Assaults on evolution in our schools

They're doing it again. They're teaching creationism in schools and calling it science:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/03/10/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

Yes, it is saddly true that Ohio Dept of Eddy-kation passed that resolution. It is also true that it is optional, and that this is mostly political smoke and mirrors, designed for the loud-mouth pols appealing for the right-wing christian vote. The state's official curriculum site still states that teachers are not obliged to teach or test for "intelligent design." The goys and birls at the statehouse have been shouting about legislation, but for now, nothing is pending.

Scary!

Stupid question from Germany: What are the three r's?

Read'n, rite'n and rithmetic. Really!

set---jeezus H Crissakes, I go away on a short business trip and we lose Ohio. I see that Mike Behe is giving talks about Intelligent Design principles to school boards. Acckkk.

Someone should teach educators and school boards what "Science" is. It seems to me that all these challenges to science could be cut short by simply explaining to everyone that science is restricted to a class of "natural phenomena".

When scientists speak to school boards, they need to focus on defining the limitations of science, rather than trying to answer every [non-scientific] theory which someone comes up with.

Mike Behe is busy selling the details of his theory, when it isn't the details which matter, it's the core conclusion which is invalid (within the realm of science).

Sheesh, why is this so hard to communicate to school boards? They should see this in a second.

rosborne, What is more discouraging is the fact that most school boards are made up of well educated folks. Go figure.

Another clueless question from Germany: Do typical American high schools teach any epistemology? (That's the philosophical discipline concerned with what we know, and how we know it.) It appears to me that one reason for Creationist success is that they hide their special interest behind a general, very valid point: Why trust scientists, and the scientific process in which they are participating? This question is widely ignored in German high schools, so I wouldn't be surprised if American high school students were totally ignorant about it.

If schools teach more genuine epistemology, might this not take much of the bite out of creationist's appeal to undecided citizens?

I'm not aware of any public high school in the US that teaches philosophy. Philosophy was my minor in college.

My school philosophy teachers would agree that I wasn't aware of that subject being taught either

(And a funny aside: at university, the philosophy prof wanted to persuade me to do my exams in philosophy [minors, it would be in the US], because of my great skills. )

No. In a vast majority of cases, philosophy is not touched upon in high school, and many people never even hear the word epistemology throughout their entire scholastic life (including college).

I really wish middle school science classes would spend at least a bit of time teaching science theory, and not just the mechanics of the process.

If you are never taught that science is based in an assumption of naturalism, then there is nothing to keep you from thinking that *any* theory is a *scientific* theory. And that's the real problem here, creationists are using the argument of "equal and balanced" analysis of theories to say that their theory should be included in science class. And a lot of people are fooled by this argument because they have never been told that science has certain inherent limits in which it must be based.

Yes, it seems to indicate a major hole in the education system that produced them doesn't it (see previous post).

There is also the problem of political pressure. Some board members know what they should do, but are forced to hedge around issues to retain some level of input. And then there are those who have a religious agenda, and no compunction against trying to push it into the education system (after all, *they* know what's good for us, even if we don't).

The school curriculum boards , in Pa , have always been merit appointees (with a bit of politics thrown in) pa doesnt have the juggernaught that Cal and Texas have, wherein the texts are all state approved. That makes the state a very tough customer in those cases. The governor in Pa has advisory boards that are fairly autonomous and have been , so far, as wise as we would wish our judiciary should be.
In Pa, when we beaqat down the Creation onslaught, the concept of the use of the scientific method and what could stand the tests of inspection and assessment became the deciding concepts, not just the dogmas of both Creation or Evolution..The questions were asked
Do we underpin our biology curriculum with a model using both evolution and alternative theories

How strong is a theory in science

Can the scientific method be used in assessing the various data.

The Creationists lost mostly because they couldnt get beyond a "presumption' of a creator, the scientific method, applyied by collecting evidence and careful analysis , didnt lead to a Creationist conclusion

Epistemology was not taught in my schools in the 1940s and 1950s, and I have not yet had the opportunity to learn it. This may be surprising as the Engineering college I attended was mostly operated and staffed by persons of German decent/ milwaukee College of engineering.
In fact I wonder if it is like learning how to get rich quick investing in the stock market = mostly generalities that may have little application in reality? Neil

I have no problem with evolution being taught in the schools, as long as the pros and cons of it are presented.

I also have no problem with creationism being taught alongside of evolution, as long as its pros and cons are presented.

What I do object to is kids being mindlessly taught by rote memorization. That's good for the multiplication tables; its bad for the sciences.

Let's teach our kids to think for themselves.

