Science in the classroom

[sevfiv]

The State Board of Education is set to vote by Friday on science curriculum standards (evolution/creationism in the classroom issues):

Protesters and activists gathered nearby, fervently arguing their sides of the debate.

"My grandfather was not a monkey!" one woman shouted at a crowd before the meeting began.

Most mainstream scientists agree that weaknesses in the theory of evolution are flimsy at best. But proponents of retaining the rule complain that the standard will apply to all scientific theory while the political debate is focused on evolution.

"I'm very concerned that some of the State Board of Education members will weaken every discipline of science if they remove the strengths and weaknesses language," said Don McCall, an engineer and president of the Leander school board. "This is not about a narrow issue but about every discipline of science and engineering."

A panel of science teachers had recommended that the language be dropped. Board members are expected to propose amendments to try to change the proposal before they vote on Thursday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...WijT9AD975LCDG0

“Religious belief is fine. Evolution and God get along fine, but it doesn't belong in the classroom,” said Claire Wuellner from the Center for Inquiry.

The board is expected to vote by Friday and it could have implications reaching far beyond the state of Texas.

This is because Texas is a vast market for textbooks, and the publishers of those textbooks tend to write to Texas standards. If Texas changes the way it looks at the issue, other states will likely follow.

If it doesn't, Kirsten Matthews, who is a fellow for Science and Technology Policy at Rice University, says it could still have an impact on the science community.

“I think it will be hard to recruit researchers in Biology and the bio medical sciences at the Texas Medical Center, especially if we have a reputation for being anti-science,” said Matthews.

It isn't a case of religion having no place in our schools she says, just not in the science classroom.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/education/s...m.6ef9670c.html

[infinite_jim]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...n-texas-barely/

[crunchtastic]

"My grandfather was not a monkey!" one woman shouted at a crowd before the meeting began.

Too bad there wasn't a guy next to her dressed as Charleston Heston yelling "take your stinkin' paws off my home school textbooks, you damn dirty ape!"

Now that would make for good tv...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...n-texas-barely/

A 7 -7 vote? Jeez. Is that a win or a stay of execution?

[sevfiv]

Thanks for the vote update, infinite_jim.

Geez that was close! Final vote tomorrow...

[RedScare]

I have faith that the state that forces me to admit that I am neighbors with George W Bush and Rick Perry is not done with us yet. By this time tomorrow, I am quite confident that there will be one more thing about Texas that makes me cringe.

[Montrose1100]

This reminds me of the Family Guy where they mock Panic Room... Peter is telling stories, and the first one starts out with evolution. After he says "I'm obliged by the state of kansas to also tell the religious side" or something... anyways, I Dream of Genie comes out of the water, folds her arms, and blinks a bunch of animals one at a time. Then a man in a suit, a car, jesus, and santa, and they all put there hands together above their heads and move it side to side.

Hahaha!

Edit:

I think its so interesting to have both sides of completely different people, in such massive volumes. Hopefully, neither side will over step the boundries of Liberty, and Law... but I think it makes Texas unique. Conservatives & Hippies in Austin...

But that aside, I'm glad this will not be passed.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Montrose1100

[Fringe]

Isn't anyone worried that we have that many bible thumpers on the board trying to keep our science education constrained to the 1800's? Where's Darwin when you need him.

[crunchtastic]

Isn't anyone worried that we have that many bible thumpers on the board trying to keep our science education constrained to the 1800's?

I am. We are the intellectual laughing stock of the world because of stuff like this. I don't even want to consider how many children are being home schooled by the "I am not a monkey" fundies. Those poor kids are being robbed of a future.

[TheNiche]

I don't even want to consider how many children are being home schooled by the "I am not a monkey" fundies. Those poor kids are being robbed of a future.

Are they, really? Is the lack of mastery of a single (rather esoteric) concept of biology really going to rob them of a future? Was your career predicated on the reasoned understanding of how evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands of years? Somehow I doubt it.

