Evolution

Larry Moran has written a post in which he presents an opposite view of what I stated here. My statements merely echo those of the National Center for Science Education, the US. Supreme Court, and others because I believe that the “Teaching of the Controversy” should not be allowed in public school science classrooms. This whole discussion stems from the recent publication of this paper by Genie Scott.

Moran:

I’m on the opposite side on this one. In Canadian schools I think we should teach the controversy—even in biology class. Here’s my reasoning. You’d have to be some kind of idiot not to recognize that there’s a conflict between evolution and many religious beliefs. Pretending that it’s not there is no way to educate students.

If we really want to educate then we should address this issue head on and explain why the religious point of view contradicts science. One clear example is the age of the Earth. Students need to hear about the scientific evidence and why it isn’t compatible with a 6000 year old Earth as described in the Bible. Another obvious example is the evidence for evolution and how it conflicts with most religious myths.

Moran is obviously correct. However, there is a problem which has led to a two-pronged reason why a teacher cannot teach the controversy, one of those prongs being a matter of reason, the other being a matter of law.

A very large percentage of life science teachers in the US are creationists. Many of the students, even those not in a creationist-run classroom, are embedded in a social context in which they are exposed to authority figures who are creationists, such as their older sibs, parents, and pastors. For these reasons, bringing the controversy into the science discussion often does not result in the kind of open discussion and reality-based conversation that Moran envisions. Rather, bringing up “the controversy” simply serves as creationist bait.

We know that this is part of the overall creationist strategy, because “the controversy” is not about the controversy between faith-based systems of reasoning and rational systems of reasoning. Nor is it about different views of the nature of ontogeny and phylogeny, or how macro-evolution works, or the role of allelic variation in determining individual neurobiological function. “The controversy” is very specifically a debate in which the absurde Christian creationist view of life is given equal footing with the scientific view of life in order to engage in a debate between the two. That is just like insisting that the view that bigfoot does in fact wander the Great Northern Woods deserves open discussion in any Zoology class, or that pilots should spend a few weeks in pilot school studying the relationship between Egyptian parymids and the Bermuda Triangle. And so on.

In short, the effort to “teach the controversy” is a bare-faced political ploy and nothing, absolutely nothing else. Go read Genie Scott’s paper to get the details of this argument.

For this reason, we have come to the point where the courts in the US, in an effort to stem Christian creationist ploys to insert their religion into the science classroom, have decided that the controversy won’t be discussed in those classrooms. Thus, we have two reasons to explicitly and methodically remove the controversy or anytying that looks like the controversy from Life Science curriculum: 1) Because it is politically, strategically necessary to do so in order to avoid having our classrooms hijacked by creationists and 2) really, the same reason again but with the added twist: If you do it as a teacher you can lose your job.

In an ideal world, Larry’s statement that “It’s good when teachers explain what’s wrong with astrology and it’s good when they explain what’s wrong with Young Earth Creationism” makes sense and could direct pedagogy. But in the real world of Life Science Classes in the US, that is not what would happen.

Ideally, children will learn to regulate their own eating behavior and chose healthy snacks over the cookies in the cookie jar. But if that can’t happen because of overwhelming forces from the world of advertising exploiting the overwhelming evolved desire to consume mass quantities of fat and sugar, the adults have to hide the cookie jar.

And few of us will admit the truth of what Larry asserts because those admissions will simply be quote mined by creationists. Larry has handed creationists rhetoricians a few gems in his post on this topic. Which is fine by me, because I don’t think we should be driven or constrained by fear of quote mining by dishonest creationists. In the big picture, I agree with him. Just as we point out that Lemark was wrong we should also point out that Paley was wrong.

In addition to all of this, there is another problem, and Larry is at fault here along with all the other biological scientists. I’ll bet Larry Moran thinks its important for students to learn a certain amount of biochemistry in 10th grade and AP level biology. After all, he wrote the textbook on it! I’ll also bet that PZ Myers thinks students should learn a certain amount of developmental biology. I think they should learn some human evolution. And so on. The problem is that the total amount of time allocated to life science learning in high school is somewhere between 70 and 150 hours total. That includes lab safety, learning to use a microscope, testing and quiz time, review, and so on. The smaller number of hours is the basic minimum, the larger is if you take both the intro level class (tenth grade in many system) ane the AP or advanced class. Most students do one or the other.

