about the nature of science being an iterative process which converges on truth, ever got through to the silent observers.
(There was also the more common, "Well, the theory doesn't explain the particulars of this case, therefore the entire theory must be wrong, therefore, our theory must be right logical avalanche. But that was typically easier to counter.)
yawn
the teachers should just give the little socrateans a copy of Spore instead of engaging in a time-wasting proxy debate with the DI bots.
Dr. Yes says games are the dark matter of contemporary culture. I predict Spore will make the concept of darwinan evolution as natural as breathing to the high school crowd.
How many of your young relatives/kids play Sims?
"So it's okay to let the students attempt an ambush"
Theoretically yes, realistically no. I am currently a TA, but hope to teach college chemistry soon (fingers crossed). Ideally, it's a great thing when students come in with lots of questions. But realistically, you have a schedule that needs to be followed to complete a semester and it's hard to be sidetracked, even on something completely relevant to the discussion.
Now, you have a bunch of students bringing in ID questions, many of which will pertain to topics that your class hasn't reached yet. Therefore, it's not helpful to emrace the argument (yet).
If I were in that situation, I would tell the students to bear with me, and we will deal with parts of these questions as they pertain to the material, and will a plan a final summary day to cover the issue more in depth. Wether highschool students who want a heated argument will tolerate that debate, I am unsure (this debbate could also be moved out of class time, which could be succesful too).
While many ID arguments are wishy-washy, the evolution counter-argument is also wishy-washy often too. this is because there are massive holes in the fossil record that will probably never be filled, mainly due to locating only a small fragment of truly helpful bones (and the fact that we can't learn very much about cellular evolution from bones).
Additionally, even though the idea of evolution is simple(ish), getting into the more complicated areas of evolutionary theory is not neccessarily going to make sense to high school students.
All of this controversy should be taught, but it might make for a hostile audience. It's going to take alot of talented teachers to pull it off.
oops... meant to say
"Wether highschool students who want a heated argument will tolerate that delay, I am unsure"
So, alchemist, you're saying that what we have here is an evolutionary selection pressure for a lot of talented science teachers and strong counter-arguments. Moderated, to some degree, by the fact that students had better understand the curriculum-prescribed material in order to pass the tests because it afects their college prospects.
I'll add here that there are accessible fields in which one can discuss evolution and the critical importance of the scientific method - human health and disease control, for instance - in a pretty compelling way with a bit of imagination. Ways that shift the game from "stump the evolutionist" to "this is why you need to be able to find rational answers in order to care for your fellow man." Nothing like a "Black Death participative exercise" to drive the point home, for instance.
And ultimately, what this may well mean is that science class is going to have to make some space for teaching what science is really all about (vid. Bronowski, Feynman) and why it matters, instead of just teaching the answers it gives us or its method. That teaching will also have to be prepared to discuss science in the context of ethics, religion, and civics, as part of any ethic of truly helping your fellow human beings and how it helped to shape the foundations of American democracy.
I could learn to like a selection presssure that helps to get us there.
I tend to agree with Alchemist- you're probably better off chiseling away a little at a time since you have little choice anyway. It is, however, a good opportunity to put the scientific method directly to work over the course of the semester.
Every time the question comes up, the preface to my response would be, "ok lets talk about that, but lets remember to think about this: is there any scientific evidence that would convince you otherwise?" and basically be sure to draw that distinction repeatedly.
Steven Jay Gould once said that he didn't debate creationists because even with all his knowledge (and rhetorical talent) the best he could do was hold them to a draw. It's easy to create a superficially good argument when your devotion to facts is shaky and you're talking to an uneducated audience. Gould went on to say that the reason creationists preferred the timed structure of debate is that on the witness stand, with unlimited cross-examination, they would do very badly.
Certainly nothing in the recent Dover case disproves this. The Creationist/ID factory composes cheat sheets of questions that require a fair amount of scientific knowledge to answer. OK, let's just suppose the biology teacher knows a lot about Shannon information theory and why Dembski's variation on it is worthless. That's a pretty big suppose, since I don't see information theory as critical to being a high school biology teacher. Even so, what are the odds that the teacher can construct an answer to a Dembski-based assault on evolution that's comprehensible to a bunch of ninth-graders? One advantage of Creationism over science is that science takes a lot of study, much of it in subjects like mathematics that many people find difficult. Creationism requires only a brain-dead literal reading of Genesis that the average 9-year-old can do.
