Just last night, while helping my eighth-grader with her Science homework, I was dismayed to see how pervasive the creationist/ID influence is, and the extent to which subtle little “roadblocks” are put between young minds and the truths of the origins of life – even in a life science class.
Her worksheet was, essentially, full of true/false questions, but it was couched in a very peculiar way: statements such as “Life evolved from earlier, less advanced forms of life” and “The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old” were to be checked off IF they “matched the information printed in the textbook.”:rolleyes:
In other words, calling them “true”, and asking the children to assert this in writing, just seems to go one step farther than the pinheads who keep trying to shove ID into the science class are willing to go. So, we’re left with the charade of a watered-down worksheet purporting to “teach evolution” but in reality we’ve let the theists who dominate the school boards turn it into a “matching game” in which all we’re getting the kids to agree to is that the statement on the paper matches the statement in the book.
Anything to avoid taking that next, logical, step, I guess.
I loath the idea that religious fundamentalists are continually trying to push religion into public schools one way or another. The ID/C is just their most likely way to get it to happen. ID isn’t science, and if the idea is to promote a pluratlity, than why aren’t they pushing for other creation stories to be taught as well?
OTOH, when I was a kid I would have loved to have learned ID. Imagine the tests, every answer would be “It’s the way that God wanted it”.
As if you need to be told, the existence of a debate over whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old, or whether evolution provides a detailed and durable explanation of the fossil record , is why the rest of the world thinks that the US is a little odd.
Carrying that logic farther, why would an INTELLIGENT designer engineer my Golden Retriever to enthusiastically eat the rabbit droppings that he encounters in his back yard?
Although, I guess I can see the same guy who “makes dead stars just for fun” and faking us all out with the Grand Canyon getting a certain kick out of watching dogs eat rabbit poop…
This is a highly contentious issue, and one that is heavily debated here at the Straight Dope.
I, for one, believe that Eureka is actually a male, but is suffering from a highly unusual mental condition that causes him to claim that he is a person of the feminine persuasion. Other followers of ECM (Eureka’s a Crazy Man-person) and myself are deeply concerned by the frequent mischaracterizations of the idea that Eureka is actually female as fact instead of mere opinion.
Eureka may subscribe to the theory that he’s a female, but our equally valid position deserves just as much consideration and attention from fellow Dopers.
Hang in there, Eureka. We’re hoping you’ll get better soon.
#1 can not be proven scientifically, so we won’t talk about it. #2 doesn’t answer any questions. It just pushes the beginning back further, so we won’t talk about it. We’re going to focus on #3, since it explains things the best as we know them. If you want to discuss #1 at length, sign up for a philosophy class.
This way it gets mentioned and he explains why he is not going to go into it. This is how I would like to see all Biology teachers go about it.
ambushed: two of the members of the board of NESC have divinity degrees, and one of them is actively working on exactly what I have described what needs to be done to bridge the gap between the study of evolution and faiths that are now hostile to the theory.
Science is not the be all and end all of the pursuit of knowledge. Even scientists tell you that. Without faith that the Divine will show the truth when they are ready, there is no perseverance in any field, which is as crucial to scientific discovery as ‘Eureka!’ That is where the compatibility that eludes you comes in.
There’s no other known way to reach knowledge than science. It’s not knowledge just because someone’s convinced it’s true. Perhaps one day, science will show the way to an even better way to examine and understand the world.
TVAA, I am trying to determine what your “diagnosis” of me as a crazy man says about your gender, especially in light of the ongoing thread on that subject. If I succeed I will probably post it in that thread, but don’t hold your breath.
capacitor I am really flattered that you think I am so incredibly vital to scientific discoveries.
Sorry, if that part of your post hadn’t been quoted twice before I read your post I might have been able to resist(or more likely failed to see my name at all).
Irrelevant. You asserted that “Evolution should be treated as a logical extension of faith”, which is as patently false or at the very least wildly misleading as anything I’ve ever read! If someone there actually agreed with you on that (rather than merely making polite non-committal noises), please tell me who it was so I can ask him or her if that’s what they actually meant and, if so, on what grounds they can justify such a spectacularly dubious assertion. I’d honestly like to understand just what they’re trying to claim, so please let me know who to email over there. Thanks!
True. It’s simply the only way to try to acquire genuine and reliable knowledge about the real Universe. Even scientists tell you that.
Ubboy…
Ur, eh, uh…
Can I at least ask when the “Divine” will be ready to reveal to the Creationists and ID’ers that they should not “persevere” with their blatantly anti-truth and anti-science dogma?
I don’t see anything wrong with mentioning creationism and ID in a science class, any more than earlier models of the atom are discussed, even though they are false or not as useful as models as newer ones are. However, demanding equal time for treatment of creationism and ID, and acting as if they are competing scientific theories, is wrong and unhelpful to students. It undermines the basic scientific principles that should be the foundation of science classes in the first place. We don’t, for instance, demand “equal time” presenting an Earth-centric solar system. Nor are there petitions requesting that creation theories of other religions, dead or alive, be taught as possibilities.
I remember that in my HS days, there were theories presented in textbooksabout, for instance, quantum mechanics, as though they were not only the prevailing theory, but the only one acceptable. Later I was irked to discover that there were other explanations for the same phenemona that were equally plausible (so far) and supported by experimentation. If textbooks and teachers are unable to handle competing valid theories, why muddle things further and waste classroom time by introducing religious viewpoints that have little to no basis in science? There aren’t enough days in the school calendar.
Furthermore, I am a semi-religious Christian. I don’t believe in a literal translation of the Bible, especially Genesis, FWIW. Regardless, I don’t expect my child to learn about religious doctrine in school. Unless I sent my child to a private school (my particular flavor of Christianity has very few parochial schools), I wouldn’t trust a random teacher to instruct my children about those matters in the way I prefer, anyway.
