What isn’t tolerated is an incorrect answer, and stating that evolution is controversial (scientifically controversial in this context) is incorrect. Dissent in science is not only tolerated but is also encouraged, but it has to be backed up by data, not religious nonsense.
An article in the Times about a meeting of IDers quoted one, with a real PhD no less, on how difficult it was for him to make the data on evolution being collected fit the Biblical perspective. Anyone writing on a test that this is a good thing deserves to not only get points off, but fail. Or do you call shoehorning the data into a pre-conceived fantasy that brooks no falsification dissent?
If would have taken her down one grade. Say from an A to an A-. I agree that including ID in science final was irrevelant.
The only way I would side with the student is if the professor mentioned ID in class at some point. In that case, including a brief mention of ID as an alternative would be acceptable.
Someone may have said this already, but “it” didn’t drop her from a B to a high C–her entire performance on graded work, including the exam, totaled a high C. Students often have the idea that the professor took their grade away. No; the student didn’t earn it. If her grades had been higher on her other assignments, she might well have gotten her (very low?) B. Getting high C average for the term (assuming, of course, that there have been multiple graded assignments) means that the student consistently performed high C average work. If the exam grade is very different from grades for her other work, this might reflect either poorer test-taking skills in comparison to her other academic skills. If it’s similar, though, then it probably suggests that the instructor’s grade isn’t out of line in terms of her usual performance. If a few-point difference in a grade on one exam makes a course grade differnce, then the student was probably already on the high C-low B line going into the exam.
I wonder if at some point in the class the professor said the same thing the student wrote about ID. I mean I could see a professor saying that, of course with some disdain in his voice and with the addendum…“Those people are idiots”. If that happened I could honestly see how the student would think that it is indeeed relevant.
It was factually incorrect to say that evolutionary theory is either controversial or uncertain within science. It was like ending a medical exam by saying, “the germ theory of disease still has many unanswered questions and is controversial. That’s why many people still believe that disease is caused by tiny, invisible dwarves.”
She also should have been marked down if she’d said “…and evolution completely explains these things, so there is no need for a supernatural explanation.”
And she should have been marked down if she said “My cat’s breath smells like cat food.”
All of these things are irrelevant to the question asked.
Also, her response does seem like needling the prof. What’s the point of that?
I wonder how clear it is the she “lost” points specifically for that comment. What kind of point system was being used in the first place?
I suspect that the question was worth a set number of points (say 20) and that the instructor was awarding a number of points out of 20 for the whole answer. I think it’s at least possible (and I suspect most probable) that she got like a 16 for the whole answer, saw the “irrelevant” comment (which could well have just been an aside with no bearing at all on her grade), connected the dots and assumed she was being persecuted for her unflagging love of Christ.
I don’t think we have enough information here and we don’t have the instructor’s side at all.
OK, I agree. But in the OP, she didn’t say that. Did she in reality? I don’t know; we’re only discussing the OP as if that’s what really happened.
evolutionary theory is either controversial or uncertain within science =/= “Though it is the standard scientific theory, various issues of evolution remain unexplained and or controversial. For this reason, many people believe that the process is divinely inspired and directed.”
She was quite clear that she was not talking within scientific theory (and that’s why I think “irrelevant” is appropriate, and I suppose if the teacher regularly marks off for all irrelevant comments, then she should do the same here; I wouldn’t, but it’s her classroom, and as long as she’s consistent, great). But her statement (or Sampiro’s version of it) was not wrong, as has been claimed repeatedly in this thread. (I quoted Czarcasm, 'cause he was recent and readily quotable, but he wasn’t the only one to opine so.)
I think that the statement that various unexplained or controversial issues constitute a reason for anybody to believe in divine inspiration and direction shows a pretty serious misunderstanding of the technical material of the study of biology. I think it’s analogous to an astronomy student invoking astrology, or an engineering student invoking magic, as something there’s reason to consider. So, I’d side with the professor.
It is not true that “various issues of evolution remain unexplained and or controversial.” That was factually incorrect statement to give on a science test.
By analogy, saying that a round earth is “controversial” on a geology test is not mitigated by a claim that the student is not talking about actual geology, but a few random nutcases.
The exact phrasing of the question was not given in the OP, to which I was replying. I just don’t think social beliefs are irrelevant in a college level science course; I also don’t think students should interfer with people trying to score their science requirements and move on to musicology or accounting.
Now, I would prefer no-one even suggest I believe in ID, but the theory of evolution, as it is taught in introductory classes in the United States, is inadequate. A lot has happened in the study of evolution in the (relatively) recent past, and I suspect it is not reflected in introductory teaching.
