Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@spendius,

Only in your wet dreams.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Tell me how you manage that ci. I'm a willing disciple.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The individual belief. What else could it be

1.) If you honestly believe that, why are you a drum beater for ID?

2.) Then, you posit there is no proof, no truth, no reality, just beliefs.

3.) Finally, you favor chaos, right?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

http://www.t-rat.com/images/Fossils%20Preservation/CoproliteCartoon.jpg

0 Replies

Quote:

Systematic Undermining of Science In the Classroom: Creationism Rears Its Ugly Head
(Jeffery H. Toney, ScienceBlogs.com, January 28, 2011)

A study just published in Science indicates that while creationism may have been defeated in the courtroom, it is still a matter of contention in the classroom. The authors refer to a portion of biology teachers as the "cautious 60%":
majority of teachers, the "cautious 60%," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives?

According to the Science paper:
Creationism has lost every major U.S. federal court case for the past 40 years, and state curricular standards have improved (2). But considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms, where instruction in evolutionary biology "has been absent, cursory, or fraught with misinformation" --- The data reveal a pervasive reluctance of teachers to forthrightly explain evolutionary biology.

Why would biology teachers be reluctant to teach something scientific?

The authors explain:
The data further expose a cycle of ignorance in which community antievolution attitudes are perpetuated by teaching that reinforces local community sentiment.
---
in the 15% most socially conservative school districts, nearly 4 in 10 teachers personally do not accept human evolution (compared with 11% in the least conservative districts) and, consequently, devote only minimal time to evolutionary biology in their classes
---
We estimate that 28% of all biology teachers consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council

I wonder about the other 72% of biology teachers? What is it that they are teaching our children?
The cautious 60% may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists. The strategies of emphasizing microevolution, justifying the curriculum on the basis of state-wide tests, or "teaching the controversy" all undermine the legitimacy of findings that are well established by the combination of peer review and replication. These teachers fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments, even if unintentionally.

What do they recommend?
Outreach efforts primarily benefit teachers who want to be helped, so expanding the corps of science teachers who want to be helped is critical. Thus, focusing on the preservice stage may be "the most effective way for scientists to help to improve the understanding of evolution" [p. 332 (12)]. Better-trained teachers will be able to more effectively take advantage of details in their textbooks and supplementary material published by the National Academy of Sciences and to put aside fear of reactions and pressures from members of their communities. It would also make them more critical advocates for high-quality standards and textbooks. Combined with continued successes in courtrooms and the halls of state government, this approach offers our best chance of increasing the science literacy of future generations.

Bottom line: The most effective teachers engage their students by sharing their passion for the subject and including the most current information in their field. Let us not mix science with other subjects such as religion that warrant separate attention. Of course, it is far easier said than done.

3 Replies

@wandeljw,

Ill be back, I gotta attend a funeral in West Chester.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

"The individual belief. What else could it be?"

When I said that it was in answer to this--

Quote:

What's the logical conclusion for ID? What and who is the primary source?

I don't see what other answer there can be.

Quote:

1.) If you honestly believe that, why are you a drum beater for ID?

I am not a drum beater for ID as it is represented on here. I wouldn't dream of going in to bat for the idea that life, or the world, is so complex it must have had a designer. And it is infinitely more complex than we will ever know. That's just a silly idea as far as I'm concerned. I'm in to bat for the idea that people believing in God, however remotely, or acting as if they do in public, which amounts to the same thing, in a similar way in which there's a general belief in the rules of manners and etiquette which can be just as easily rubbished from a scientific point of view as ID can be, is a superior system of sentiment that its opposite. From a practical point of view.