Just when do they let evolutionists into their church schools, asking such simple questions as "Why do marsupials predominate in Australia?", "What are objective limits to the process Creationists call 'microevolution'?" and "Archaeopteryx: Bird or Reptile?". It's not clear how to shut the martyr kids up, but it will be good for the class to do so.
Andrew,
The fix for this seems easy. Science requires understanding arguments and counter-arguments. Create a slot in the class for an assignment, and assign looking up the answers and presenting both sides of that aspect faithfully to those raising the questions as their assignment. Failure to do so well or honestly results in a poor grade.
This equalizes the workloads, incentivizes the discussion toward areas all can handle without crimping anyone's freedom, and also trains the class in the intellectual honesty dimension of science.
Sorry, Joe, the curriculum is packed already. Colorado high school science teachers have to take intro to quantum mechanics, for example.
Dicussion of ID is just a colossal waste of time.
The scientific method is already taught in ninth grade curriculums--what benefit could a discussion of DI talking points possibly confer? Lol, ID is not science.
Let the little socrateans look it up on the web, like fly says, or point out to them that until ID presents a core curriculum in colleges, high school science teachers are not qualified to teach it. And they won't. ;)
Or better yet, let the students boot up a copy of Spore in class and experiment for themselves. Like Asimov says, "science works".
Instead of cramming the cirriculum full of facts, ya think it might be better to teach the tykes that science is full of holes, how to find them, and how scientists are working to fill them?
Instead we should call them ID bots? Give them video games to play? Yeah sure. That sounds like a great plan. A kid asks the priest why something is taught, the priest says "because." He asks a science teacher, and gets the same answer? C'mon, we can do better than that for the students.
Surely the scientific tent is big enough to tell the students that there is a lot of work still to be done. It's perfectly fair to read a web site and find a bunch of supposed holes. Teach them how to research those holes, how to figure out if they are real holes or bogus holes or not. For goodness sake, these are the people who are supposed to be advancing science! Instead we're teaching science the same way we would teach a religion. We can do better than that, right?
sure--but why waste time on ID? Let's talk about research in areas of real science, like say supersymmetry or string theory or exotic particles or cosmology or cognitive science.
My point is, ID brings nothing useful to the discussion.
And no one can be certified to teach or discuss it, because it isn't taught in colleges, where high school teachers learn to teach.
or evolutionary biology.
;)
If ID is forming a damper to advancing education, then it must be addressed.
The fact is, you can poke holes in a lot of science, ID or no ID. ID just gives us a ready example. Why not use it? The philosophy of science, the history of science, ways to source material -- it's all such great and needed information, why is one side of this debate acting like they have such a weak hand? Are the science teachers so poor they can't deal with a little questioning? Does calling the ID students robots or morons really help anything at all?
Perhaps a follow-up question would be: can a respected, learned scientist believe in some sort of ID? If the answer is yes, then how are we training these people, by badgering them as students? If the answer is no, why not?
they are not acting like they have a weak hand. One reason scientists are resentful is crap like this. this is just another attempt to weasel ID into high school classrooms.
the science community just feels ID doesn't get to go to the head of the line without doing the heavy lifting.
Teach it in colleges, and then get back to us.
And Joe, the selection pressure is on the "competitve" models of ID and evolution. That is how science works.
lol, is it even a contest?
our teachers are already overworked and underpaid, because, like, if you can do science or math you can get paid 4X as much to do it as to teach it. and the frackin' paper work and testing. and making room in established curriculae for actual new real sciences like quantum mechanics. and learning how to teach them.
and you want to loose a buncha smary highschool kids armed with DI talking points on them.
riiiiiiight.
Hey matoko.
Who the heck are the DI people? I thought you just mis-typed the initials.
And as far as "teach it in college first", can you explain to me why this is some sort of rationale for anything? Is there some sort of line that various subjects are standing in? I thought the goal was to identify the greatest good we can do with limited resources. If ID is a hot button political issue (perhaps due to poor science education 20-40 years ago?) then maybe it should be pretty far up the line already.
