How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

who's 'beery'? .. but i do not know who you were replying to: if it was me : why do you call me 'beery'?

I meant you; it was just a nickname I came up with from the "beer" part of "Butterbeer". Like Nicky for Nick, etc., I just did Beer-y just for fun. I hope it doesn't mean anything bad over there!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

generally it means an alcoholic!!

[Butterbeer]

kind of a negative perception really .... implies character assasination or that you cannot therefore take or give any credence to what that person says or has posted ..... an attempt to sully or negate their opinion or the validity of their points or standpoint .... etc ..... to imply a form of moral corruption and thus attempt to taint or tar with unsaid and subtle ridicule.

[Rían]

Oh, sorry! I had no idea!

I certainly didn't mean that - I was just making a nickname for you.

[Butterbeer]

*hiccups*

No problem.

BB is fine with me!

best
BB

[Rían]

'K, BB!

[Rían]

I'm finding this fascinating!

The idea of teaching the whole truth about the theory of evolution (i.e., the areas where there are some problems) is really gaining some momentum, with Kansas as the current head. Some of the media coverage has just been insane, complete with name-calling ("pinheads") about people who actually want to give students MORE information about evolution. The Kansas school board does NOT even want to include "alternate" theories like ID, creationism, etc. - it just wants to include some scientific info on some of the problems that the theory of evolution currently doesn't handle well - and yet they get excoriated and ridiculed

I'll gather some more info over the next week or so as I get the time, but here's a start - the proposed revisions are here. I especially like page 9, where they discuss historical hypotheses - I think it is very well explained and written, and certainly undeniably true.

http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Pro...Sstandards.pdf

You go, Kansans!! I'm all for more info for those students!

[Rían]

I'm finding this fascinating!

The idea of teaching the whole truth about the theory of evolution (i.e., the areas where there are some problems) is really gaining some momentum, with Kansas as the current head. Some of the media coverage has just been insane, complete with name-calling ("pinheads") about people who actually want to give students MORE information about evolution. The Kansas school board does NOT even want to include "alternate" theories like ID, creationism, etc. - it just wants to include some scientific info on some of the problems that the theory of evolution currently doesn't handle well - and yet they get excoriated and ridiculed

I'll gather some more info over the next week or so as I get the time, but here's a start - the proposed revisions are here. I especially like page 9, where they discuss historical hypotheses - I think it is very well explained and written, and certainly undeniably true.

http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Pro...Sstandards.pdf

You go, Kansans!! I'm all for more info for those students!

[Lief Erikson]

How old are Kansas students when they're taught about evolution?

[Lief Erikson]

How old are Kansas students when they're taught about evolution?

[Rían]

Here is an excellent, excellent letter, IMHO, from a member of the (hang on, reference coming)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...d=view&id=2568

Really objective and truthful, IMO.

Lief - I believe it covers from 7th to 12th grade - there's info regarding changes made in the different grades. I need to read more, though.

[Rían]

Here is an excellent, excellent letter, IMHO, from a member of the (hang on, reference coming)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...d=view&id=2568

Really objective and truthful, IMO.

Lief - I believe it covers from 7th to 12th grade - there's info regarding changes made in the different grades. I need to read more, though.

[Rían]

(the letter is so good that I"m quoting it here, instead of having people follow the link.)

An Open Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education

By: Dr. Philip S. Skell
Dr. Philip S. Skell
May 12, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University.

May 12, 2005

Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933

Dear Dr. Abrams:

I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

Now can ANYONE here object to what this guy is saying, and if so, why?

[Rían]

(the letter is so good that I"m quoting it here, instead of having people follow the link.)

An Open Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education

By: Dr. Philip S. Skell
Dr. Philip S. Skell
May 12, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University.

May 12, 2005

Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933

Dear Dr. Abrams:

I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

Now can ANYONE here object to what this guy is saying, and if so, why?

[Draken]

I have no objection at all with the United States of America voluntarily becoming a nation of sub-scientific dullards at the behest of ranting 'christian' mullahs. In fact it is refreshingly different to see: past civilisations fought to hold onto their Golden Ages to the very last before descending into Dark Ages - whereas in the USA a lot of money is being spent on slick campaigns to actually hasten this about.

People like Skell know very well that few scientists would claim ANY theory is perfect and without controversial elements. It is the nature of scientific method to focus on problem areas and seek better understanding. However, there is a long-running and well-organised scam to undermine the USA's ban on teaching religion in schools - hence the campaign of misinformation (and let's face it, lies) directed at this one theory in particular. This is nothing to do with science, or 'seeing both sides of the argument' - and ALL about religion - and a rather primitive take on religion at that. As even the USA's remarkable scientific and technical advancement of the last century has not impinged upon the power base of churches that elsewhere in the world would be regarded as lunatic fringe cults, this campaign has gained ground.