I think it is pointless going over the past. "Don't look back". You'll turn into a sediment of salt. Why was Lot's wife chosen to look back and not Lot? Because women won't do what they are told eh? It's only a story you know. Feminists should be trying to get that revised imo. Or exterminated altogether. It's a brilliant story from an evolutionary perspective. That Lot's line was to be perpetuated through females who did do what they were told. We do know it was perpetuated. He wasn't called Lot for nothing. Just as Mistress Overdone wasn't. Claiming pompously that it is impossible for a woman to be turned into a pillar of salt is tantamount to be claiming to be in the D stream. And drawing a conclusion from it that it proves the rest of the Bible, the Good Book, a real best seller, is a pile of superstitious nonsense, as the esteemed great leader of North Korea does, is dangerous D stream when proceeded with at too great a speed for us to handle. As I think would be the case if we all accepted what the anti-IDers are saying which is what they necessarily must intend. As Kant explained in days of yore.

I can't believe that the most ardent IDer never has moments of doubt. But anti-IDers don't seem to do. Some when they get older give doubt a try. Voltaire for example.

I'm trying to challenge anti-IDers to sketch out the way forward with their atheist project just as most people expect a presidential candidate not to campaign just on the slogan that the opponents are a ball of shite accompanied by suitable gestures. Negative campaigning takes us nowhere despite how enjoyable it is.

They might begin with the selection process for biology teachers when evolution teaching is mandatory. Would being a Christian disqualify anybody from the post? As being an Indian might disqualify somebody from teaching American history. Or a communist teaching English Literature. Which, of course, leads to who is in charge of the selection process. And how they are selected.

But then they are up against a dilemma. They don't want to risk standing for election to school boards, or haven't the energy and drive, on the basis of their ideas because they think they would lose. A single judge with stacked evidence is what they swooned over. Their contempt for the voting masses oozes from their every post.

Quote:

2.) Then, you posit there is no proof, no truth, no reality, just beliefs.

I'm not one of those who think this is all a figment of some imagination. A dream. Dreams can be pretty real though. I have argued with a few who tried to make the case for that in many a Happy Hour. But there is no proof. There's truth and there's truth. There probably are nothing but beliefs. Materialists would say conditioned responses or reflexes. It's just a semantic difference.

Quote:

3.) Finally, you favor chaos, right?

I think the point is that I don't. I'm like Don Quixote's sidekick: I favour no work, soft beds, pots of ale and voluptuous women. It's a movement that has had great success since the time Cervantes wrote the masterpiece. Especially in the upper classes.

I saw an American businessman on CBS News who was recylcling big piles of mattresses that Sancho would have given his teeth for. It was an "American Spirit" feechewer. None of our main news channels (6) ever does an "English Spirit" feech. CBS must think the American Spirit needs a boost. Katie Couric certainly does lay the sanctimonious satisfaction on a bit thick. She even makes me feel a bit wonderful.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

It's not just teachers who face this battle. Those of us in society who do understand evolution need to be forthcoming about our confidence in it, even if we're trying to be tolerant of other people's religious beliefs. Religious enthusiasts are rarely shy about expressing their own view of things.

Too often I think that scientists and knowledgeable amateurs prefer to dodge challenges rather than confront them. This empowers the fundamentalists to continue to bully people (and teachers) with their self righteous and unsupported pronouncements on everything from science to morality.

1 Reply

Holy (no pun intended) cow!

Quote:

I'm in to bat for the idea that people believing in God, however remotely, or acting as if they do in public, which amounts to the same thing, in a similar way in which there's a general belief in the rules of manners and etiquette which can be just as easily rubbished from a scientific point of view as ID can be, is a superior system of sentiment that its opposite. From a practical point of view.

First, -4 points for awkward construction
Let's try to extract anything we can.

Quote:

I'm in to bat for the idea that people believing in God...[do so] ...in a similar way in which there's a general belief in the rules of manners and etiquette ...[and thus]... is a superior system of sentiment that(sic) [than?] its opposite. ...

There you have it, folks, best of luck making any sense of it.
==
The rest of the rant would seem to be written by a member of the Taliban, especially those remarks concerning women. The Taliban certainly seems to believe they have a superior system of sentiment thus the appearance of agreement with the poster.