Unless there is some sort of caste or political system inside the scientific community. If so, that's their problem, not the students.
Complaining about it is probably not a good strategy, as is blanket dismissal. Seems kind of dysfunctional, actually. If a kid came to me and said 2+2=5 because his Rabbi told him so, I sure would have something to offer him besides what I've heard here so far. But that's just me.
Neither, matoko, does science get to stay at the head of the line without doing the heavy lifting. That is one of the great unwritten pacts of our civilization, and those who neglect it shall reap a harvest of thorns.
That heavy lifting includes successfully addressing the place of science, its importance, and how it fits with larger ethical/political systems, as well as why things that are not science need to remain in a separate category. This needs to be done firmly, and persuasively, without turning into an attack on religion.
Punting this down the road to colleges will equal failure. And failure has a cost.
It's so simple. Adapt to deal successfully with the new environmental pressures, or die. Surely a scientists who understands evolution can grasp that much.
If not, they should open a history book and recall that "die" is an historical option for science and the scientific method.
sure. here's your darwin-dissenters, courtesy of DI.
but strangely enough, i have never heard of a single one of them. i guess they are just not big in my field. ;)
we are not "badgering" them as students--we are presenting current establed scientific research.
you and joe are suggesting they get to badger their teachers.
What, like the pythagoreans and the alchemists?
No, you believers aren't going to get to pull that stunt again!
We're ready for you this time!
This is the world of law!
;-)
look at Dover. ;)
the teachers should just tell those students they are unable to discuss ID, they have no training in it. And they should discuss it with someone who does. like their priest or minister.
That is where the 2+2=5 analogy falls flat--a high school teacher does have basic math training.
sorry daniel.
DI = Discovery Institute
Hmm, "...the world of law." Matoko, if that is what you rest on, then you are not in fact ready and over the long term, you will lose.
You an evolutionary biologist, and a believer in its connection to memtics. Crunch the demographics and fertility rate numbers in the USA, then think about the implications and get back to me.
Laws will be part of this battle, but only a minor part. All fights are ultimately won or lost in the trenches. There they are won. There, they can be undone.
We need to strengthen the way science is taught for reasons that go far, far beyond Intelligent Design, or even fertility statistics. And the link between science and spirit and the world we have made around us needs to be taught as well, that our children may truly understand their heritage.
ID is simply one messenger warning of the current set of inherent weaknesses, and missing priorities.
I thank them for the favour.
hmmm...i guess i don't have a flippant answer for that.
i will have to think on it.
;)
daniel, i was not denegrating the little socrateans by offering them games.
gaming rules.
what i really think.
The Dark Matter of Contemporary Culture and Accidental Learning
let' see if Joe's blogspot fix woks.
The core omission in science curriculum in my opinion is that what is not being taught - and what is the best innoculation for the Creationist/ID virus - is a fundamental understanding of what science itself is and scientific method.
Regardless of the details of Dembski's misrepresentation of the statistical arguments, or Behe's tautalogical definitions of irreducible complexity, a student who understands the fundamental issues of falsifiability of hypothesis understands the fraudulent nature of ID as a matter of course.
Actually, Matoko's game/sim suggestion was intelligent and a strong potential tool in the quiver. For the very reasons she cites in her post.
I am slightly peery of them only for the reason that frequently, what you see is just a reflection of the underlying logic of the program. I myself can remember tendentious experiences in which the programmer's logic and not reality were clearly in the drivers' seat of what was supposed to be a reality-based sim.
There are probably ways to use games/sims productively, but it's worth being kind of careful with them.
Robin Roberts, I think, has the heart of the issue - but it's broader than just a method.
"our teachers are already overworked and underpaid, because, like, if you can do science or math you can get paid 4X as much to do it as to teach it. "
Another integral part of our current problem is that the above may be conventional wisdom, but it is also a bunch of crap. Our teachers are 'overworked' compared to which other professions? I for one, (and plenty of others i know) work 50 and 60 hour weeks- but dont get 20 holidays a year and that little thing known as three months off for summer break. You calculate out the hours an average teacher works per year vs an average private sector pion and get back to me. Same goes for pay, young teachers make mediocre salaries (for working 9 months a year mind you), but between the benefits, job security, and guranteed pensions you'd be lucky to find a better job with a liberal arts degree.
