I’ll skip forward a few posts to answer this one because I think this will be quick.
I don’t agree with you on this. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough.
The religionists say “Teach the Controversy” where they really mean “Give Equal time and equal credence to Evolution and Genesis”. That’s not at all what I would do.
In any science class I would teach, “Teach the Controversy” would mean: Spend a little bit (not a whole lot) of time comparing/contrasting the scientific vs YEC views, with a strong slant towards emphasizing the critical thinking – really, a somewhat indirect way to push students towards the scientific view without coming right out and saying so (although I would probably end up doing that too). My “teaching of the controversy” would hardly be – how they might say – “fair and balanced”
Is that any better?
Is it pandering to the religionists to even acknowledge that their view exists and discussing it, even it primarily to reject that in a scientific class?
I kind of have a problem with that kind of language. There, you subtly portray evolution as a progressive process that was working its way to us (through the use of “primitive”). I know it is a bit nitpicky, but it is kind of a non-trivial issue. I mean, spirochetes were not exactly primitive, they did a fine job of giving humans syphilis, for centuries or millennia on end. Then we discovered antibiotics, and some of us failed to use them properly, resulting in the evolution of resistant strains, which was forced upon these happy-go-lucky beings.
That, for one, is a really good reason for people to understand the basic concept.
But the concept is not that evolution itself is progressive. It requires change in the environment for change in species, which seems to me like an important part of the lesson.
Where the JWs and others cause a problem is where they define us as the unique creation of the deity, not so much beholden to nature but special beings created in the image of the creator. Teaching progressive evolution that converges upon us is fraught with similar pitfalls.
Those fields also include GMOs, once again they are issues where the ignorance of evolution only gives us a lot of NIMBY and hence the reference to the monkey wrenches I was talking about, everybody is affected by the ignorance that shows when educators are threatened with nonsense like “teaching the controversy” or creationists that attempt to use local elections to put creationists in school boards.
IMHO the ignorance on this subject only multiplies the number of opportunities that are missed, not only for the individual that ignores evolution, but also for all the others that have to endure how ignorance can prevent many from finding progress that will benefit all of us.
My argument is: Aside from teaching the actual hard science (which, of course, a science class would do), is to focus on the critical thinking skills. This is certainly a much-mentioned idea, hardly an original concept on my part.
If we succeed in teaching critical thinking, and the student succeeds in learning it, then that is the best we can hope for towards Jefferson’s educated citizenry, who can participate in a healthy democracy.
Now, to be sure, we would get some hard-core religious fundies in our classes. What should we do with them? Flunk them out, maybe, for for the right reasons. If they can be taught to distinguish good arguments, and recognize and reject “goofy” arguments (as jsgoddess put it), they might grow out of their hard-core fundamentalism. If so, success! (from the STEM point of view).
What more should we expect or require? I don’t want to force students to outrightly disavow their religious beliefs (as in Post #4, first question, admittedly an over-simplified example to make the point). But, we could give assignments and projects that require critical thinking and correct knowledge to do well.
To be sure, I suppose a committed fundie could fake it and do well on such projects, get his A, get his degree, and then go on to become a Climate Denialist Expert Scientist :smack:
What more could/should we do in the schools to counter that? Should we force the committed religionists to renounce their faith to pass our tests, as vivalostwages seems to feel okay about?
I feel fairly confident that rather few committed fundies, if they insist on their YEC-style beliefs, would go far in classes where things like evolution are important. But I argue that if we just teach the facts and the theory and the critical thinking, then hopefully some of them will outgrow their fundiism and, even if they keep their faith, with adopt more defensible views (like the “Six Ages” idea and God driving evolution by tweaking things).
Either way I phrase the question, the student could always parrot the right answer (of course, he knows what answer I want), no matter what he believes.
But I don’t want to force students to have to choose to renounce their beliefs just to demonstrate to me that they know the right answer (which the first question does and the second question doesn’t). Basically, if the student really thinks he’ll be damned if he renounces his beliefs, then question #1 screws him no matter how he answers, but question #2 has a right answer that he can give in (his) good conscience. Assuming he’s smart enough to understand the question that way.
