Assaults on evolution in our schools

If I were a serious science teacher, I don't know if I could put up with it.

So long as ignorance is allowed a voice it will go on.

I had a very interesting discussion with my book group about "The Da Vinci Code", I had forgotten that one member is very religious. At some point, I forget how it came up, she mentioned how dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans... I said, "uh, no." We yes-no-yes-no-yes-no'ed for a while, I gave up and said whatever, she launched a detailed explanation of how the Bible says...

I am a moderate on this issue.

I think there is a place for cultural sensitivity, even in the science classroom. The science community sometimes overreacts to concerns of members of its comunity. Evolution is controversial because it undermines certain cultures. It is important to teach science as it is. But, it is also important to be sensitive to cultural differences in our pluralistic society.

The very words used, such as "assaults" and "campaigns" are awfully militaristic.

When I was preparing to become a teacher I had a very interesting experience on a Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. I spoke with a gentleman there who pointed out that many Navajo feel like "American" culture has completely replaced theirs - I think he actually used the words "invaded" and "destroyed".

Evolution is an issue in this community. In fact the whole idea that western society is superior to their cultural beliefs is a very sore issue for many.

A teacher is a member of a community. The teacher has responsibility to knowledge, but also a responsibility to his community.

Is it the job of a science teacher to tell a student that the religious beliefs of her community and her parents is wrong? Perhaps it is (this is a difficult question in itself), but the teacher had better darn well be sensitive to the desires and needs of the community.

I don't see Christianity as an evil force leading and "assault" on truth. This way of looking at things leads to unnecessary confrontation and can not be good for education in any community.

I see Christianity (as well as other groups that have problems with the idea of evolution) as legitimate sub-cultures in the pluralistic society we call the United States.

These groups have a right to voice their concerns, and they have the right to not be attacked by their educational system.

I am not saying that we shouldn't teach evolution. We should.

I am just saying that "Creationism" is an important part of the culture of many students. A good educator will help students to understand the "whys" of science, and provide the tools for the student to make decisions about her life.

This does not mean asking a student to forsake her culture. Extremism on either side hurts the process of public education.

Edgar, I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that we should not allow "ignorance" a voice?

How will we do this?

Actually, I can't imagine ANY (public) school in ANY Euroepan country, where this had been a theme the 50 (and more) years.
(I've my grandma's schoolbooks from 1910 and later: even there, in a catholic highschool/college, evolution was just mentioned in religion classes.)

As long as religion stays out of science, the student's beliefs are not the science teacher's business, but when a religion asserts a very specific, non-scientific theory of the origin of life on Earth, this should not in any way be confused with a valid scientific theory. The school has an obligation to present every valid, scientific theory, but is not obliged to pretend that theories arrived at by non-scientific means have any validity. As long as a challenge to the theory of evolution is presented purely in terms of observation and deduction, it may deserve to be considered in a science classroom, but theories based on faith do not. Sensitivity is good, but I would not advocate any more than that. If a religion asserted that rain comes from the stars, or something easily disprovable, this would probably be clearer.

I'm just saying the ignorant have too much say in such matters. If it is demonstrable that they know nothing, why should they set such an important policy?

Maybe a year ago, I had the pleasure to attend a lecture by Christiane Nüßlein-Vollhardt, a Nobel Price winner in development biology, in which she talked about her work. Her audience consisted mostly of physicists, electrical engineers and computer scientists. After her talk, there was a question and answer session which quickly shifted to the possibilities and ethics of cloning and genetical engineering. Lots of people threw grand ideas at her and wanted her opinion. For example, how about having genetical engineers improve the efficiency of photosynthesis to solve the world's energy problems?

Every time, her answer was a variation of the same theme: Evolution had billions of years to optimize the Big Feature in question, so she expected there to be little left for genetical engineers to optimize. Evolution itself is an extremely efficient optimization process, and it's an unwise move for any scientist to bet his carreer on the assumption that he's smarter than evolution. These answers did not resonate well with an audience keen on the possibilites of engineering, and they were met with stubborn resistence and extremely skeptical backup questions.

Why am I telling this story in this thread? Because it illustrates that while evolution looks like an easy concept on its surface, its logic and implications can be extremely counterintuitive behind that surface. So much so that creationist thinking can creep in through the backdoor even in an audience with an estimated 60% Ph.D share, most of them in science and engineering.

This evening last year made me very pessimistic about the chances of sound biology winning the fight against creationism. If even audiences like Nüsslein-Vollhardt's are vulnerable to creeping creationism when evolution is discussed from a slightly unfamiliar angle, how can you expect people who have no real interest in science to be convinced by the concept of evolution? I now believe that even among liberal proponents of evolution, only a minority actually understands this concept. The majority believes in it because they think that this is what mature, enlightened, modern citizens are supposed to believe. If something makes them think differently, this majority will switch camps.

It's depressing, but I think that's the way it is.