I agree that fundies damage their kids, but I think that the greater damage is to their social skills. It's not a matter that I know how to solve, however. There will always be crappy parenting.

[lockmat]

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

[memebag]

Are they, really? Is the lack of mastery of a single (rather esoteric) concept of biology really going to rob them of a future? Was your career predicated on the reasoned understanding of how evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands of years? Somehow I doubt it.

But evolution isn't an esoteric biological concept. It's the only well understood mechanism for increasing order and complexity in physics. It's fundamental to understanding just about everything in biology, and increasingly important for understanding human psychology. It made life the way it is.

And when kids get to college it can be a problem if they bring a non-scientific stumbling block like creationism or intelligent design.

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

It isn't. It's important that kids be taught science in science class. I'm in favor of exposing kids to various creation myths, but do that in a comparative religion class. Science class is for testable theories, and evolution is a great example of those.

[Fringe]

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

I don't care who or what you believe in. It's a science course we are talking about. Not religious studies.

Edited March 27, 2009 by LunaticFringe

[HtownWxBoy]

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

It's not important. What's important is that you teach science, and only science, in the science classroom. You teach religion in the churches. Simple pimple.

[barracuda]

Are they, really? Is the lack of mastery of a single (rather esoteric) concept of biology really going to rob them of a future? Was your career predicated on the reasoned understanding of how evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands of years? Somehow I doubt it.

I agree that fundies damage their kids, but I think that the greater damage is to their social skills. It's not a matter that I know how to solve, however. There will always be crappy parenting.

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

Memebag answered this well, but let me add that biologists by and large consider biological evolution to be a fact. There is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. A tangible example for us laymen is antibiotic resistance, where once reliable antibiotics no longer work because the bacteria have evolved over time to survive against the medicine. It's not exactly an esoteric concept.

People can chose to be ignorant about evolution and get through life just fine, but I still think it's rather important that students understand the basics of evolution if they are to understand the world around them. But it's all the more important for anyone seeking a career in medicine or biology.

[HtownWxBoy]

What always amazed me is that there is so much evidence supporting evolution, and yet you have religious whackos say it's all wrong b/c there are some "missing pieces" or because it doesn't "explain everything". At the same time, is there any evidence to support what Christians believe? Any evidence the earth was created in 6 days... or that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve... or that there is a heavan and a hell?? Anything? Yet most if not all of them believe all of this 100%. This is what happens when you drink the kool-aid.

[barracuda]

What always amazed me is that there is so much evidence supporting evolution, and yet you have religious whackos say it's all wrong b/c there are some "missing pieces" or because it doesn't "explain everything". At the same time, is there any evidence to support what Christians believe? Any evidence the earth was created in 6 days... or that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve... or that there is a heavan and a hell?? Anything? Yet most if not all of them believe all of this 100%. This is what happens when you drink the kool-aid.

No, because they have a book that explains everything, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff

[Fringe]

[barracuda]

What always amazed me is that there is so much evidence supporting evolution, and yet you have religious whackos say it's all wrong b/c there are some "missing pieces" or because it doesn't "explain everything". At the same time, is there any evidence to support what Christians believe? Any evidence the earth was created in 6 days... or that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve... or that there is a heavan and a hell?? Anything? Yet most if not all of them believe all of this 100%. This is what happens when you drink the kool-aid.

Evidently, they also don't understand the scientific process, and they misunderstand what scientific theory means. Scientific theory has to be based on empirical evidence based on observation and experimentation. A scientific theory is not just some idea that somebody dreamed up.

There is a theory of gravity, which has also been observed and experimented and determined to be a fact. I don't hear anyone doubting that theory. Please, if you don't believe in these scientific theories, show some proof. Oh wait, that is what scientists do, and none has been able to disprove either one.

Edited March 27, 2009 by barracuda

[Montrose1100]

I am. We are the intellectual laughing stock of the world because of stuff like this. I don't even want to consider how many children are being home schooled by the "I am not a monkey" fundies. Those poor kids are being robbed of a future.

