Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Most science classes begin with the definition of science. Biology is about life sciences, and the field is very broad. It's about all living organisms, and it has to do with the origin, structure, development, function, and distribution of animals and plants. All medical students are required to take Biology, but it depends on the individual's interest in what they wish to pursue as a career in biology such as research, lab tech, health care, environment, forensic science, or biotechnology. These are only a short list of possibilities as with most specialties.

If you're interested in the "cultural, historic, and scientific significance of data that has been gathered,"I'd start with the very basics like geography, then progress from there.

One can study Greek mythology (or mythology) and Marxist theory as an elective in most universities and colleges. I'm sure advanced high school students can study any area of interest at the local college. There are thousands of topics that are of interest for educators, but it's impossible to provide all information to all students without having some direction of interest from the students. Even most universities are limited to provide a limited number of graduate programs, and many colleges are cutting back on courses offered to their undergraduates out of budgetary necessity.

However, most cities have public libraries, and there are many specialized magazines for those interested in a particular field of interest.

You need to be more specific in what you are seeking to offer students.

I'll tell you. It's a snow job. Religion is being put up as a scapegoat for failings in other directions which nobody wishes to own up to because they are the cause of them. Featherbedding, nepotism, bureaucratic infighting, turf wars, confusion, special pleading usually associated with immoral behaviour, education budgets, teacher's salaries etc. I can't think of any more as I've just got back from the pub. Political opportunism. Envy. Pride. Sloth. Lust. General degeneracy. Fear.

And even that coalition doesn't slow science down.

As if there's some evidence that Christian theology ever got in the way of science. Science is a product of Christian theology.

It was just an off the cuff idea about how to integrate some of the fascinating information that is coming to light in terms of the origin of our species and as I said, the cultural, historical and political climate that has given rise to some of the issues around them.

I can't get any more specific than that. It will probably never happen anyway - people will just continue to fight court cases about what CAN'T be taught and why instead of figuring out a way to think outside the box and actually offer what could be a very interesting course.

He knocks Dylan and now he's knocking Veblen. That tells me everything I need to know. He knocked me being No 1 in rjb's NFL picking game. As if I had fucked up or something in being No 1.

I've heard folk talk like that at parties and I must admit it is very funny to listen to. I bet the underclass think you're a ******* genius.

I disagree. And not least because it'd give the students a chance to enlighten the educators and policymakers in terms of what may feel is important for them to learn and know. They could help shape the curriculum. There are very specific seminar courses taught in highschools all over the country as pilots before they are rolled out and offered as part of standardized curriculums.
And yes, as electives - which is what I proposed this being in my first post about it. I said, and I quote-'It would have to be an elective....'

Just because something is not adopted countrywide doesn't make it valueless.

Without specifics, your suggestion is meaningless.

Right, thank you ci - so unless I write the curriculum and submit or post a syllabus- my ideas and participation are meaningless?

Well, I guess you've put me in my place. Feel better now?

Luckily for me, I've evolved to the point where there's nothing you can say to me that will make me feel my input and participation are any more meaningless than yours.

And I think my idea for this ELECTIVE course is a great idea.

And at least it's an idea instead of a regurgitation of what is happening and what's been happening and how much everyone hates it and what doesn't work and what won't/can't/will never work and how stupid other people are.

Im dubious because of the intro you gave to the development of such a survey course. You made it sound as if all the "information" both pro and con a subject like evolution would be discussed. Is that what you really meant? If it is, we must recognize that whatever we present to kids in a survey course that serves as a "bad example of past thinking" can often be confused with something truly scientific.There had been a teacher in the LAncaster school system who was presenting "evidence" that the earth is only 100000 years old, and he wasnt caught until the standard tests began to dribble in and the system began to find out that there were whole clots of kids that were giving these weird answers to relatively esy and basic questions. (A TEACHER WIELDS ONE HELL OF A WEAPON BY BEING ABLE TO SELECT AND COLOR THE INFORMATION THAT HE/SHE PRESENTS)
Sometimes when we write on the boards, we dont come across as we fully intend.

Im concerned that students be given the full bag of tricks in their science curricula and not have it watered down with mere speculation that is posing as "Alternative theories" > ESpecially in a survey seminar(As I infer from you posts) where there are neither course prerequisites nor any attempts to keep the students fully informed on how the scientific thought processes develop.

I certainly like seminars on subjects that could serve as useful tools to students furthering their careers. Ive often thought that an elective course on "HOW SCIENTISTS PURSUE THEIR RESEARCH". This would be a disclosure of the seminal principals that serve as the evidentiary bases of any particular subject.

OR , A course that takes F Dobznsky's statement
"Nothing in biology makes any sense except in the lighht of evolution" and puseues it through evidence and example of how STRONG the theory of natural selection is.

The above seminars and another one I call, "History of SCience" would be a good set of electives for the Ad placement kids. When such courses are planned and delivered only after a good grounding in the science, they can be valuable to the kids advanced education. When such courses are presented from a standpoint of providing a teacher with ego satisfaction, I predict major troubles.

