Tag Archives: Science Education

Bill Nye at the Creation Museum and Russian Security at Sochi

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

See the link?

It is pretty obvious to me.

It seems that terrorists who are really serious, reasonably numerous, presumably well funded, and certainly experienced have threatened to attack the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia (both of them). The fallback plan, it is assumed, is that they can’t attack Sochi so they pick some other random locations, maybe in Russia, maybe not, and attack them. (That is the part about terrorists being cowards, I assume.)

The Russians have security that is probably second to none in the world, or at least on par with the countries that have a lot of experience with this sort of thing and spend considerable resources on evading and avoiding terrorist attacks. One could say that this is a test of an important question. When terrorists who are among the most likely to succeed are put up against security that is second to none, with plenty of advanced warning (over four years), will the terrorists be able to get past the defenses at Sochi or will they be thwarted? Truly, this is an historic moment about to happen. Or not happen, as the case may be.

Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Bill Nye will be debating Ken Ham over the question “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” (See this post by Josh Rosenau for details and how to watch the debate live.) As Josh summarizes in his post, and as I said here, Bill Nye would have been well advised to not do this debate. But he decided to so it anyway. Bill is a practiced and excellent communicator and promotor of science. Also, over the last few weeks, he has been preparing for this debate, getting coaching from heavyweights such as Don Prothero. But Ken Ham and the Creation Museum are the epitome of modern day Medieval creationism. It is a little like Sochi…

This is a test of a less important question than the one that will be taken up by circumstances as Sochi: When creationists who are among the most likely to succeeded in front of an audience are pitted with a leading science communicator with the best possible training and resources, what will happen?

I can’t watch the debate. I will be busy doing this. That’s a bummer. But I will watch the recorded version of it (assuming they have such modern technology at a museum with displays showing humans and dinosaurs co-existing). I hope you watch it and please leave comments below on how you think it went.

One final thing. Some people are going to be mad at me for equating American Christian Creationists with Chechen Terrorists. I mean to do no such thing. The core reasons these terrorists exist is because a people has been repressed by a dictatorial regime (several, actually) for many years. The creationists have no valid reason to be fighting science and ruining education. At the same time, the terrorists have adopted methods to get what they want that are horrible, immoral, and cowardly and that cause random death, injury, and destruction. The creationists have adopted methods that are not nearly as horrible, still often immoral, often cowardly, but they generally don’t hurt anybody physically so that’s good. But, anti-science activism has led to a delay in doing something meaningful about climate change over the last decade, so in the end, the anti-science activists in general, including the creationists, will have some accounting to do as well. Just sayin’

Cosmos 2014 is coming

Uncategorized, , ,

This is an interesting interview with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, writer/producer Ann Druyan, and Cosmos Studio president Mitchell Cannold about the new series Cosmos 2014. I am very much looking forward to this series, and it is very much time to make a new Cosmos, and entirely appropriate to do so.

I pretty much agree with everything they say, and I especially like the fact that cosmos 2014 is being produced in part as a reaction to three decades of anti-science activism and propaganda.

I was very disappointed with one thing Ann Druyan said. She made the unqualified (and undocumented) claim that science is taught very poorly and therefore nobody gets it. I wish the world was so simple. In many, many instances science is taught as well as it can be given the resources available to science teachers. Vicariously through my wife, a high school science teacher, directly through my own guest appearances in various science classes, and as an oft-time teacher of college introductory classes, I know that many kids get turned on to science in high school, and not because they suffer a “grueling and horrendous experience” as Ann Druyan labels it. Science teaching in this country is under assault from the very anti-science forces that she claims, quite correctly, abound. Tossing science teaching under the buss wholesale is not helpful. Neil also speaks of how horrible science education is, and he has valid points, but he refers mainly to public science communication and TV documentaries, etc. Which does, indeed, mostly suck.

There is more here on space.com

Ironic that this is a FOX news corp production. But then again, so are most of the National Geographic specials.