I believe that part of the creationist strategy is to interfere with this process … they send the little kiddies into class with strategies designed to disrupt learning in the classroom, and they insist on adding “the controversy” … which does nothing more than to give apparent, but in truth vacuous, legitimacy to creationist views … to the already overloaded curriculum.

There simply is not room to fit in the bullshit.

Go read Larry’s essay, he makes points I’m not addressing here. One correction: You can teach the controversy, and some do, in social studies classes. The National Council for the Social Studies has suggested this, in fact (see this post).

The problem with this is that a lot of the Social Studies teachers are creationists too….

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Evolution v Creationism, Education, Atheism and Religion, Commentary, Creationism, Science Education by Greg
2 Comments »

How To Get Away With Teaching The Controversy

Please visit my new blog at Scienceblogs.com

The following is an abstract from an article by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education called “WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN?” available here.

Teachers are often exhorted by creationists to “teach the controversy.” Although such encouragement sounds on the surface like a proposal for critical thinking instruction, the history of the creationist movement in North America belies this claim. Rather than teach students to analyze and evaluate actual scientific controversies, the intent of “teach the controversy” exhortations is to have teachers instruct students that evolution is weak or unsubstantiated science that students should not take seriously. Such instruction in alleged “evidence against evolution,” or “critical analysis of evolution” would seriously mis-educate students, and should be resisted by teachers and administrators.

It does not take much to insert “the controversy” into a public school biology classroom. Here are some ideas as to how to do this:

1) Don’t mention anything about “the controversy” unless it is raised by a student. Most likely it will be since a fair percentage of the students are primed to bring this issue up. They are primed by parents, preachers, and so on. When the student brings up “the controversy” the creationist biology teacher is presented with at “teachable moment” ripe for exploitaiton.

2) If you follow strategy (1), it is possible that the opportunity to teach “the controversy” will be lost now and then. It is possible that an entire semester can go by without any student really bringing the issue up. Strategy (2) is to start, supervise, or otherwise get involved with a legal extra-curricular Christian group. The very fact that a biology teacher is the faculty supervisor of such a group may be enough to cause a greater number of students to make the connection. But the effect can be virtually guaranteed by bringing creationism (even in the absence of discussion of evolution itself) into the discussion by using Genesis as a discussion template during the first couple of meetings of the group in a given semester or academic year.

3) A teacher can probably get away with (but this is probably not legal) mentioning their own religion along with other facts about themselves during on the first or second day of class during “introductions” or some other “get to know you/me” activity at the beginning of a semester.

Would these activities be considered illegal, or should they be discouraged or made against the rules by a school administration? Is it appropriate to simply not hire teachers who are creationists in order to avoid this problem to begin with?

Should school administrators be on the lookout for teachers using these strategies? if so, how?

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Evolution v Creationism, Education, Atheism and Religion, Commentary, Creationism, Science Education by Greg
2 Comments »

Creationism In The Classroom

According to Randy Moore, who is possibly the nation’s leading expert on law and practice of the Evolution/Creationism struggle:

According to reports from 1,441 undergraduate students at a large, public American university, most high-school biology teachers teach evolution. Approximately 25% of students who attended public schools report that their biology teachers also taught creationism, despite the fact that doing so is unconstitutional. When biology teachers teach creationism, they usually present only a particular version of the Judeo-Christian creation story, and often present this story as a scientific alternative to evolution. One-fifth of students who attended public schools report that their biology teachers taught them neither evolution nor creationism. Biology teachers at private schools may be more likely to teach evolution than are biology teachers at public schools. These results … indicate that creationism is far from extinct in biology classrooms.

[Emphasis Added]

This is from the abstract of “WHAT ARE STUDENTS TAUGHT ABOUT EVOLUTION?” by Moore, which can be found here.