Which is all fine theoretically, heck make what you can and convince everybody else you're a hero for doing it (who is more lauded in our society btw, college trained educators or college trained military officers in the line of fire in Iraq and Afghanistan? oh nevermind). But this all ends up coming back to the dismal state of our education system. No competition, and no accountability. Lets face it, we cant hold our current system (teachers, admin, facilities, townships) accountable for teaching our kids to read at an appropriate level. Evolution? We might as well worry about wether they get quantum physics. We probably ought to figure out a way for our kids to learn basic math and reading before anything. Sorry for the sacred cow massacre.
Here we invite some folks in for a spot of tea with a nice discussion and maybe some science on the side, and what do we get? A sacred cow massacre!
Hmph. Last time we listen to that dratted Architect....
As someone who has been inindated into the 'church' of science (not scientology), I really think there has been some benefit to streamlining what you learn early, and then discussing the internal debates of science later on.
For example, let's go into chemistry(my field) If a proton is positive and an electron is negative, why don't they crash into eachother? why do 8 elctron combinations make stable atoms? why are some atoms decay (ie radioactive) and others aren't? We know these basic things are true, but we don't know why they're true. I usually make mention of these flaws briefly, but in general there's nothing there to 'teach'.
Alot of that's true in biology as well. we don't truly understand how evolution works (ever notice that ID guys refer to Darwin's laws, and biologists refer to evolution: that's because the theory has changed since then). But it's a theory, we don't have a evolutionary 'law' yet. But we do have alot of the peices, so we teach the pieces first (along with the best estimate that arranges the pieces). really, High school bio spends more time on cellular life and differences between species than on evolution itself.
Again, ID has two major points:1) there is no evidence of 'changes' between species necessary to explain evolution 2)some proteins evolved complex systems that cannot be explain by evolution (in it's current form). Both these things cannot be currently explained, because of the relatively small proportion of fossils/once living animals; and the fact that it's very hard/impossible to find fossils of cellular evolution.
ID has no fundamental way of explaining this other than "some force beyond science made these changes". There's no way to prove it, there's no way to test it, herego it fails the basic definition of 'science'. Still, it's worth it to teach the controversy, just not to teach ID.
And finally, science is not 'biased'. if you go against the mainstream scientific opinion, you will face harsh criticism. That's always been true, and will continue to be true. However, if you prove everyone wrong, you get your name plastered in history. that's just the way it works.
alchemist,
Consider that it might be very important to discuss why science matters and how it works, along with its basic discoveries. The humanities subjects are good at this in general. Everyone knows why they need to take English, and what they'll do with the knowledge. Ditto Spanish. Dates bore people (and are a bad way to teach the subject), but ask kids why they're being taught history, and they can generally tell you: we're citizens, need to understand out country because we'll vote. Geography, you'll get an answer. Ditto even Home freakin' Economics (which I don't think should be a a subject, but is).
Then there are a couple of outliers. Advanced math - and often, science too. Ask people why they'll learn science, and what they'll do with it, and what connection it has with their lives. Very often, you'll get a blank stare. Even though science is definitely a Top 3 subject in importance and relevance. Hence Larry Summers' moves to force Harvard's arts grads to take science courses.
Until that's fixed, motivation to learn the rest is low. That hampers learning. Worse, religious kids who are inculcated with an ethic that is hostile to science's fundamentals (and it need not be, but often is) never have the importance and value of those fundamentals truly explained. Including their value to many of the things those kids cherish deeply: American democracy, human health, the ability to care for your fellow man, the concepts of individuality and innovation as good and important, etc.
Science/spirit doesn't have to be either/or. And it is an understanding of the ethic of science, far more than science's sometimes-changing answers, that is critical for both evaluating expert debates (so much stuff is above one's head, but you can often see who's being less than honest and not adhering well to the ethic) and to preserving an environment in which science and indeed Western civilization can thrive.