Debating Evolution vs. Creationism: Bullet Points

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

As you know, Bill Nye has agreed to engage in a debate about evolution with Ken Ham at the Kentucky Creation Museum. You may also know that I suggested that this debate was a bad idea, not so much because it is Bill Nye doing it (he’s a great spokesperson for science and science education) but because the whole idea of a debate is questionable for a number of reasons (discussed here).

Bill recently made a few comments on the debate on CNN.

Here, I’d like to list a handful of the points I’d make if I was doing this debate.

  • It is not necessary or even possible to argue against “creationism” because creationism is a belief system based on faith. Science, on the other hand, is all about arguing about interpretation of observations and developing the best descriptions and explanations we can of the natural world.

  • In the 18th century, western thinking, “Natural philosophy,” described and explained the world in a way that incorporated religious thinking and referred to scripture. That view is almost identical to the 21st century creationist view. “Intelligent design” is indistinguishable from Paley’s view of the natural world, which he wrote about in his book “Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity” in 1809, which is a kind of capstone for the previous century’s thinking.

  • The 19th century, with Darwin and Wallace and a host of others advanced modern scientific thinking and challenged the previous century’s way of thinking. There was indeed a debate at that time, and evolutionary biology won that debate.

  • During the early 20th century, Darwinian thinking was advanced and revised to include a huge amount of ongoing observations about nature, including the discovery of genetics. By some time early in the 20th century, what might have been a valid debate about the nature of nature itself faded away and became a political debate instead.

  • That political debate, not a scientific debate, between a religious belief system (creationism) and science (evolutionary biology), persisted through the 20th century and into the 21st century and has been used by a minority of religious institutions and individuals as a tool. There is no longer a scientific debate about the validity of evolution, and there has not been one for a very long time.

  • Many of the criticisms of evolution maintained by creationists are about the age of the earth and the way that fossils are ordered in time. That ordering in time is central to evolution because it demonstrates dramatic changes in life forms. But those criticisms are not so much about the biology, but rather, about the physics and geology.

  • The physics that help us understand evolutionary change over time is the same science that the United States military uses to develop and maintain our all-important Nuclear Navy. It is the same physics that underlies the development of an important part of our power grid, the nuclear power plants. It is the same physics that underlies the development of the not-so-pleasant nuclear arsenal. Before creationists complain to biologists that the science of nuclear physics is wrong, they should take their case to the Military and the nuclear power industry, because if nuclear physics is wrong, we are all in a great deal of trouble.

  • The geology that helps us understand the record of evolutionary change in the past is the same geology that gives us the ability to engineer safer structures, build seemingly impossible bridges, locate and exploit important resources such as minerals and, of course, petroleum. Before creationists complain about evolutionary biology’s use of this geology they should talk to civil engineers and petroleum and mining geologists about how they must have all of that wrong as well.

  • Evolutionary biology also underlies our medical practices. Comparative anatomy is part of the proof of evolution, and it is also the source of much of our understanding of human physiology. The study and treatment of infectious disease and epidemiology is based on evolutionary thinking. Before creationists complain about evolution they should talk to our medical professionals and inform them that the basis of their efforts to treat and prevent disease and medical disorders is all wrong.

Check out the Planetary Society, where Bill Nye is Executive Director.

More on science education HERE.

Also, check out my novella, Sungudogo, HERE. It is an adventure story set in Central Africa which ultimately turns out to be a parody of the skeptics movement.

Bill Nye talks about the upcoming debate

Uncategorized, ,

Bill Nye on CNN:

I think Bill is going to make excellent points in this debate. I don’t think changing creationists minds is the point, as Bill Nye says. I also like Nye asking about the sincerity of the creationist point of view. I wish him the best of luck.

And not just luck, but Science-Power. Because we’re right and they’re wrong.

A rollicking adventure through the rift valley and rain forests of Central Africa in search of the elusive diminutive ape known locally as Sungudogo.
A rollicking adventure through the rift valley and rain forests of Central Africa in search of the elusive diminutive ape known locally as Sungudogo.
More on science education HERE.

Also, check out my novella, Sungudogo, HERE. It is an adventure story set in Central Africa which ultimately turns out to be a parody of the skeptics movement. It seems to have struck a nerve with a few of the skeptics, while others seem to have enjoyed it. Who knew?