As the theory of evolution is no more controversial than many other scientific theories why not cut to the chase and stop teaching ANY science as fact? And once you've surrendered your lead in knowledge-based industries and turned out a generation of scientific sub-literates, concentrate on teaching Chinese instead. You'll be needing it.

[Draken]

I have no objection at all with the United States of America voluntarily becoming a nation of sub-scientific dullards at the behest of ranting 'christian' mullahs. In fact it is refreshingly different to see: past civilisations fought to hold onto their Golden Ages to the very last before descending into Dark Ages - whereas in the USA a lot of money is being spent on slick campaigns to actually hasten this about.

People like Skell know very well that few scientists would claim ANY theory is perfect and without controversial elements. It is the nature of scientific method to focus on problem areas and seek better understanding. However, there is a long-running and well-organised scam to undermine the USA's ban on teaching religion in schools - hence the campaign of misinformation (and let's face it, lies) directed at this one theory in particular. This is nothing to do with science, or 'seeing both sides of the argument' - and ALL about religion - and a rather primitive take on religion at that. As even the USA's remarkable scientific and technical advancement of the last century has not impinged upon the power base of churches that elsewhere in the world would be regarded as lunatic fringe cults, this campaign has gained ground.

As the theory of evolution is no more controversial than many other scientific theories why not cut to the chase and stop teaching ANY science as fact? And once you've surrendered your lead in knowledge-based industries and turned out a generation of scientific sub-literates, concentrate on teaching Chinese instead. You'll be needing it.

[The Gaffer]

LOL.

My question would be: what is the right time, from an educational perspective, to introduce such critiques?

I remember learning chemistry, in which almost everything that we'd done up to "O" Grade (age 15/16) was ditched when we went on to the quantum stuff for Highers (age 16/17). A lot of anomalies, like approximate atomic weights, weird patterns in the periodic table, etc, were explained.

The point is, much of what we learn involves starting with simple stuff that we can get our heads around and then moves onto the complex stuff that turns it all on its head.

If you're going to teach a biological theory, I would say there is no (pedagogical) point in starting by saying how geological remains from anomalous substrata show conflicting evidence regarding the validity of carbon-14 verification techniques.

[The Gaffer]

LOL.

My question would be: what is the right time, from an educational perspective, to introduce such critiques?

I remember learning chemistry, in which almost everything that we'd done up to "O" Grade (age 15/16) was ditched when we went on to the quantum stuff for Highers (age 16/17). A lot of anomalies, like approximate atomic weights, weird patterns in the periodic table, etc, were explained.

The point is, much of what we learn involves starting with simple stuff that we can get our heads around and then moves onto the complex stuff that turns it all on its head.

If you're going to teach a biological theory, I would say there is no (pedagogical) point in starting by saying how geological remains from anomalous substrata show conflicting evidence regarding the validity of carbon-14 verification techniques.

[brownjenkins]

interesting... as i've said in the past, i've always thought that comparitive religions should be required subject matter probably from about 6th grade and on... and obviously, not just christianity... religion is a big part of the adult world, and the more you know about all the kinds that exist out there the better

that said, i'd probably keep excessive amounts of creationist theory out of the classroom (and excessive amounts of evolution for that matter)... even when i was in the middle grades, in the late 70s and in the "liberal" northeast, we learned about evolution and we also learned about the basics of creationism (both were mentioned respectfully in our textbooks and clearly presented as theories)... but honestly, the entire subject, from both sides, maybe took a week or two tops

there is an awful lot to learn in the realm of science, so you really have to streamline presentations to students... and you also have to be sure to present theories in a way that allows them to make their own decisions and maybe even own theories as they understand... remember, one theory being wrong, in whole or in part, does not make another theory right... for all we know, there may be a third theory no one has considered yet that clears up a lot of the issues we see today

so basically, i'd say it's best to lighten up a bit on both sides and not concentrate so intently on what is really a rather small part of what you learn about science during your school years

[brownjenkins]

interesting... as i've said in the past, i've always thought that comparitive religions should be required subject matter probably from about 6th grade and on... and obviously, not just christianity... religion is a big part of the adult world, and the more you know about all the kinds that exist out there the better

that said, i'd probably keep excessive amounts of creationist theory out of the classroom (and excessive amounts of evolution for that matter)... even when i was in the middle grades, in the late 70s and in the "liberal" northeast, we learned about evolution and we also learned about the basics of creationism (both were mentioned respectfully in our textbooks and clearly presented as theories)... but honestly, the entire subject, from both sides, maybe took a week or two tops

there is an awful lot to learn in the realm of science, so you really have to streamline presentations to students... and you also have to be sure to present theories in a way that allows them to make their own decisions and maybe even own theories as they understand... remember, one theory being wrong, in whole or in part, does not make another theory right... for all we know, there may be a third theory no one has considered yet that clears up a lot of the issues we see today

so basically, i'd say it's best to lighten up a bit on both sides and not concentrate so intently on what is really a rather small part of what you learn about science during your school years