It's not like that at all. If you're interested, you may want to get your hands on Galileo Galilei's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. 20% of the book is about why Copernican astronomy is right and Ptolemaic astronomy is wrong. The other 80% discuss what constitutes a valid experiment, which inferences are fair to draw from experiments, what constitutes a good argument, and so forth. Galilei isn't usually labelled a philosopher, but in my opinion, his Dialogue is one of the greatest epistemology texts ever written. You'll enjoy reading it too -- Galilei writes with goood humor and a grim sense of sarcasm, both of which I very much enjoyed.

Of course, the astronomy contained in this book can't be directly applied to the creationism vs. evolution debate. But the epistemology in it is most relevant. It ought to be read in every high school on the planet so pupils can learn what science really is and how it really works. And as a side effect, it will convince nearly everyone that the faith based biology of the creationists is no better than the faith based astronomy of the 17th century Catholic Church.

Thomas, in the uS, every state is a separate kingdom when it comes to education. Most states that Im aware, teach a sequence of courses starting with general science in the eighth or ninth grade, The sequence begins with the foundations of empiricism and the scientific method. In that, weve embraced the epistemological inquiries , but never do we teach in a manner that is generally inaccesible to the bulk of the kids.
In these early level survey courses, We touch on how we gain knowledge and how we develop concepts (popularly called conceptual models), and how theories are developed and how experiments aid in assessing conceptual models.
We are immersed in the applied sciences with brief forays into the purely theoretical. We use information gained into how world changing discoveries were made and how the process continues.

The teaching of such "units" works fairly well if teachers are reasonably informed in the root sciences. The problems occur in that most science teachers in the K-9 grades , are not well schooled in science. We spend more time in teaching "edubabble'
I was of the post sputnik age when sciences , at least in the sixties, were taught in a panic mode and the immediate shuffling of college instructors down to the junior high and high school levels, was a good idea for the kids that could eat this up. For a brief period, the US education in the sciences was some of the best in the world. then the administration types took over again and we slid into our present predicament wherein
this topic of Creationism is even given any time. In many states the US education system has become a mADRAS. I worry about how my kids kids are gonna be captive of a 'touchy feely-religiously sensitive-No child gets ahead" system

Yeh weve taught the tenets of epistymology, but , like our nanotemporal attention span, we will constantly be swinging between good empiricasl principles to more "faith based centered' crappy science. Books have been written about our failing ed systems but those are not read by a sufficiently pissed off electorate. every time we hold state elections the legislators actually use their arguments of faith and morals to stir up the people and bring out the vote. i predict that we are in for even less qualified teachers in the sciences and science principles. We are obsessed with making sure that all kids attain a certain level of performance,but we are doing NOTHING about assuring that the bright ones are given the resources to go as far as they can.

Evolution/creation is only a symptom of a more insidious trend in US education. Weve gutted much of the humanities. We teach un its that are defined only for passing standardized tests. dont even get me going about how kids are taught history

Jim-you of all people should have a deep respect for the fact of evolution. I am unaware of any petroleum finds or reservoir definitions based on anything other than proper use of stratigraphy and index fossils like foramenifera and conodonts. Not to mention stratigraphic interpretation based on sound geophysical data
The evolution and environmental interpretation of such data results in spending billions in oil exploration. Its not as much of a gamble as it once was. Whatever happened to "hayseed Johnson" and his abiogenic oil theory as gotten from Genesis? Nobody believes that crap anymore.
Thats the maturity of petroleum exploration. Anyone who'd risk major capital on drilling into a 'flood horizon" would be asked to step down from the board.
Petroleum exploration is one of the most hard headed science based crafts wherein big bucks are spent on carefully vetted and re-studied data. the rate of hits for each foot of drillhole is very good compared to what we knew even in the 70s

If you mean that we should teach Creation and evolution in a philosophy of science course, I wouldnt mind at all, as long as it doesnt turn into a phony rationale with which we load up our science curricula
Kids have to be grounded in good principles and data first before they can distinguish good from bad science, and were not even doing a good job on that

If we're gonna teach creationism alongside evolution in science class, then in the spirit of fairness, we should also teach flute lessons in english class. And I can't believe we teach algebra in math class without giving equal time to a study of the Magna Carta.

This isn't about balanced presentation of ideas, this is about effectively teaching the subject material of the subject being taught.

Creationism is a perfectly valid theory, but it isn't a *scientific* theory, and there's a huge difference. Evolution is the only scientific theory currently available which explains the biology of life, and it does so extremely well. There simply are no competing scientific theories at this time. Even "Intelligent Design" which sounds scientific, isn't, because at its core, it assumes a supernatural intelligence influenced things, and scientific theories can not contain assumptions of the supernatural.