The torch has been passed on: Ann Reid is now running NCSE

Uncategorized, , ,

I admit it is hard to imagine a National Center for Science Education without Genie Scott; the NCSE was Genie, and Genie was the NCSE.

But I think I know what Genie would say if she heard me say that. The NCSE will be fine without her, Ann Reid is going to do great, etc. etc. And, I’m sure that is all true, owing both to Ann Reid being an excellent choice of Executive Director, and because Genie and the other staff at NCSE have done an excellent job.

annreidHere’s part of the announcement of the change in leadership, which happened yesterday:

Ann Reid is joining NCSE as Executive Director, starting January 2, 2014. She will replace Eugenie C. Scott, who has led NCSE in fighting the good fight for science education for 27 years.

As a molecular biologist at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, she co-led the team that sequenced the 1918 flu virus—an effort that was hailed as “a watershed event for influenza researchers worldwide.” She then served as a Senior Program Officer at the National Research Council’s Board on Life Sciences for five years and then, most recently, as director of the American Academy of Microbiology. In both roles she oversaw major efforts aimed at communicating science to the public. And as its director, Reid oversaw all of the operations of the American Academy of Microbiology, from coordinating scientific research and publishing technical reports to communicating with the public and organizing dozens of scientific meetings.

“Ann is the consummate cat herder,” says Margaret McFall-Ngai, Professor of Medical Microbiology and Immunology at University of Wisconsin. “She’s thoughtful, creative, and handles people with respect and finesse. But she’s no pushover. She knows how to take charge, aided by her broad historic understanding of the issues and the science.”

As a researcher and communicator, Reid has authored scores of peer-reviewed research papers, National Research Council reports, and FAQ documents, ranging from “Origin and Evolution of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Gene” to the popular brochure If the Yeast Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody Happy: The Microbiology of Beer.

“Ann is a spectacular biologist,” says Indy Burke, Director of the Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming. “She’s been at the forefront of scientific synthesis and communication about the most important issues facing the life sciences today—especially life sciences education and the ecological impacts of climate change.”

Reid came to microbiology via a circuitous route, first earning degrees in environmental science and advanced international studies. After several years as a policy analyst, she took a research technician job at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. “That’s when I fell in love with science,” says Reid. “Working there, I finally came to appreciate the power, the beauty, and the joy of science. That’s a big reason why I think that science education is so important—so students can share that experience while they’re learning.”

Reid joins NCSE at a time when the integrity of science education is constantly under attack. In 2013 alone, legislation was introduced in seven states that would allow teachers to misrepresent “controversial” topics, including evolution and/or climate change. “It is crucial, now more than ever, for students to understand evolution and climate science,” Reid commented. “I am excited at the prospect of helping NCSE to continue its important work in ensuring that these topics are taught properly—accurately, thoroughly, and without ideological interference.”

And Genie Scott expressed her confidence in Reid’s ability to do so. “Her stint as a research scientist grounds her in what science is and what scientists do. Her work at the National Research Council connected her with the top scientists in the country. And her experience as the director of a non-profit organization provides her with invaluable knowhow,” she said, adding, “I have no doubt that attacks on science education will continue. But with Reid at the helm, I have no doubt that NCSE will continue to be at the forefront of the defense.”

I think Bill Nye is great, but I think he's making a mistake.

Uncategorized, , ,

Word on the street is that Bill Nye is going to debate Ken Hamm at the Creationism “Museum” on February 4th. This is a bad idea for several reasons.

First, Bill Nye is not really an expert on evolution and is actually not that experienced in debates. Being really really pro science and science education isn’t enough. When they went in after Osama Bin Laden (my errand distant cousin) they did not send people who are really really against terrorism. They sent in Seal Team Six with a huge amount of support such as Army Rangers and such and even that was risky.

Second, there isn’t a debate so why debate?

Third, creationists can pretty much win any debate because they are not talking about science. See this post for a more detailed explanation for how any anti-science spokesperson can win a debate against any pro-science person.

