http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/evolution_update0601.html
It seems that Philip Johnson is determined to make the US the laughingstock of the world…
-Ben
Isn’t it great to know that law professors are dictating how biology should be taught?
I dunno:
Used wisely by the scientifically literate, this could be used very effectively to oppose all the Creationist tripe.
-
Good science should prepare students to distinnguish between science and belief.
-
Where biology is being taught, teachers now have the blessing of the U.S. Senate to point out why Creationism is such a hot topic–it is based in belief, not science.
I share the general concern regarding letting Johnson mold legislative opinion, but I think we should seize the motion that was actually passed and use it to slam the door on the forces of ignorance trying to enter our schools. Prior to this motion, no teacher would have dared to make a point of noting that Creationism has no basis in fact. Now teachers have the concurrence of the U.S. Senate that they should address those issues directly.
Amen, Tom.
That’s the way I’d like to see this too, Ben.
Good point Tom but you are making an assumption that all teachers will latch on to this as a means to debunk creationism.
Unfortunately I doubt that is the case. Some teachers (maybe a lot…I couldn’t say) will almost certainly use this as the means to open the door to religion entering the classroom. As a result we might end up seeing all kinds of weirdness evolve in different school districts depending on their individual ideologies. Evolution might end up being the theory being debunked in a classroom.
Better to keep the door shut than open this Pandora’s box.
Besides that, why do teachers need something like this to teach the scientific method and its virtues? Is the ability to directly compare creationism to evolution necessary in the classroom? Is the case for evolution really made stronger because you can contrast it to creationism?
I would feel more comfortable had the senate’s recommendation been limited to #1 (“good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science”).
This seems to me to be a part of what “good science education” should do, whether not the Senate intervenes to say so!
However, I think #2 may prove to be tricky in practice: “where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.”
It seems to me that this will come down to the individual teacher. Any teacher who is true to the spirit of #1 ought to come up with a useful way of handling #2. But I can imagine teachers being pressured to do otherwise by individual school boards or parents or what have you; and I can imagine teachers being chosen deliberately to reflect a particular bias on the controversy. To be sure, this may already be the case and I don’t claim to be familiar with the status quo. But it seems to me that once you mandate the teaching of a controversy, the teaching of that controversy is going to come down to the teacher.
To be more clear on the subject:
I am not happy with 100 undereducated politicians dictating (or “recommending”) the specifics that should be taught in the classroom.
We already have any number of so-called biology teachers who are teaching evolution only as “micro-evolution” or are teaching the minimum text included in the (poorly written) textbooks or who are simply skipping that chapter for “lack of time.” (I know I was horrified by the number of self-identified biology teachers who were quoted as supporting the previous Kansas School Board’s attempt to remove evolution from the curriculum.)
However, the forces of ignorance have now attempted to push their agenda at the national level. I find a delicious irony in the fact that as worded their little proclamation can now be used by a bright teacher to actually make the correct presentation in class and, if challenged, can point to the very document that the forces of ignorance had hoped would be their wedge into the curriculum as support for doing the right thing.
I do not support the Sense of the Senate Resolution. I do think that we should capture their “weapon” and turn it against its authors.
Since the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass this resolution, either a lot of supporters of evolutionary theory saw this as an opportunity to promote the teaching of science as opposed to religion in schools, or else they weren’t paying attention when the resolution came up for a vote.
Does this resolution have any practical impact? Can’t local school boards do whatever they want regardless?
The more disturbing part of the linked report had to do with House members blocking science testing because of a fear that evolution-related questions might come up. What a bunch of ignorant bozos.
it’s rare that I compliment anyone online. I am an asshole after all… but that must be one of the most beautifully crafted responses I’ve ever read on a message board.
I thought my original idea for a post was funny and creative, but I don’t even want to post it.
cheers
I could type a thousand things about this one statement… but some one please tell me im not seeing things.
Did a Creationist just say that?
- Grabs Pandora’s box from Whack-a-Mole and opens it. *
One problem, though. Over half the board that makes decisions regarding Science-teaching in schools(NASB, I think) is comprised of lawyers, not bioligists. Johnson points this out in one of his books in response to this often mentioned argument against his authority.
Actually, he believes that people who attack his authority are only doing it because they can’t argue against his points.