Since this is a kind of self-reporting study, the numbers have to be used carefully, but other studies, by Moore and others, indicate the same pattern. Approximately one third of our life science teachers here in The Education State, Minnesota, are creationists, although a fair number of those individuals (based on personal experience) seem to be pulling back on their efforts to teach creationism. Indeed, it is now not uncommon for applicants for life science positions in public schools to be asked to discuss their approach to teaching in relation to the Evolution - Creationism issue during the job interview process.

But the fact remains that a fair number of Life Science teachers personally believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old and that humans walked the earth together with Dinosaurs prior to the Noachian Flood. And so on.

Should a potential teacher’s personal beliefs exclude them from this sort of job?

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Evolution v Creationism, Education, Atheism and Religion, Commentary, Creationism, Science Education by Greg
5 Comments »

Teaching Evolution Must Read

The Following is a large excerpt from an editorial by Jason Wiles of McGill University and Anila Asghar of Johns Hopkins University, published in the McGill Journal of Education, and introducing a special issue on the teaching of evolution. News of this comes to us from the National Center for Science Education, and the issue is available for you to read in its entirety here. This is absolutely fabulous, and each and every one of you, especially Science Educators, must go immediately to this resource and bask in every word of it!

AN EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE DIALOGUE AROUND THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF EVOLUTION

Biological evolution, the scientific principle that the diversity of life on Earth has arisen via descent with modification from a common ancestry, has been recognized by all major scientific societies and science education organizations as the central and unifying principle of the biological sciences. Evolution in the broader sense – as cumulative change in the natural world over time – is a similarly central and unifying principle in the natural sciences as a whole. Indeed, as no fewer than sixty-seven national academies of science have attested, the evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, and of life on Earth over billions of years is supported by observations and experiments from all branches of the natural sciences and represents an extraordinarily interdisciplinary understanding of the history and workings of our planet and its inhabitants (InterAcademy Panel, 2006).

However, the teaching and learning of evolution has faced difficulties ranging from pedagogical obstacles to social controversy. These include two distinctive sets of problems: one arising from the fact that many evolutionary concepts may seem, at least initially, counterintuitive to students, and the other deriving from objections rooted in religion. Despite the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists and despite evolution’s centrality to modern biology, virtually all national polls indicate approximately one-half of North Americans reject evolution – suggesting that they think scientists, textbooks, and teachers are simply wrong. It would appear that a large portion of the population is either under- or mis-educated regarding evolutionary science. A past editor of The American Biology Teacher, one of the most widely circulated journals of life science education in North America, has argued that evolution education is the biggest failure of science education from top to bottom. If the battle over evolution education is, as Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “one of the most important issues of our age” (Gould, 2001: 3), it is clearly imperative that teachers be prepared with the best pedagogical techniques available for teaching evolution. Yet surprisingly, evolution education is, as a topic of educational study, woefully under-researched.

The Evolution Education Research Centre (EERC) was founded in order to advance the teaching and learning of evolution through research. It opened its doors at McGill University in 2001 with four McGill professors and four Harvard professors who have expertise in anthropology, biological evolution, educational psychology, geology, molecular biology, paleontology, philosophy of science/education, and science education. In addition, the Centre has included full-time managers, postdoctoral, doctoral, masters, and undergraduate student researchers, and numerous affiliated researchers and educators working in international collaboration in many countries. The Centre serves as a forum for engaging in ongoing dialogue and inquiry around exploring ways to improve instruction, pedagogy, and learning of evolution….

Three articles in this issue present potential tools for teaching evolution. Robert Pennock, a philosopher of science and expert on evolution from Michigan State University, shares a new computer-based tool for teaching evolution whereby students can experiment with evolution in virtual organisms. Populations of these digital “life forms” change via Darwinian mechanisms, but on a time-scale that students can easily observe. Another technological tool for promoting the effective teaching of evolution is described in an article by Judy Scotchmoor and Anastasia Thanukos of the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Their discussion of the development and evaluation of the museum’s “Understanding Evolution” website illuminates a valuable and freely accessible resource for teachers, students, and the general public. Jeff Dodick, a faculty member in the Department of Science Teaching at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explains an additional tool for evolution education: a series of visual representations of evolutionary change in geological time designed to increase students’ understanding of evolutionary change within the framework of geological time.