Have you ever watched 17/18 Kids & counting? They went to a "Creation Museum".. Had Adam & Eve sitting in the jungle with dinosaurs.

What always amazed me is that there is so much evidence supporting evolution, and yet you have religious whackos say it's all wrong b/c there are some "missing pieces" or because it doesn't "explain everything". At the same time, is there any evidence to support what Christians believe? Any evidence the earth was created in 6 days... or that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve... or that there is a heavan and a hell?? Anything? Yet most if not all of them believe all of this 100%. This is what happens when you drink the kool-aid.

I had a discussion with a professor at ACU (Abilene Christian University - Church of Christ), and he told me that a day to god could be millions of years for us. He also told me it would foolish for me to take these stories and not make up my own conclusion & ideas of what the story is teaching... Adam & Eve can mean many different things.

Of course, this was his views, not that of all Christians.

Did anyone see the Lucy Exhibit at the Museum of Natural Science? Quite the eye opener.

[crunchtastic]

I don't know, Niche, I don't believe I overstate the case. Based on what I've seen of fundie homeschooling, for these kids to eventually succeed at the highest level they are capable of intellectually, there is a whole lot reprogramming that has to be done. Like you said, they are also at a disadvantage socially and culturally. It's one thing for an adult to be willfully ignorant. To impose that on a developing child is wrong, IMO.

.....and actually, my knowledge of Darwin's work piqued my interest toward more in-depth study of emerging social sciences of the late 18th century (many of which grew out of the pioneering evolutionary theory). Which study in turn led me to have an affair with a professor who had been a student of a noted Harvard paleontologist who wrote a lot of books on the subject, which ultimately led to my first 'real' job because the professor's best friend was a lawyer whose wife was also a lawyer at a firm that was hiring. So, yes, I can say that there IS a connection between learning evolutionary theory and my career.

[Fringe]

blog Edited March 27, 2009 by LunaticFringe

[UrbaNerd]

Disclaimer: I have my own views on this subject that I shall not divulge on at this moment. No disrespect at all to people of faith, since I am one myself. Not a fundie though, so yea...

Edited March 27, 2009 by UrbaNerd

[lockmat]

Does evolution only argue the evolution of animals, insects etc and people or does it also argue for grass, trees and other living things?

What do evolutionists say about water, the earth, galaxies and other non-living things?

[memebag]

Does evolution only argue the evolution of animals, insects etc and people or does it also argue for grass, trees and other living things?

Evolution applies to any replicators that vary. That includes plants, animals, viruses, etc.

What do evolutionists say about water, the earth, galaxies and other non-living things?

If it replicates and varies, then it can evolve.

[lockmat]

If it replicates and varies, then it can evolve.

What do you mean by vary?

So you're saying evolution does not apply to the non-living things such as the earth, galaxies etc. What then do most evolutionists believe about them?

[memebag]

What do you mean by vary?

I mean change. When a cell divides, each strand of DNA becomes two, and there are variations between the original and the copies. If you watch me fold a paper airplane and fold one yourself, there will be variations.

So you're saying evolution does not apply to the non-living things such as the earth, galaxies etc. What then do most evolutionists believe about them?

First, there aren't really "evolutionists". Second, they believe whatever they believe. There is no dogma associated with evolution.

[lockmat]

First, there aren't really "evolutionists".

What do you mean? I simply was implying - people who believe in evolution. I was thinking that if they were in agreement on evolution they might also be on their thoughts of non-living matter...but I could be wrong for sure.

[TheNiche]

But evolution isn't an esoteric biological concept. It's the only well understood mechanism for increasing order and complexity in physics. It's fundamental to understanding just about everything in biology, and increasingly important for understanding human psychology. It made life the way it is.

And when kids get to college it can be a problem if they bring a non-scientific stumbling block like creationism or intelligent design.