I once debated a creationist and it went OK. But when I was first invited to the debate I contacted my friend Genie Scott who had this organization called the National Center for Science Education for advice and the first thing she said to me is that I was an idiot for agreeing to the debate (or words to that effect). Why? See this post if you haven’t already. In that case the good christians setting up the debate lied to me about the format and carried out other forms of trickery. They can’t be trusted.

Fourth, if I understand the situation correctly this will be a fundraiser for the Creation “Musuem.” Bad idea.

Very bad idea.

UPDATED: Bill Nye talks about the upcoming debate.

A rollicking adventure through the rift valley and rain forests of Central Africa in search of the elusive diminutive ape known locally as Sungudogo.
A rollicking adventure through the rift valley and rain forests of Central Africa in search of the elusive diminutive ape known locally as Sungudogo.
More on science education HERE.

Also, check out my novella, Sungudogo, HERE. It is an adventure story set in Central Africa which ultimately turns out to be a parody of the skeptics movement. It seems to have struck a nerve with a few of the skeptics, while others seem to have enjoyed it. Who knew?

Ann Reid Will Run National Center for Science Education

Uncategorized

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has been ably run by Genie Scott since back in the days, well, the days when she started the damn thing up, if I recall correctly. But Genie retires at the end of this year.

Ann Reid will take over as NCSE Executive Director on January 2nd, 2014.

From the NCSE:

As a molecular biologist at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, she co-led the team that sequenced the 1918 flu virus—an effort that was hailed as “a watershed event for influenza researchers worldwide.” She then served as a Senior Program Officer at the National Research Council’s Board on Life Sciences for five years and then, most recently, as director of the American Academy of Microbiology. In both roles she oversaw major efforts aimed at communicating science to the public. And as its director, Reid oversaw all of the operations of the American Academy of Microbiology, from coordinating scientific research and publishing technical reports to communicating with the public and organizing dozens of scientific meetings.

There’s a post here with more details.

I think this is a great choice and I for one welcome our new Science Education Overlord!

(It would be casting a shadow on the new regime to mention how much I’ll miss Genie, so I won’t say anything about that at this time.)

Closing Commenting

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Popular Science, one of the longest running and, well, popular, magazines that deals with science has a website. Last Tuesday, on-line editor Suzanne LaBarre announced that Popular Science would no longer have comment sections on most of its pages. The reason sited was that “Comments can be bad for science.” She noted:

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

She is absolutely correct. It seems, in fact, that attacking science in the comment sections of blogs and web sites is a cottage industry practiced vigorously by a very active minority of readers (we hope). And it may well be effective. Last January, Chris Mooney wrote:

Everybody who’s written or blogged about climate change on a prominent website (or, even worse, spoken about it on YouTube) knows the drill. Shortly after you post, the menagerie of trolls arrives. They’re predominantly climate deniers, and they start in immediately arguing over the content and attacking the science—sometimes by slinging insults and even occasional obscenities.

Chris talks about a study done by researchers at George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (and others) that showed that these negative comments can be effective in ruining readers’ perception of the validity of science written about on line.

The study did not examine online climate change trolls directly—but there is good reason to think that the effects of their obnoxious behavior will, if anything, be worse. … When it comes to climate change… “the controversy that you see in comments falls on more fertile ground, and resonates more with an established set of values that the reader may bring to the table,” explains study coauthor Dietram Scheufele, … If commenters have stronger emotions and more of a stake, it stands to reason that the polarizing effect of their insults may be even stronger—although, to be sure, this needs to be studied.

… This is not your father’s media environment any longer. In the golden oldie days of media, newspaper articles were consumed in the context of…other newspaper articles. But now, adds Scheufele, it’s like “reading the news article in the middle of the town square, with people screaming in my ear what I should believe about it.”

(Click through to CM’s post to get the link to that study.)

Chris told me “It is indeed possible to moderate comments to make them productive, but it is a huge amount of work. So I’m not that surprised that Popular Science opted not to do it.”