Sadly, you appear to be correct, Thomas.

C.I
The good guys are still winning.

E. Brown, the teaching of faith based myths and traditions does have a place in the education system. no one denies that. Its just not in the science curriculum wherein a major underpinning of biology, and historical geology is a modern evolutionary synthesis that is based upon hard evidence and dispassionate research.

The classical'young earth and a six day work week" Creationists have mostly disappeared in their former robes. They now want to preach "alternative "theories" to the origins and rise of life on the planet"
Their "theories" all come back to a Divine Creator who starts and directs evolution , even though the best evidence shows a random progression of lifeforms that respond to major environmental upheavals.

in Pa, we reached a grand compromise that defeated the ID folks in open debates before the education board. If a theory is supportable by standard scientific methodology (the scientific method), then its proposable before the board. The only theory that fits that criterion is modern evolutionary synthesis ( primarily natural selection).

The Creation Science staffers dont even have a substantial hypothesis , let alone a rigorously tested theory, to present . Consequently, teaching creation Science as a "worthy alternative" to evolution doesnt make the grade.The fact that a sizable amount of Americans believe in Creation, is not a testimony to our education system. Ignorance of the sciences abounds in the uSA, its astounding .

If we teach our kids anything , it oughta be a fundamental respect for good hard evidence , not the selective ommission of huge amounts of data and evidence that dont support Creation Science positions.
evolution is not a set of principles that one "believes in ' or not. Its a factual, testable theory that has been converged upon by all major branches of science . How can we teach graduate students in genetics or paleontology if not in the light of natural selection?

As some of you know, Ive been active in the presentation before ed boards to deny the Creation camel a snout shot under the tent flap. I will not simply sit back and say "well In the light of sensitivity to ones heritage , Ill just allow the kids to be taught myths and let them sort it out on their own"
The rest of the world is looking at the US and is certainly wondering what kind of morons live here.

farmerman, Well stated. When religious folks push any agenda in their interest, it seems common sense and logic goes out the window. They hem and haw to find a way that will allow them to circumvent the obvious, and push to limit the practical application of science in our schools. What a sham! What is scary is that supposed well educated folks are pushing creationism in our schools.

I dont normally like to give links in this area because there is much "huckstering" on both sides. There are groups of well meaning but underinformed people that post on areas like talkorigins.com. However, here is a center for the controversy from a clot of communicating colleagues who spend lots of their own free time in the fray. Its eugenie scotts nat center for science education

http://www.ncseweb.org/

The funny thing about this site is that, often its quoted out of context and The staffers and eugenie come out as 'Funded by aetheist organizations, the ncse 'director, Dr Eugenie Scott....blah blah blah"

Science is whatever science finds out. Weve spent 4 centuries weeding out hoaxes and false beliefs and non science in this entire area. Id hate to sink back into a comfortably dead wrong biology thats based upon Biblical pronouncements.

I also believe religious thought can have a place in our schools - Just not alongside or displacing science.

If against the concept of evolution, how then, do these schools ( colleges) ever teach Comparative Anatomy?

My philosophy is similar to ebrown. Being confrontational is bad for almost everyone. A humble approach works. We know the opinions of mainstream science on evolution and many other subjects, but we personally have not rigorously studied the evidence for evolution or creation. As educated persons in the secular world you need to understand the basics of evolution, and you will likely damage your career if you openly support intelligent design or creation. In my opinion, you can be a good Christian without insisting on creation or intelligent design. There are many parables in the Bible and creation may be one of them.The process by which God created everything is likely too complex for even our greatest scientists to understand. There is a very slight probability that science will one day reject much of what we currently call evolution. Scientists should be open minded which means we are sure of very little. Neil

neil, We should all be open-minded, but it's usually the religious' groups that try to censure evolution in our public schools. Ya can't have it both ways. c.i.

neil, that is just untrue. A number of the scientists who are on the Institute for Creation Scientists are academicians whose careers have not suffered. Austen, a geologist, is a recognized expert in optical mineralogy. bob Behe is a professor at Lehigh, and a number of them occupy positions as faculty.

As far as no rigorous testing, thats just incorrect also. Every brick in the wall of support sciences in evolution state irrefutably that
the earth is very old
species evolve through intermediate forms and by mechanisms that we test in the labs on species that have fast breed cycles
genetics has underpinned natural selection by targeting specific functional genic groups and have enabled us to interpret functions

The Craetionists dont have many corners left in which to hide. Being "open minded and humble" as you espouse is, in my opinion, more related to a reluctance to invest the amounts of time needed to fully understand mechanisms and the basics of the fundamental arguments.

I hope that , you are not confusing your faith's dictates with your ability to understand that which is understandable. Theres a huge difference.
Most churches have come openly supporting the scientific basis of evolution . Theyve recognized the preponderance of evidence supports the theory and no chinks in the theory have been found.

.