Two relevant books are reviewed in this issue. Teaching Biological Evolution in Higher Education: Methodological, religious, and nonreligious issues, is appraised by Glenn Branch, Deputy Director of the (U.S.) National Center for Science Education (NCSE), who deems it a “splendid vade mecum” for “any instructor who teaches any aspect of evolution at the post-secondary level.” And Andrew Petto, of the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, reviews The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s dilemma, a book which he claims might be revolutionary with regard to implications about how and what we teach about evolution.
This issue also contains two opinion essays suggesting possible improvements for pedagogical practice in evolution education. Craig Nelson, Emeritus Professor of Biology at Indiana University and Indiana Carnegie Professor of the Year (2000), stresses the importance of addressing students’ prior misconceptions about evolution, and Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of evolutionary biology and of philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, calls for science educators to look to the science of neurobiology for new insight into how we should teach science in general and evolution in particular.

Professors Nelson and Pigliucci both assert that science educators need to take into account and engage with students’ preconceptions about evolution, including, and perhaps especially, those that may stem from their religious beliefs. However, they both also warn against misinterpretation of their suggestions as support for campaigns promoted by creationists in efforts to interject faith-based opposition to evolution into science classrooms. Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the NCSE, examines these so-called “teach the controversy” or “critical analysis of evolution” movements in her article, and exposes them as the next step in a long line of pernicious assaults on science education.

…

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Evolution v Creationism, Education, Creationism, Commentary, Science Education by Greg
1 Comment »

Creationist School Board Member Up for Re-Election

Minnetonka School Board Candidate William Wenmark. His campaign site is here.

Creationist School Board William H. Wenmark up for re-election in Minnetonka. Minnetonkians, please GET OUT THE VOTE!

Minnetonka is a large and sprawling lake, a lovely little town, and a pretty darn good school district west of Minneapolis. But the story that leads to the present situation is long, complex, and seedy.

Several years ago, there was a statewide review and rewrite of science standards in Minnesota. Cheri Yecke, the woman who recently attempted to become Florida’s education chief, was at that time appointed as head of the Department of Education here in Minnesota. She had been appointed by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. (Pawlenty was co-chair of Republican Senator John McCain’s exploratory campaign. I’m not sure what, if any, role Pawlenty holds in that campaign now. McCain is one of the Republican candidates for president that has declared his preference for a Christian theocratic executive. But I digress…)

It was widely thought at the time of the standards evaluation that Yecke was attempting to pack the standards committee with creationists, in order to write creationism into the Minnesota State Standards. (Indeed, the story of Yecke’s activities, ouster, and subsequent bid to become head of Education in Florida is itself a rather sordid affair.) In response to this, it is rumored, a number of concerned citizens who were in favor of teaching good science rather than religion in the science classrooms volunteered to be on this committee. In the part of their application where they needed to state why they wanted to be on the committee, they said things like “I’ve got a kid in school. I’m concerned about the teaching of this evolution theory in schools.” In other words, they made an accurate statement that could have been interpreted as indicating that they were creationists, and thus got on the committee. This is a trick that creationists invented, or rather stole from the Greeks, and is sometimes known as the Trojan Horse Trick. Although these individuals felt very bad to be getting on the committee this way, we all applaud their efforts, as they eventually managed to save Minnesota from a fate worse than Kansas.

In the mean time, a gentleman named Dave Eaton also got himself on that committee. Eaton is a creationist.