Examples:
Can any person who took intro biology within the last five years explain to me which evolutionary pressures select for bilateral symmetry, and which for radial?
Can anyone explain why homosexuality would not be selected against?
Can anyone explain the inherent fallacy in “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”?
Extra credit: can you theorize about what is actually occuring when this appears to occur?
There are obvious issues that are not explained in introductory courses. Students who raise honest questions (probably not the student in the OP, that is true) should be respected, and the instructor should try to find the answer.
(If any one does know the answer to (1) above, I really would like to know.)
I’m sure if the student had asked about any of these things, the professor would direct her to references where they are discussed. (And maybe let her get extra credit for writing a paper about some of these.) You’ll be happy to know that only one of the high school biology texts I reviewed for my district had the ontogeny fallacy, and that was the simplest one meant for the continuation school. In any case, the fact that there is not consensus on some of the details (which I’d hope he would mention anyway) does not in any way support her statement that evolution is controversial.
This was not an original thought by the student, but a parroted reply derived directly from Creationist propaganda.
A test is not the place to engage a teacher in a philosophical discussion or to argue a point not part of the cirriculum. If she genuinely wanted to know if this was true, she should have brought it up in a class or a private audience with the professor. I feel confident that this is not what was being taught in class.
Whether she should be penalized for it or just be marked “irrelevant” is a matter I would leave up to the teacher, but it should be made plain to her that she is being influenced by those who are way off the deep end of science.
I just finished reading an excellent book on this subject, Monkey Girl, by Edward Humes. A long book but an easy read, Humes covers the situation from Scopes to Dover in fascinating detail. I highly recommend it.
And just to put it in perspective, let’s take her statement point by point:
*Though it is the standard scientific theory,***That’s right, the well-established fact supported by 150 years of observations and tests that support evolution in ways Darwin could not have dreamed, and in ways that are being confirmed more and more and by many scientific disciplines, not just biology.**various issues of evolution remain unexplained and or controversial.Unexplained, but not unexplainable. Unexplained means further work is needed, not “God did it”. Controversial? Not among scientists. Such controversy is manufactured for religious reasons by those who refuse to accept the advances of science in the last 400 years; the advances that make their lifespan significantly longer and more enjoyable than the Dark Ages. *For this reason, many people believe that the process is divinely inspired and directed.*Many people believe many stupid things. That’s why you are taking this science class, so you can learn to separate the stupid from the valuable knowledge. Have you learned anything yet?
It was irrelevant and she should have been marked down for it. Most of my profs would have docked me for including crap that wasn’t supported or tied in to other points in my essays, regardless of the class. That’s the kind of thing that brings an A paper down to a B when you’re writing an essay in humanities, or a research paper in the sciences. An essay question on a test is not any different, other than that the teachers might be slightly more lenient because they know that the students are under pressure and time constraints.
If she thinks a professor is being harsh by docking her a few points on a final, I’d hate to think of how persecuted she’d feel when it comes to a small lecture class where students are publicly challenged and debated by professors, or when she’s defending a thesis if she plans on going through grad school. If she holds ideas that can’t be well defended, and throws out controversial responses more or less at random with no support and no follow-up, then she will not get through upper-level coursework. If by some miracle she does, she undoubtedly won’t be getting much published anywhere other than non-peer reviewed journals. Peer review, from what I’ve heard, is quite demoralizing sometimes, even if you’ve done a good job and there’s nothing particularly controversial in the piece.
>It is not true that “various issues of evolution remain unexplained and or controversial.”
Well, this is hard to believe. Surely there must be unexplained issues and controversial issues in the field. I know more about aerodynamics than evolutionary biology, and in aerodynamics there are various unexplained and controversial issues. If there were no unexplained issues, there’d be no work left for aerodynamicists to do. If there were no controversial issues, there’d be nothing exciting or stimulating for them to discuss at conventions.
And, yet, everybody in the field would be confident that aerodynamics generally works, and would happily fly to those conventions in planes.
If she were in high school, I’d say let it go with a note that “this statement is irrelevant to the intent of the essay.” Since she’s in college now, and supposed to be treated like a Big Girl, I think she’s old enough to understand that if you try to tweak the professor, the professor will tweak back.
Yet, in spite of those, :rolleyes: planes keep flying!
Can you imagine if this student wrote on her test in Aerodynamics 101c class, “In spite of scientific progress in the last 100 years of aeronautical engineering, there are unexplained and controversial issues. For this reason, many people believe that planes are held up by divine inspiration and direction.”
The questions in evolution don’t really pertain to the fundamental soundness to the theory or to any of its main components. Things like heredity, mutation, natural selection and common descent are not in question and are not controversial. The questions are about things like pathways and chronology which are not things which challenge the theory itself.