The "challenge to the teaching of evolution', (you remember, it's the subject of the thread), offered implies that young people in particular and women in general will somehow (it's never revealed how) be damaged, but one must also recall that we have been teaching the aspects and conditions of evolution in schools since the mid-1850s. The scientific world has continued to progress and supply benefits without apparent damage to either youths or women. It's merely scared the hell out of this one addled, old and nearly incomprehensible poster.
Joe(he does his best, poor sot)Nation

2 Replies

I don't know who you're quoting here, Joe, although i have my suspicions. However, i would point out that there would be no scientifically sound basis upon which to attack courtesy and civil behavior. In fact, a very good case can be made that at least a veneer of civility makes possible the level of socialization which made agriculture, and every extrapolated human endeavor since then. Religion certainly didn't accomplish that--religion is antithetical to material progress because it resists change. Religion tells us that we've got the world we live in because god so ordains it--changing the social status quo is inferentially an attack on religious doctrine.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I presume ros is including himself in the category of the ones who understand evolution and who need to be forthcoming about the confidence they have in it.

It's a pity he refrains from being forthcoming about it. Christians are forthcoming about the various aspects of sexual mores. Why is ros so shy of expressing his confidence in evolution logic on such matters. Or of his confidence in science unhindered by any moral viewpoint.

We cannot run a country on the basis of calls to arms, no matter how emotionally charged, on some simple abstract platitudes. We cannot rally round ideas that we should be more forthcoming and have confidence. Such things elude our grasp as ros's post shows. They are idle talk.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, Nobody has to be forthcoming about evolution; it's self-explanatory through the different sciences. You need to get with the program.

There is no such thing as sexual mores except in all those man-made religions that wish to address human sexuality.

There are some cultures without any kind of religion that allows partners to be shared amongst friends.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Look Joe-- "awkward (wrong word) construction" has a function in English expression. It is a form of esotericism. Mine was a very mild version. It was aimed at those who don't find it "awkward". Those whose attention span can last out four lines. Don't try Proust Joe. Or Talcott Parsons.

The Taliban, for all I know, may well believe they have a superior system of sentiment but it is not the system of sentiment we have and is thus not comparable. Your smear is still a smear despite your use of "appearance". The effect on short attention spans, which I presume you feel you are addressing, is to smear but "appearance" slides you out, slippery like, of the responsibility for it from a strict interpretation point of view.

My remarks concerning Lot's wife were in the way of showing a way to look at Biblical stories aside from taking them literally. I could have elaborated upon it with more time. It was a city of depravity in flames she was casting a look back on.

The teaching of evolution since the 1850s took place in a Christian context. It cannot be compared to the teaching of it in an atheist context.

We are talking about the future aren't we?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There are some cultures without any kind of religion that allows partners to be shared amongst friends.

Would you have preferred to be born in one of them?

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

You took the time to deconstruct and reconstruct really poor writing. None does it better .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What standards are you using fm to determine what is poor writing? What are your justifications for that pouting blurt?

I'm very eager to improve.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Bottom line: The most effective teachers engage their students by sharing their passion for the subject and including the most current information in their field. Let us not mix science with other subjects such as religion that warrant separate attention.

Teachers need to be much better prepared than they are. They are fairly ignorant of the deeper realms of biology including evolution. Having the kids wait until college is too late. Worrying about the "Attack of the atheists" is assinine and shows a real concern for scholarship. I believe that biology, chemistry, and physics should be handled as AP classes and everyone else gets a "general science " That would mean that ANY college prep curriculum would be AP and slicing and dicing of kids out of the program is necessary to maintain a higher standard of expectation. We need kids to be educated in the right stuff, we cant plop some bullshit down and claim that its equivalent to scientists because its a lie. SCience has a strong level of investment and evidence in the workings of evolution, and evolution serves as the foundation of all biology.

Guys like gunga and the others must deal with that no matter from what orifice theirbeliefs extrude.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Stupid q.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You are pretty ignorant of the deeper realms of education fm. You want to bother about the deeper realms of biology (as if--don't make me laugh) to hide the fact.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Why ci.? What is your justication for blurting that except as a reflexive echo.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know