Will Oremus writing at Slate disagrees. He notes:

Sure, some very important scientific questions are pretty much settled … But LaBarre’s metaphors conjure an image of science as an ancient and immovable stone fortress, from which the anointed few (Popular Science staff writers, say) may cast pearls in the direction of the masses below, but which might crumble to dust if the teeming throngs aren’t kept at bay. This conception is antithetical to the spirit of free inquiry that has always driven scientific discovery.

And here, in Will Oremus’s comment (and elsewhere) I see a flaw. The assumption implicit (or not so implicit) in Oremus’s commentary in Slate is that comments contribute to the science directly, by becoming part of the “spirit of free inquiry.” And I’m sure this is a feeling shared by many of the comment trolls of whom we are speaking.

The problem is, this is largely a made up fantasy. There are two distinct things going on here. One is science, which involves free inquiry and lots of communication among scientists, and the other is public understanding of science, which is very important because it is a key part of the process of translating science knowledge into science policy, especially in a society that thinks of itself as a democracy.

The comment trolls are not ruining science. They are ruining public perception of science. The commentary on web sites and blog posts is not part of the science conversation that produces scientific results (or, if so, rarely).

I wrote an opinion piece for The Scientist expressing this view, and it was put up this morning. Please go and have a look: Opinion: Part of the Conversation? On whether online comments help or hurt science.

If you have a comment on any of this, please feel free to add it to the page at The Scientist, or below, or both. I don’t have any control over the comment section at The Scientist, but here on this blog, have at it, even if you are a troll, as long as you are not a spam bot (and I can tell the difference, usually).

Middle School Teacher: Lesson Plans for Climate Change (free)

Uncategorized, ,

The EPA is providing free climate change related content material for middle school kids.

You can get the material HERE.

In my opinion, even though this material is aimed at middle school audiences, it is all potentially useful in high school as well depending on the class you are running. For instance, if you have a climate change related module in your 10th grade biology class, some of this material will make excellent handouts.

I would like to recommend an exercise, perhaps for extra credit. FOX News went apoplectic about the idea that a federal agency full of expertise on climate and environment issues would actually provide educational material for American students. You should have the students cover some of the material provided by the EPA, discuss it in class, etc., then show them any one of several videos of Fox News getting it all wrong and have the students critique it!

For a compilation of Fox News gaffs linked directly to the EPA educational material, check out this post at Media Matters.

Creationist Home Schooling Science Fair

Uncategorized, , , ,

“You will be a restless wanderer on the earth” -Genesis 4:12

Today, a few of us visited the Twin Cities Home School Creation Science Fair of 2013 at its new location. The fair used to be held in the historic Har Mar Shopping Mall but for some reason it has wandered up the road and across Snelling Avenue to a nearby Christian college on the shores of beautiful Lake Johanna Lake, in Roseville, Minnesota.

We were, verily, Mike, Angry by Choice, and me. Angry arrived separately and reviewed the exhibits on his own, and Mike and I visited nearly all of the 23 posters together and spoke to many of the kids presenting their science projects.

… pay no attention to lies. -Exodus 5:9

Let’s be clear right away: This science fair advertises itself this way:

Unlike Some Science Fair Sites
We Are For Real!
Unlike Many Secular Educators
We Teach The Scientific Method!

I don’t now which “some” science fairs or “secular educators” shun the scientific method, so I’ll take that as a lie by the organizers, who are Young Earth Creationists with a rather weak grasp on reality. Also, there was clearly no requirement that the scientific method be used in these projects as many did not. Having said that, a number of the student’s projects rose above the organizers’s self-hobbled concept of science and were pretty good, and in two or three cases the kids were able to answer questions that probed beyond the script and addressed things not explicitly shown in their posters. For instance, the project on “getting electricity from plants” which examined the difference between various roots and fruits elicited the question “What would happen if you attached a grapefruit to a potato in series” and the student was able to explain the results of trials, not shown on the poster, of mixed plant tissue batteries that he had messed around with.