The gravest chasm between Morlocks and Eloi was not knowledge, but values.
Again, thats a great point. I recommend the book A different Universe by Robert Laughlin (nobel prize winner). Its a good read although the poor guy is infected with what i call 'Feynmannitis'- apparently if you are a American physicist you are required to be both brilliant and the class clown. Regardless, the guy makes a damned bold argument that reductionism is an empty well and everything we are trying to figure out (from genetics to semiconductors) is a result of complex emergence which simply cant be predicted from the parts that make it up.
Take an ant. You can study every molecule that makes up an ant but you still cant very well predict an ant colony. Or you might, but you'd also predict a ton of other stuff equally as plausible. Laughlin argues that complexity is in many cases irreducible and we are wasting a great deal of time and resources agonizing over it. Laws of nature spring from collective behavior, not the other way around.
I dont know that I agree with him totally, in fact im pretty sure i dont (famous last words seem to be written all over many of his conclusions about why his collegues are doomed to failure). Even so, his argument is fascinating and really make you look at the world differently.
I do agree with you Joe, and that's part of the old school vs. new school of teaching science.
Old school assumed students would be motivated enough to care about science for their own reasons (back inthe 60's when science was 'hip'), the new school realizes that you've got to sell it a bit: you link science back to the real world, you give lots of diagrams/animated models that represent chemistry... you basically link it to things the students can tangibly understand.(this is now running right into my cover letter...)
Science is still adjusting to the fact that it's not top dog in public eye anymore. NASA's dying, the NSF is being cut; unless it's pharmaceutical it doesn't make the news anymore. Does anybody here know the name of a top notch physicist/biologist/chemist from the last ten years? It's up to the teachers to be our salemen, and bringing in 'relevant' forefront of science explanations/discussions would be beneficial.
Wow This is Daniel Read from the article and those are some harsh words. The artical really presents us badly. We never interupted, in fact Mr.Frisby told me he didnt even hear the comments made. The fact of the matter is anyone would not be happy if they had to sit through hours of learning about somthing you dont belive. Also it is stuff I have heard befor. My father is a ex-biology teacher and evolutionist. My best friend is a athiest and evolutionist.I know both sides. I was not tring to be disrespectfull but bring up a alternitive that gives hope and love in Jesus Christ.
I was not tring to be disrespectfull but bring up a alternitive that gives hope and love in Jesus Christ.
I don't know where the hope and love is in believing the disproven and the impossible. Don't confuse it with fanaticism.
For creationism to be true, God must be a malicious deceiver who made the world look as if evolution occurred. Another transitional fossil just showed up yesterday.
Hi Daniel. Glad you could join us. It may help to understand that the discussion isn't really about you, it's about larger issues. The article is just a springboard and the discussion is, as they say, not personal.
But this is Winds of Change.NET, so that discussion is also going to be at an adult level and may not pull its punches in the give-and-take. We're OK with that here.
Having said that, as you've probably seen from my comments, I don't think there has to be a conflict between love and hope in Jesus Christ, or even discussing intelligent design in class, and science. There are some things that can't be compromised from the teaching end - like what is science and what is philosophy, and why. But it isn't an either/or for science vs. faith. And I'm just sorry no-one seems to be teaching folks like you how it all fits.
Both science AND faith lie at the foundations of everything Western civilization - and America as its current leader - are. Take away either one, and sooner or later the whole thing will collpase. The Founders understood this well: both the importance of religion and virtue in society, and of course the importance of science AND the values inherent to science. After all, Ben Franklin was one of the greatest scientists of his time.
I personally believe G-d created the universe. I personally believe evolution is by far the best explanation we've got re: how part of that creation works. I'm not alone. It might surprise you to discover how many scientists - including scientists who accept evolution - have been religious people.
You might want to take a look at some past posts, which talk a bit more about this philosophy and where I'm coming from:
daniel,
thanx 4 stoppin by.
errr...do u game?
;-)
Sorry if it seems like we're bashing you Daniel. I would never, ever tell anyone else what to beleive; and it's perfectly reasonable to beleive in the big band, evolution AND God. I'm agnostic, don't releive beleive in the Christian god per se (I think most religions probably have a peice of it right and peice of it wrong). It's entirely possible that this whole world was made in an act of divine intervention.