They don't have to believe it to be able to answer the questions correctly on tests. Frankly, it isn't like a typical high school graduate knows that much about evolution, anyways. Relative to their peers, there's not a whole lot of missing material to make up for.

I'd agree that a religion-based dismissal of evolution is not conducive to some career paths. That doesn't mean that a kid is "being robbed of a future," though. There's more than one way to make a living, and most of them don't require an application of the biological concept of evolution.

[TheNiche]

Memebag answered this well, but let me add that biologists by and large consider biological evolution to be a fact. There is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. A tangible example for us laymen is antibiotic resistance, where once reliable antibiotics no longer work because the bacteria have evolved over time to survive against the medicine. It's not exactly an esoteric concept.

People can chose to be ignorant about evolution and get through life just fine, but I still think it's rather important that students understand the basics of evolution if they are to understand the world around them. But it's all the more important for anyone seeking a career in medicine or biology.

Those biologists aren't very good scientists, then. A fact is an objective verifiable observation; a theory is a tested hypothesis that attempts to interpret the facts. The term "theory" is as appropriate for evolution as it is for cell theory, number theory, or the theory of plate tectonics.

I'm a strong proponent of requiring that people who major in natural sciences be required to take a course in the Philosophy of Science.

[TheNiche]

I don't know, Niche, I don't believe I overstate the case. Based on what I've seen of fundie homeschooling, for these kids to eventually succeed at the highest level they are capable of intellectually, there is a whole lot reprogramming that has to be done. Like you said, they are also at a disadvantage socially and culturally. It's one thing for an adult to be willfully ignorant. To impose that on a developing child is wrong, IMO.

I've seen a few examples, and they're all over the map. Some obediently grow up just the way their parents intended, others go way off into left field.

I've got a cousin who votes Libertarian/Constitution Party every chance he gets and has memebag's career and personality, and he's been dating the home-schooled offspring of fundie parents for nearly a year. She's actually a bright girl, and very nice...though, like I've suggested, her social skills aren't very advanced. She was raised not to have premarital sex or to use birth control, but by all counts, it didn't take. She was also denied the opportunity to apply for college when she was a minor; that didn't hold her back, either, as soon as she made her own decisions. They make a good couple.

...you can lead a horse to water...

.....and actually, my knowledge of Darwin's work piqued my interest toward more in-depth study of emerging social sciences of the late 18th century (many of which grew out of the pioneering evolutionary theory). Which study in turn led me to have an affair with a professor who had been a student of a noted Harvard paleontologist who wrote a lot of books on the subject, which ultimately led to my first 'real' job because the professor's best friend was a lawyer whose wife was also a lawyer at a firm that was hiring. So, yes, I can say that there IS a connection between learning evolutionary theory and my career.

So you ended up working for a law firm for some period of time...but not anymore. It is not your career. Your example doesn't qualify.

Also, why do you suppose that the home-schooled child of fundie parents wouldn't become interested in some other kind of study, boink their professor, and by chance develop a career out of that? And if you don't think that kids raised as fundies won't go around boinking people once they're away from home, think again.

[memebag]

What do you mean? I simply was implying - people who believe in evolution. I was thinking that if they were in agreement on evolution they might also be on their thoughts of non-living matter...but I could be wrong for sure.

I mean I've never met an "evolutionist". It isn't a faith or a belief. It's a theory that's been tested and verified for 150 years. It's just part of current scientific knowledge.

[barracuda]

Those biologists aren't very good scientists, then. A fact is an objective verifiable observation; a theory is a tested hypothesis that attempts to interpret the facts. The term "theory" is as appropriate for evolution as it is for cell theory, number theory, or the theory of plate tectonics.

I'm a strong proponent of requiring that people who major in natural sciences be required to take a course in the Philosophy of Science.

A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence requires verifiable observation and experimentation.

--> That sounds just like your definition of a fact.

[Heights2Bastrop]

What do you mean by vary?

So you're saying evolution does not apply to the non-living things such as the earth, galaxies etc. What then do most evolutionists believe about them?