I am trusting that if the student actually learns enough of the “right answers” about evolution, he will sort-of have to come to accept it – knowing full well, of course, that some students won’t. Can’t win 'em all.
But I’m not sure I want to grade a YEC-style student based on their decision to give up their religious belief. For the purposes of an academic class, I think I just want to grade them on their demonstrated knowledge of the facts, evidence, and theory.
IMO this involves the power of the consumer, many times I have seen progress made when patients (that have to have lots of money too) do investigate other avenues to find a cure or a better solution for an ailment, but if the patient already ignores evolution he/she will therefore miss many solutions that would be available.
The point was, for education purposes, that modern medicine is bumping into many issues that could be solved by applying evolution theory. And that is one big fat reason why the student should learn evolution.
This is what I’m saying, and it does matter because many patients will choose according to what they do believe, and one of the items that you are missing is that I’m also talking about doctors and researchers that right now wilfully ignore evolution.
It is like a multiplier effect that does affect us all IMHO.
Here, I think you’re nit-picking a bit on the specific sample question I posed, which is a bit beside the points I’m trying to make. I deliberately chose over-simplified questions (true/false questions being, in general, over-simplified by their nature) there to keep the focus on the real topic: That one question demands that a fundamentalist student renounce his belief to demonstrate that he has learned the subject matter, and the other question allows the student to show his mastery of the subject without having to put his religious belief behind it.
Yes, to be sure, the specific sample question I gave is petty to the point of being a bit screwy. IRL, I’d probably have more short-essay sort of questions where the student would have to put things in his own words, and die-hard YEC apologists probably wouldn’t be able to get far with that.
Figure out a way to teach it backwards. Start with moths and bacteria and things we have recently observed, the real evidence that it is happening. Then work backward to the Galapagos (Darwin did not write On the Origin from studying dinosaur fossils, after all). The last part of the class you can delve into paleontology, letting the enthusiastic students lead the charge (I am not a teacher, in case that sounds stupid). Focus on adaptation and selection and make it about the process, not the specifics (as in, I would much rather know why Agincourt happened, not the exact date). Then you can grade on how well the students understand what you have taught (the how part) without forcing them to agree on the details.
ETA, well, crap, you just said what I just said. Ninja’d.
People grossly overestimate how important it is. As a scientist myself, and as a student of evolution, I think it is one of the most fascinating things one can learn about. But in everyday life, it’s about as important as being able to do differential equations.
Time and time again I’ve seen on this MB supposedly “smart” people who think they understand evolution show that they really don’t. It’s not especially intuitive, but everybody think he’s an expert at it.
Because the anti-evolution crowd is is vocal and so strident in their efforts to purge it from the curriculum, there is a tendency to want to inflate its importance. That is not to say that we shouldn’t fight against the ignorance that drives these people, but let’s stick to the facts. We want our kids to learn how the world works, and not depend on some mythical explanation. But very few people in the US understand the least bit about evolution, and they do just fine in their daily lives. And I’m including the pro-evolution crowd in that as well.
On an individual level, it probably doesn’t matter much if most people don’t believe in evolution.
But at a population level, I’d say it’s important. The 1% for which the belief does matter has to survive among the remainder. And if the other 99% believes the 1% is evil and immoral because their beliefs go against the dominant religion, then the 1% is going to at best have a hard time gaining support for their work. And of course the worst case is everything that you might imagine.
STEM workers need a supportive environment to work in. To the average person, it doesn’t really matter if the moon is made of green cheese. But we’d never have made it to the moon if most Americans believed in that.
These debates tend to focus on empiricism or respecting scientific rigor or how it impacts various fields.
Personally, I think it’s important for people to understand humanity’s place in the universe. People who don’t believe in evolution tend to believe humanity is above and apart from nature. I don’t think this is helpful for solving so many of the problems facing us.