But that theory in untestable by the hypothesis method of science, and therefore does not belong in a science class. But holes in scientific theory should be.
Confession: I had never actually read the article before this. All of the questions asked were disruptive, but should easily be answerably.
Most bio-teachers probably cannot explain carbon dating, but they should learn because alot of 'age of dinosaurs' stuff can easily be explained through moden science. And there is alot of stuff on species changes, especially land mammals going to the ocean; different states of humanity and that sorts of things. It's not a perfect diagram but it never will be due to small amounts of fossil structures.
However, if you beleive in the literal translation of the bible(that earth is 6,000 years old), everything in science says you're wrong. Primarily carbon dating, which can accurately predict the age of soil based on the presence of C13 down to a couple thousand years (give or take). I think this is one place where science and the bible can agree to disagree.
Joe,
My wife is a high school teacher. Matoko is correct. There simply is not time in a given biology course to discuss things outside the curriculum, especially that far outside it. That's what extra-curricular activities are for.
Being fair to the majority of students requires being unfair to the tiny group of ID advocates. They are free to advocate their faith outside the classroom. High school is not college.
Perhaps, Tom, the correct response is to revise the science curriculum (not to include ID, to include my suggestions re: teaching what science is/ is not, its intrinsic values, and how those underpin our society). The current curriculum strikes me as failing to teach many of the most important things about science, and failing to give students the tools to understand it over the long term given the current explosion of knowledge.
All we're seeing here in the ID examples is evidence of those core flaws, and they're flaws with very serious civic implications.
I'll add that there are many places where ID advocates are hardly a "tiny group," and note that all heavy-handed tactics will accomplish is to ensure long-term hostility to science that will carry on way past college. A hostility that need not be there at all.
Doesn't seem like a very smart move to me. Especially when many of the steps required to fix the problem would benefit ALL students, and our society.
joe, that really is unworkable because of the biology of belief. belief in religion, the supernatural, exists because it is easier to believe than to not believe. (cite, Dennett, Atran, Boyer, etc.). Logic and the scientific method are taught just fine in schools, thank-you-very-much, and they cannot counteract religious teaching. There have been some good studies on mormon belief systems and the appraches you delineate have very little effect.
the sort of thing you are talking about should be taught in a philosophy class, not in a science class.
I think an entire new class may be appropriate. Lets face it, this stuff belongs in philosophy class, but most schools dont teach philosophy as a stand alone class much less make it a requirement.
I would add a class to the science curriculum in general that would specifically explore the relevance and relationship of science to society. The importance of the scientific method and how it differs from belief systems would be the primary focus. This, i think, would greatly strengthen every science course (in my experience its easy, particularly for younger students, to get bogged down in the details of the disciple and lose sight of the larger picture. the scientific method is a critical touchstone to why we do what we are doing), as well as opening up avenues for ID to be really hashed out in a more appropriate setting. Other topics such as sciences failings (funding woes instigating fraud, faking research, herd mentatlity) would be discussed as well, including solutions to these problems (let future scientists get a taste of what they will face). Controversies like global warming and cloning can get the attention they deserve.
There is an opportunity here. I think both ID proponents and the academic community can have a meeting of the minds on this one and actually strengthen the curriculum. There is enough attention being paid that a solution like this could actually be funded.
"The fug-heads are ever with us" - Jerry Pournelle.
High school science courses have a college prep objective. High schools which let the fug-heads interfere with that will suffer a reaction from parents.
If a never-ending struggle against those whose belief cannot be vanquished by mere facts so bothers you that you want to accomodate them, I suggest you move to France. You'd fit right in.
BTW, your new software bans my email address at Y-a-h-o-o.com. I will try to post this with a wholly fictious email address of 666@666.com.
mark's idea is good, but the discovery institute won't play, i betcha. their big schtick is that, dammit, ID IS science. ;)
if daniel is still reading, i would very much like to know what he thinks an acceptable solution would be. ;)
i propose calling the new class, "Philosophy of Science 101".
I'm all for diversity, no silly, not the fake multiculti kind. Let's get rid of the forced monoculture of failing public schools and let a million variations bloom.