Lockmat, that

[memebag]

My opinion is that Evolution only deals with living things - carbon-based molecules infused with electrical energy.

It actually applies to anything that replicates (or is replicated) with variation (i.e. the copies aren't perfect). It's pretty easy to create software that evolves, for instance. The first part of my nickname comes from Richard Dawkins' attempt to explain how evolution can be generalized to anything that has slightly imperfect copies. Lee Smolin and Leonard Susskind have put forth theories applying evolution to universe formation and string theory, respectively.

[Don Julio]

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

This is the equivalent of asking why, if you 'believe' in germ theory, why is it important to you that others believe the same?

Modern biology begins with the theory of evolution. If you wish to live in pre-1859 conditions, that's up to you. But I hope you never have to go to a hospital. While you're at it, you might want to start protesting outside Baylor College of Medicine. They teach post-1859 science heavily indebted to Darwin's theories. You will also look like the biggest fool in the world.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Don Julio

[Don Julio]

...but I could be wrong for sure.

That's the smartest thing you've said all day.

[Don Julio]

What do you mean by vary?

Maybe you should actually try to learn something about the theory of evolution before posting?

Here's a great introduction to the subject. Please read it.

[TheNiche]

A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence requires verifiable observation and experimentation.

--> That sounds just like your definition of a fact.

I believe you're misunderstanding my point.

A scientific theory is an interpretation of empirical evidence. For instance, one can observe, measure, and describe that the sky is blue. In so doing, you have gathered factual evidence that may contribute to a theory drawing from other factual evidence which would explain why the sky is blue. The evidence is fact; the interpretation is theory.

Likewise, one can observe, measure, and describe the patterns of reproduction and heredity among a large sample of a species. A truthful statement that describes the data available is a fact, however at that level, is subject to a chaotic variety of outcomes, all of which must be described probabilistically. A complete statement of fact regarding such a large and chaotic data set would be difficult to articulate concisely, much less be understood by a layman. There are also plenty of assumptions to contend with, for instance that the very act of observing did not interfere with the normal mating behavior. If you put all of this information out there, that is a scientific fact. An interpretation of the fact is theory.

Even if all of the evidence available to us supports the theory, that does not mean that all conceivable forms of evidence have been observed; we may not even know enough to look for some kind of evidence, or to include it as a facet of the interpretation if it were right under our noses. Take as an example the study of astronomy between ancient Greece and Copernicus. Astronomers during that time kept on identifying new heavenly bodies which moved through the sky predictably, and they just kept adding on to Ptolemy's theory about spheres to the point that the bloated theory became comically absurd--but still mathematically correct and widely accepted as fact. The demise of Newtonian physics in favor of Einstein's modern physics is not at all absurd but is another good example.

One of the conditions for having a sound scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable...that is in addition to it being testable, as you mentioned. Only very basic concepts are allowed to be axioms, such as that in mathematics, a=a. And the concept of a theorem is only useful in a closed system; it is basically useless within the epistemology of science. When a theory advocated by a scientist with such fervor as he would close his mind to even the possibility of contradictory evidence by pronouncing a theory is fact, that is a profound irony. That person has in effect renounced science and embraced faith. ...only that kind of person doesn't even recognize himself as espousing faith, whereas fundies readily admit it. Which is the superior mind?

...but I could be wrong for sure.

That's the smartest thing you've said all day.

It's the smartest thing ever stated on this forum.

I took an introductory logic course at a community college when I was a senior in high school, then got heavily into physics and philosophy. Try reading Godel's Proof, shown below.

Edited March 28, 2009 by TheNiche

[Don Julio]

Education board OKs standards for teaching evolution

By APRIL CASTRO Associated Press

March 27, 2009, 7:02PM

AUSTIN -- State education leaders forged a compromise Friday on the teaching of evolution in Texas, adopting a new science curriculum that no longer requires educators to teach the weaknesses of all scientific theories.