World Views In Collision: “But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.” -Genesis 19:26

Only one poster only was pure creationist nonsense; the student wasn’t there and I think it was a young kid (judging by the style). This was a poster that set out to “prove” that stalactites and stalagmites formed very quickly and not slowly like geologists claimed. The student’s work did in fact seem to demonstrate that stalactites and stalagmites could form very very quickly. Unfortunately, those quick forming formations made by the student were Lotswifian (made of salt!) and not the usual limestone. Also, geologists are well aware that limestone deposits can in fact form vey quickly. As I recall, it was Isaac Asimov that caused the trouble with the stalagmites, going up against Immanuel Velikovsky with the claim that “Worlds in Collision” could not have happened because STLAGTITES!!!1! … Velikovsky was able to show Asimov stalagmites that were rather long formed beneath the foundation of the Lincoln Monument. This has been used by creationists since to prove that geology is wrong.

It, geology, is not wrong. Limestone deposition can be a highly dynamic process. We knew that.

(Note: Asimov, brilliant, everybody loved him, bla bla bla, was not actually a geologist…)

“Rise Up and Stop Sleeping” -Ephesians 5:13-14

Despite the fact that many of the kids did, as stated, rise above their mentors, there were some sad moments when this did not appear to be the case. One child faced with a not to difficult question about animal behavior suggested that a certain problem would be solved because “God put something in the animal to make that happen.” Other students produced experiments without controls, or with multiple conflicting results, but chose to “believe” the results that fit expectations.

Having said that, many of the limitations and shortfalls of the less than stellar posters were typical of small scale school science fairs in general, not peculiar to these students. And, a couple of the students were clearly destine for future … well, thinking and maybe even free thinking. One student was the offspring of a person who could be classified as scientist, which is a bit disturbing. But that kid is clearly going to walk right out of the religious fetters she is already clearly tossing off and do interesting things. When asked if she might pursue science she said yes, and when asked what kind, she said “the interesting stuff” and proceeded to go on an on about what was interesting.

“When Esau heard his father’s words, he burst out with a loud and bitter cry” -Genesis 27:34

Each of the posters had to have a biblical quote on them. That’s part of the scientific method, apparently. Scientific method, god style. The quotes generally had about as much to do with the project as the quotes I’ve playfully putting here have had to do with the various sections of this blog post. The nefarious thing working here, of course, is tricking the students into going through the bible one more time while they are dealing with what is clearly an alternative to biblical or religious thinking. Well, in some cases, I suppose the quote was relevant. But generally, disappointingly, not.

“The breath of God produces ice, and the broad waters become frozen.” -Job 37:10

Oh, there’s also this: I’m happy to report that the student that did the obligatory study to determin which freezes faster, hot vs. cold water, discovered that water that starts out colder reaches freezing sooner, though he was shocked by the rate at which hot water almost, but not quite, caught up.

‘The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?”’ -1 Kings 22:16

We go to this fair to encourage students to think about science, to be possibly the only people who ask questions that may lead beyond the poster or the bible quote on the poster, but not to harass the students. Angry, Mike and I did not mention evolution vs. creationism. We just talked about the science.

There is another reason we go: To keep the creationists honest(ish). A few years ago, a group of us went to the fair and noted 20-something posters, and in that year the organizers, unaware of our presence, reported a much larger number, thus lying about the level of participation in this event. When I pointed out on my blog that all the posters depicted in all the photographs they took and we took combined did not add up to the number they claimed, the organizers of the creationist science fair deleted all their photos from their web site and accused me of being a child abuser.

Well, screw that. What we do now is we go and count the posters. Last year, no one from our group went and the organizers took the opportunity to claim that there were 60 posters. I’m thinking that is a lie because there’s never been that many. This year we counted the entries. Twenty three. There were 23 of them. We’ll swear to it. And we were able to count all the way to 23 without abusing a single child.

Satan playing air guitar on his pitchfork in your local public school?

Uncategorized, , , , ,

What about a picture of Charles Darwin burning in hell to teach kids about flames?