No one would give a flying fig about any of this ID vs. science crap if folks didn't think their hard earned tax dollars were being used to brainwash their own children.
ha ha, lurker-- religion brainwashes their children, science sets them free.
maybe.
what about about the "soap and water, common school american society"? shoud we just abandon that?
Some of my nieces go to a "christian" school--their world history textbook begins with the birth of christ.
Sir Richard looks more spot on to me all the time.
lurker, admit it--what they object to is the un-brainwashing.
;-)
matoko,
Brainwashing is in the eye of the beholder.
Afriitah huh? Are you sure you aren't an incarnation of "Jinn", uhmm, as in Jinnderella/Twisterella/Whatevarella?
You know...
She who threw around terms like evolutionary stable strategy and meme, just like you.
And let's not forget another point of convergence, the little winkies, cough, I mean like this one: ;-)
Maybe a twin, or sister, perhaps seperated at birth?
It seems many public schools are controlled by those who think and teach that America is illegitimate anyway. So, it appears that public schools may actually be damaging our common civil society.
Might I also remind you that this mythical common culture that public schools imparted in our bygone eras, was a uniformly Christian one? And that we managed, somehow, in spite of the Bible I suppose, to progress scientifically over that entire time?
lurker, i already told you all.
oh, yeah? how 'bout Scopes?She daid.
look, i don't care if ID is taught in schools, shoot, i went to a catholic school myself (until i was kicked out).
But ID does not belong in science classes. It is not science. It is not a competitor to the model of evolution, but instead a tedious distraction.
No public schools, then no Scopes and no ID?
Why wouldn't everyone, except the educrats and everyone else who wants to manipulate others' kids, be happier with a voucher system?
OK. A reincarnation then?BTW, I'm a card carrying heathen, though one with no bigotry towards Christians.
"No one would give a flying fig about any of this ID vs. science crap if folks didn't think their hard earned tax dollars were being used to brainwash their own children."
Brainwash? Cant you make the same argument, say, about Hispanic parents seeing their children 'forced' to learn English? Or Marxists forced to take economics? Or any number of things? I'm all for vouchers- but that doesnt mean its ok to teach willy-nilly in public schools either. Majority rules in democracy (sort of) but not in science, and not in science education. I've got my federal dollars paying for those schools too and its just as unfair to me to see them flushed away teaching nonsense. Schools should teach what the overwhelming majority of experts in the fields think is cannon.
Again, my money being spent. I have a say in it. Schools dont have to take federal funding. Private schools can teach whatever the heck they want.
Lurker,
I'm not against vouchers, but I do have some reservations about your assertion that we shouldn't care how parents teach their kids. Arguably, the Mexican parents who refuse to let their kids learn English are damaging not only their kids but society at large by preventing the kids from becoming as productive citizens as they otherwise might. The case for caring whether parents teach their kids ID is not as clear-cut. Still, I think you could make a pretty convincing argument (I'm convinced anyway) that teaching kids to reject reason, argument, and evidence not only damages the children but damages us all by producing ignoramuses and fanatics who could have been educated people, perhaps even scientists. Who knows what could be lost that way?
Daniel, if you're still with us: it seems to me far more blasphemous to deliberately ignore the evidence God has allowed us to find and reject the reason and intelligence God gave us to make sense of that evidence than to go where that evidence and that reason lead us.
You get a say, but the Christian parents don't? It wouldn't be so bad if public schools were simple agnostic, but many seem actively anti-christian. In fact, other, assumably minority religions, garner more respect.
On many levels, public schools today aren't sans religion as much as they are simply anti-christian. Shouldn't multi-culturalism include Christians, even fundamentalist Christians? Apparently it doesn't. The amazing thing is that folks that miss that obvious hypocrisy, expect Christian tax payers to meekly go along with that agenda.
I'll say it again, ID is a reaction to an anti-christian agenda in public schools.
BTW, most public schools are funded locally or by the state. It's still with tax dollars though and it's besides the point. Why should Christian tax payers fund an educational bureaucracy that is antithetical to their beliefs? Have you really reserved that right only for yourself?Point taken.
two words.
"HOME SCHOOL"