The State Board of Education voted 13-2 to put in place a plan that would instead require teachers to encourage students to scrutinize

[memebag]

That's the smartest thing you've said all day.

Please don't pile on lockmat. He's trying.

Lockmat: I highly recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. He has a knack for explaining this stuff.

[HtownWxBoy]

No, because they have a book that explains everything, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff

A yes... the good book.

[HtownWxBoy]

I had a discussion with a professor at ACU (Abilene Christian University - Church of Christ), and he told me that a day to god could be millions of years for us. He also told me it would foolish for me to take these stories and not make up my own conclusion & ideas of what the story is teaching... Adam & Eve can mean many different things.

Of course, this was his views, not that of all Christians.

When I was in college I remember one day sitting in one of the public dining areas and this boy came up to me... he attended a Christian college near mine and was basically just going around "preaching". I tried being nice and let him talk and calmly discussed my views, etc. He brought up evolution and his argument was... "if evolution is real, how come we and other animals are not still evolving... why can't we see it happening?". I explained to him (being the good scientist that I am) that evolution happens over long periods of time... sometimes millions of years... and that we can't see it and that we are still evolving. After going into more detail and explaining things he got this look on his face like... "oh my god you might be right, how could I be so stupid". He didn't say anything, but I actually felt a little bad afterwards... I wondered if he went back to his Christian school and dropped out.

[ihop]

What do you mean by vary?

So you're saying evolution does not apply to the non-living things such as the earth, galaxies etc. What then do most evolutionists believe about them?

Evolution isn't an -ism, it's not a belief people subscribe to as a result of faith. People who study evolution are usually evolutionary biologists. Physicists/Astronomers study space and bodies in space, geologists study the earth and its history.

Evolutionary biology & geology are very closely related, because the fossil record helps Geologists understand the history of the Earth, how it formed, and how it has changed since its formation. Geology which gives information about things like the composition of the atmosphere, composition of the ocean, and various catastrophic events over the span of the Earth's history that help Biologists understand evolution.

And as has been stated, people want evolution taught in science books and not creationism or ID because one is science and the others aren't. Creationism & ID presuppose the answers instead of coming to them through use of the scientific method. They'd be more appropriate for a philosophy class or an existential discussion. So people who believe in evolution are much more likely to stop believing in it, should overwhelming scientific evidence against it be provided.

[houstonmacbro]

He didn't say anything, but I actually felt a little bad afterwards... I wondered if he went back to his Christian school and dropped out.

No, he's probably just really, really confused still.

[TheNiche]

Evolution isn't an -ism, it's not a belief people subscribe to as a result of faith.

A belief in evolution can be based in faith if it is presented as an incontrovertible fact rather than as a theoretical interpretation of extremely robust (but not by any means exhaustive) scientific evidence.

[ihop]

A belief in evolution can be based in faith if it is presented as an incontrovertible fact rather than as a theoretical interpretation of extremely robust (but not by any means exhaustive) scientific evidence.

It can, as can any belief. But in the case of evolution I'd say that's the exception, rather than the rule. And I'd say it's a reasonable distinction to make given the context of evolution being taught in science classes.

Edited March 28, 2009 by ihop

[TheNiche]

It can, as can any belief. But in the case of evolution I'd say that's the exception, rather than the rule. And I'd say it's a reasonable distinction to make given the context of evolution being taught in science classes.

I don't understand that. Would you please clarify?

[ihop]

I'm saying belief in evolution that is based in faith is the exception, rather than the rule.

[TheNiche]

I'm saying belief in evolution that is based in faith is the exception, rather than the rule.

That's clear enough, but how common are the exceptions? Barracuda stated earlier that, "biologists by and large consider biological evolution to be a fact." Is that only 1% of biologists, just dispersed around the world? Or is the number 20%? Or 49%? Or is the exception the majority? I honestly don't know.

[skyphen]

Wow, they even have their own special names for colors! Would "Flesh of Christ" translate to "peach" in non-Fundie Land, aka the secular world?