A mini example. 15 years ago, I served on a curriculum advisory committee for 2 "Historically Black Colleges " and two private libreal arts colleges. The group of 4 colleges shared talents in specific subjects (eg genetics and advanced organic preparations). Each college did not have the specific resources to have a fulltime faculty in some of these subjects.
My committee was approached when the colleges got the idea to focus on "Environmental Management" as a career path. I was working in the periphery of environmental stuff and was admitted to this work group . The teachers all agreed that WEnvironmental Management was a way to go forward. Several of us on the committee, each one an applied science practitioner, voiced our disfavor over the lack of any scientific rigor in any one area of the sciences. So, instead of working for a degree in , chemistry, or biology, or geology, the kids were going to graduate with BS in ENvironmental Management. Most of us felt that this was doing the kids a disservice and , it turned out that such a "career path" ws the love child of the shared faculty members who had no experience in the workaday world. These career paths were entered into despite our committees split (almost down the middle we were either in support or jighly critical). The WEnvironmental MAnagement programs continued until the industry changed to become a "commodity service" At that time, the colleges, not recognizing our earlier riticisms, changed back to a discipline oriented curriculum in the sciences.

The good intentions of the faculty led to a decided decrease in the quality of education for about 10 years, when entirely new batches of faculty, mostly eager to integrate computer skills within the disciplines , rejiggered the overall direction that these colleges were going. I was , of course , elated at how the principles of evolution manifest themselves in curriculum "Adaptation"

Which side are you on Rebecca? There's no room here for "on the one hand this and on the other hand that." Sweet reason is not an option. People are involved and there are axes to grind. And very complex axes they are with certain characteristics that are so controversial that they are not exposed to the light.

You describe yourself perfectly, spendi.

Yes, of course. But notice how you choose an example of a YEC rather than an atheist.

What exactly is the damage to the kids of the YEC position in terms of their economic and social functioning in adulthood leaving aside the small number of them who are going to specialise in science?

. So far no atheist has any problem with standard science. Cant say that about YEC's now can you?

You got that right! The pathetic attempt to call attention away from the obvious fact that Creationuts and IDiots have given up trying to get evolution science excluded from curriculum and want to think they are clever enough to stealthily insert religious viewpoints disguised as actual science into the classroom is laughable. They are neither stealthy or clever and neither is the resident troll.

At the risk of Ed declaring again that I describe myself, a trick to draw the veil over incoherence, those are weasel words and if you don't know it you damn well ought to.

You spoke of a teacher's power. "A" teacher's power. You then chose "a" YEC teacher. Which I questioned by talking of "one" atheist teacher. But your "one" teacher happens to be a YEC. You thus grant me permission to have "one" atheist teacher coming off the back of reading de Sade. And whenever I mention that famous and noble battler against religion whose writings I daresay you daren't read and which are unlikely to be found in your scientific department's libraries you go all coy and shucksie and remain silent. If you can YEC me I can de Sade you.

And an atheist who can't handle de Sade is not a real atheist. He is having himself on.

And you weasel out of it, in your own mind, by having your "one" teacher as sweet and reasonable and adhering to "standard" science; whatever that is. Carbon dioxide turning lime water milky eh? Or a spectrum having ROYGBIV colours.

I would say farmerman that you either don't understand the argument or are being deliberately obtuse. What other aspect of science has generated the controversy evolution theory has? Does that controversy not signal to you that this theory is different from all the rest of science in some profoundly important way and that such a difference sets it apart. You continually trying to say that it is just like all the rest of science is proved fatuous by this very thread's existence. There are no challenges to teaching geometry or osmosis or mechanics or probability or crystal structure or photosynthesis or anything else. Why do you think evolution theory is the one area to generate all this steam?

The answer is obvious. It raises issues we are not ready for dealing with and you pretending that we are is belied by your avoidance procedures, which only unintelligent people don't notice, and proof that you are not ready either just as all your fellow anti-IDers aren't either.

Does it not give you pause for thought that you are on the same side of the table as Wiz, Ed and ci? If I had to make up my mind on something without any time to consider I would ask what Wiz, Ed and ci thought about it and take the opposite view.

Wiz love. By continually calling me a troll you are insulting the intelligence of all those who debate with me on the issues involved here. And you are boring the arse off them at the same time.

You are attempting to deploy the magical incantation trick.

Put another record on for ****'s sake. That one is all tuckered out. farmerman is too intelligent and too busy to debate with trolls.

I've read Justine and Juliette by De Sade and a biography of him: Satan's Saint. I read once a soldier's account of Sade at the execution of Damien. In it, Sade informed someone that they need spend no time cringing for the one getting tortured, that we are unwittingly around death all the time. Why give him more heed? At the end of the conversation, Sade chased a woman down a hallway and hit her on the back, very hard. He dragged her away to a room. I've read Weiss's fictional account of Sade in Marat/Sade, in addition to listening to the entire play on vinyl and watching it in film version. I fail to see how knowledge of the man should influence one's treatment of the topic of evolution.

The religious instinctively know that evolution sheds the glaring light of reality on their fantasy and dispels it. Naturally, for all the reasons they have become believers 'on faith,' they are frightened and reactionary. Some, such as the Catholic church, acceptance of evolution helps them to hang on to the more enlightened members among them. But, such measures will eventually not help the church survive, as is. For the light has penetrated even that faith. And, what is it Shakespeare wrote about they who protest overmuch?

I think the church (various churches/religions) could survive almost anything if they could get people focused on the spiritual aspect of their message instead of on literal imagery.

This would give followers a more flexible philosophy to build on and would also help society immensely by allowing the faithful to focus on reality for dealing with worldly issues and to focus on their faith for dealing with emotional and psychological issues.