I don’t think so. Although I personally am not like some of my fellow secularists in reacting viscerally to any and all stylistic or symbolic references to Judeo-Christian religious themes, I am aware that there are recognizable religious visual or literary elements which, if used as part of a teaching tool, can be easily construed as promotion of a religion. “Promotion” is not standing on a soap box preaching, or telling students that a particular religion is bad while another is good, or giving extra credit points for prayer. Well, it is that. But promotion is also something as simple as a person in authority casually wearing a religious symbol or having such a symbol on a desk or wall in a classroom, or making references to a particular religious metaphor while teaching. These casual representations and references are relatively benign among adults, or in college, or probably even in senior high school, but in grade school they are regarded as promotion and public school teachers must not engage in this behavior.

Which brings us to the Science Marketing’s Boner of the Year award. Which, tongue in cheek, I just made up to draw attention to an interesting development.

You are familiar with Marketing for Scientists, the blog and the effort, as well as Marc Kuchner, science marketing guru. Marc’s thing is that marketing is important because without it you mostly get ignored. He’s right, of course, and I generally support and appreciate his efforts. You’ll remember the discussion a while back of Bill Nye‘s dressing down of creationism. Some people thought that Bill Nye being a meanie was a marketing disaster, and I disagreed. In retrospect, I’m sure I was right, because the controversy over Bill Nye pointing out that creationist parents are doing it wrong led to a widespread discussion of creationism in schools, and that discussion has to happen frequently. Also, Bill was right. Hard to go totally wrong if you’re right.

Marc just sent me a link to the latest post on Marketing for Scientists, which is “The Top Six Science Marketing Hits of 2012.” Number 5 is The Flame Challenge, of which Marc says:

This contest, held by the Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University with help from actor Alan Alda, dared scientists and educators to submit videos explaining what a flame is—a subtle concept. What set this contest apart from other science communication contests is that the judges were 11-year old students: some 6000 of them at 130 elementary schools. The results taught us something deep, I think, about how children view scientists.

Here is the video, which is discussed here:

(If you can’t see that for some reason, go to the link.)

I happen to think this video does a great job of explaining the science of the flame. The visuals and the dialog bring the viewer to a question, then address the question in a way that explains it but raises another question, which is then addressed, until the whole thing is explained at a fairly high level. That is a very good technique. The voice over, visuals, music, and overall production are high-value, attractive, attention grabbing, well timed, and all that. In short it is a very nice piece of work.

Unfortunately, the video can’t be used in a public school classroom in the US because it promotes Abrahamic religious themes. Promotes as in uses which is really all you need. The video opens with a man who looks a LOT like Charles Darwin chained to a wall in hell, surrounded by flames. The narrator then goes on to explain to the possibly holocaust-victim evolutionary biologist all he might ever want to know about flames. Satan (or some other high ranking devil) makes an appearance a bit later. He is used in the story to demonstrate incandescence by heating up his pitchfork in the hell-fire. Later, during the wrap-up, Satan plays air guitar with the pitchfork, which is cute.

I know, a lot of people are going to say that I’m being ridiculous, that these themes are just part of culture, that they don’t mean anything, that kids are exposed to this sort of thing anyway, that the science teacher can use the video anyway and then have a lecture on the conflict of science and religion, etc. etc. etc. But all that is wrong, sorry. It is promoting a particular religion with state funds which is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, it is inappropriate and could probably get a teacher in trouble if the right people knew the teacher was showing it. Making a science video and not taking into account the fact that teachers who have not thought about what they are doing could get in trouble is not good marketing. Well, it isn’t bad marketing either, it simply isn’t about marketing. It is about end user safety. This is like making a child’s toy and it is a) very fun, b) very desirable, everybody wants one, c) very well marketed and d) hurts some of the kids. And, no, we casual denizens of the internet don’t get to write off the fact that the negative effects potentially caused by a certain choice could be mitigated against by having an additional set of lectures.

On top of all this, I know there are teachers out there who will see this video and think it a great idea to use in the classroom precisely because it has a Judeo-Christian religious theme, and some will even like it because it depicts Charles Darwin burning in hell. Indeed, this is a physical science video, and there are probably more physical science teachers who happen to be Christian Creationists than life science teachers who are creationists, and the latter number is known to be well above 25%. So, yeah, Ben Ames, the maker of this video, may have produced a product that supports a creationist agenda, in a small but not insignificant way, even though that was presumably not his intention.