You say you want students to learn these things, and I am asking how will you know they have learned them if not by what they end up thinking after you’ve explained it all?
I think the answer is that you do not teach evolution prior to the mastery of critical thinking and basic science concepts.
Most students do not even really understand what a theory is, from a scientific point of view. They also need stronger math skills so they can fully appreciate basic concepts and how they are derived.
Ideally, science should start with physics (and the necessary math), then chemistry, and only then can you fully appreciate and conceptualize biology.
Unfortunately, that’s not how we do it, and in the current “teaching to the test” environment, critical thinking is not the priority anyway.
Darwin hated the term Evolution, it implied life improved as time passed. He never believed so. He preferred Specialization Though Natural Selection, life adapts to fill specific niches in environments it finds.
It’s just not catchy, truth is often in the nuance and that is just easier to ignore.
Is it okay for medical students to believe that illnesses are caused by magic spells or evil curses? Is it okay for meteorologists to believe that a storm is caused by malevolent gods punishing a region for homosexuality? Is it okay for psych students to believe that mental illness is caused by demonic possession?
Sure it would be harmless in and of itself for someone to hold such an outmoded view of the world. But do you want a boss who thinks that you’re influenced by demons when you disagree with him? There are negative spin-off effects when someone in a position of some power or responsibility holds such an outdated and twisted view of reality.
I’m always a little horrified when a senator or rep speaks out against evolution theory at a national forum of some kind. I’m always hoping that they’re just doing it to suck up to their home audience and aren’t really making national policy decisions based on personal ignorance of that magnitude.
That’s pretty much where I stand on this issue. Evolution itself is barely a blip on the radar of most people’s daily life. It’s not something that comes up, or influences things when one’s job doesn’t have to do with the biological world. Whether we’re man or ape doesn’t really impact double entry book-keeping, does it ?
However, the mindset that would earnestly challenge the theory of evolution (assuming they’re anywhere in the vicinity of grokking what it actually is), not just out of tribal fitting-in but because they genuinely buy that particular brand of kool-aid implicitly involves a vast uncharted kindgom of What The Fuck lying around, under and on top of that particular litmus test. At the very least it implies a discrete albeit gigantic blind spot in one’s critical thought process - namely, the inerrancy of the Bible as a factual account.
I’m all for doubt, skepticism and challenging authority figures. But this particular doubt is actually an iron-cast *lack *of doubt trying to pass for the genuine article. Because let’s be fair here : the “controversy” is not between the theory of evolution and another valid scientific model that could explain all the facts. It’s between the theory of evolution and the theory of A Wizard Did It. And there’s no telling how much else you might believe A Wizard Did regardless of evidence, to say nothing of A Wizard Says Is Best.
I wonder if evolution denial impacts the incidence of people neglecting to take their full course of antibiotics. Or the over-use of antibacterial soap or the like.
I remember references to Evolution from elementary school. We didn’t go into detail–that’s just the way things worked. In (High School) Biology 1, there was a brief mention of Lamarck & Lysenko–both historical artifacts. Then, on to Real Science.
All this was many years ago in Semi-Rural Texas–but Fundamentalists weren’t that concerned about public school curricula. Back then, Churches descended from the Nonconformist Denominations remembered what it was to deal with an Established Religion–& stayed out of politics.
Lots of kids go through the Paleontology Hall at HMNS. I even had a paranoid notion the new hall had been built to segregate “Darwinism” for the benefit of the more regressed homeschoolers. Then realized the long-standing Energy Hall explained where oil came from; the Oil Bidness & Young Earth Creationism do not agree.
Sure, teach Critical Thinking. But teach the sciences from the early grades. I don’t support dumbing down college level classes for the benefit of The Truly Ignorant. Do try to deal with their questions but flunk them if they can’t handle the class. What should they do for their science requirement? Chemistry, maybe.
In my own life, if I discover someone doesn’t buy into Evolution (or whatever you call it), I would not consider them educated. And would minimize contact in the future.