There may be a flaw in the process that could easily be fixed. Ben Ames is a communications and journalism guy, not a middle school teacher, or even a middle school education expert (I think … subject to correction). This project in communicating science, which I’m sure is a good one, will continue. I recommend that language be placed in the guiding documents for the project reminding producers that iconography or reference, even seemingly benign, to religious themes would likely disqualify a work from actual use in actual schools and would be best avoided. Also, having a science education expert familiar with the grade level and the legal and socio-cultural aspects of “marketing” science in the mix somewhere would be good. The idea would be to not let developers get beyond concept stage with unusable elements in place, in order to avoid wasting effort. As I say, this little film on flame is outstanding and really does the trick. It is simply unusable in the classrooms for which it intended, and unfortunately, will be used to potentially negative effect, and, here and there, exploited in a negative way. (This whole discussion must be adjusted, of course, for cases outside the US, where the First amendment does not apply, but where there may be similar issues.)

In this case, describing what a flame is, Hell seems like an obvious theme because there would be a lot of flames there. In some future year, perhaps the project will focus on floods … what could go wrong then?

This is why Republicans are scary dangerous, and separation of church and state is so important

Uncategorized, , , ,

Watch the following video without reading any context. Listen to what the guy says. Note that he says that evolution and embryology are lies from hell. Note that he claims that these lies have one purpose: To keep us from knowing that we need a savior. Note that he claims that the earth was create in 6 literal days about 9,000 years ago (why not 6,000 is a topic of another post some time, perhaps). Note that he claims that the Bible teaches us how we run our lives, our families and our churches, but most importantly, note that this man is saying that the bible, which he takes absolutely literally, teaches us how to run our public policy and everything in society.

Also note that this man is a member of the United States Congress. And, while you are at it, also note that this particular congressmember was appointed by the Republican leadership to be on the Science Committee.

This is Paul Broun, from Georgia. He is a Republican running for re-election to congress. I would love to suggest a link for you to follow so that you can donate to the Democrat who is running against him, but there isn’t one.

Are you a Christian? Fine. You can certainly be a Christian in America and still be pro-science, politically progressive, and not scary like this guy. But please do understand that this man is your kin. Every morning when you wake up and finish your prayers, it is your obligation to do something about this, other than praying, something that will work. If you don’t, you’re just one of his people. That is not cool.

If you are one of thole Olde Timey Republicans who thinks guys like this are crazy and are sort of embarrassed by your party these days, this man is still your kin. By remaining a member of the Party of Batshit Crazy, you are endorsing him, whether you like it or not, because not only are parties parties, but the Republican Party in particular is a lockstep party, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. The beliefs this man is professing in this video are your beliefs if you are a Republican. I might suggest that it is time for you to cut bait. You might consider balancing between the chagrin of casting your lot with guys like this vs. making the very strong statement of walking away.

And no, it is not the case that Paul Broun is an outlier. In this video, he is giving us the party position. There is no real science in the Republican Party. It is not allowed.

Hey, here’s a petition you can sign!

Climate "Controversy" in American Classrooms

Uncategorized,

PBS has something coming out tonight about teaching climate change in American Classrooms.

From a press release I just got in the mail:

The PBS NEWSHOUR examines the struggle over teaching climate change Wednesday

The PBS NewsHour’s Hari Sreenivasan will report Wednesday (May 2) on how the controversy over climate change affects America’s classrooms. Part of a NewsHour series on the impacts of climate change, Sreenivasan’s piece takes a look at a political think tank creating climate change curriculum, examines recent state laws dictating what can be taught about global warming and profiles a Colorado science teacher who faced a student/parent rebellion in her classroom over the issue.

“They hear it on the news, they see it in the newspaper, and they hear their parents talking about it” science teacher Cheryl Manning explains in tonight’s segment. “There are people who say the climate may be changing but it’s not our fault, or the climate isn’t changing at all. This is a natural cycle; there are all sorts of things that the kids hear. They want clarification.”

There is more information here.