The efforts of Eaton and others caused the science standards committee to spend most of its time fighting over whether or not to each religion in science class, or to teach science in science class. Had this been a couple of decades ago, one might (might!) be able to chalk this up to differences in opinion (but where one opinion was clearly right and another clearly wrong, of course). But at the time this fight was being fought, it was pretty clear that the next state that attempted to do something like this would become a battle ground for this “debate.” This is clearly what the creationists involved wanted. But no one who really thought about it wanted was to have such a fight happen, to suffer the expense, the permanent stigma of being “one of those states” where un-reason often prevails, and to have the major distraction so that a couple of generations of school kids (and in K-12 one generation is one year. If we-all screw up teachin g a particular subject in a particular year, 100% of those students loose) get a lesson in politics instead of acience. And they need both, I would think

As a result the science standards we now have in Minnesota are fine. But they should be more than fine, they should be really realy good. We claim, among other things, to be the Education State. (We are not. That would be Massachusetts, but Massachusetts is a long way away and its not really a state, its a “commonwealth” and we tend to compare ourselves to Iowa and the Dakotas anyway.) As a result of the efforts of people like Bill Wenmark, the Minnesota State Science Standards are substandard.

In a separate scenario, Eaton ended up on the Minnetonka School Board, where he claimed to be an expert on the science standards, having been one of the guys trying to ruin the standards while serving on the committee. During a review process in which Minnetonka was trying to get their standards a) in line with the new state standards and b) adapt them locally and expand them appropriately, Eaton made the claim that he could do a better job than anyone on the planet in interpreting the science standards that he “helped to write.”

His interpretation, of course, was to include wording that would leave open the door to teaching creationism. He took a page right out of the Discovery Institutes’s “Wedge Strategy” … the “teach the controversy” tactic.

This was a kind of straw-that-broke-the-camel’s back for many Minnesotans, and a number of concerned citizens got together and did battle over this, and won. He was humiliated and lost his bid to insert religion into science class.

A local group called Tonka Focus came to the rescue during this period, helping to organize resistance and to get information out there.

Eaton had an ally on the Minnetonka School Board, a gentleman named Bill Wenmark. Wenmark is now running for re-election to the school board. I believe that Bill Wenmark is genuinely interested in politics, government, and in making a contribution to society through his service. However, it appears that he, like Eaton, is in favor of including Intelligent Design in the Curriculum at the least in the form of “teaching the controversy” [this paragraph edited for accuracy.]

These days, while running for re-election, Wesmark has decided to use the platform given him by the usual local resources by which school board members get to state their position on various issues to attack Tonka Foucs.

For instance, each of the candidates were presented by a local citizens group with the opportunity to publish an unedited set of answers to a series of well-chosen questions, which would be put on this citizen’s group’s web site, to allow voters to learn more about the candidate. in answer this question:

Is there anything else you’d like voters to know?

he responded entirely with a rant about Tonka focus. This is the rant in full. Please read it carefully:

Service over the past eight years on the Minnetonka School Board has been focused on two quotes I have written:

“My role as a public servant is not to change how you think…but to give you something more to think about in making an informed decision.” And…

“An effective public servant centers on leadership that puts the student, teacher, and the family first. If it takes a fight to provide clarity on those issues– count me in.” William H. Wenmark

Finally, I hope that certain members of Tonka Focus will restrain themselves from stealing lawn signs during this election. It is clear that Tonka Focus has an agenda driven by the beliefs of it founding members. While these beliefs are recognized and respected, they are not representative of the view of many in our community. Personal attacks (focus) on only certain board members, with whom Tonka Focus does not agree, have been a consistent theme of the Tonka Focus Web Site. All who visit Tonka Focus should also consider the associations by Tonka Focus with the ACLU others in a lawsuit file in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, (http://scit.us/cobb/citizen-amicus.pdf ) just as a frame of reference. It is my opinion that if you only read the opinions of Tonka Focus you would not get the entire story. I would urge all readers to contact the candidates directly if they have questions regarding any concern for their school board or members thereof.

Having said that…I want to give GREAT CREDIT to Tonka Focus for being willing to allow an un-edited response from each of the candidates and THANK YOU very much for the opportunity to provide a “first person” background to your questions.

I love it. Wesmark is so good he quotes himself as though he were George Washington or something.. But then he goes on to attack Tonka Focus, as though they were some sort of Suburban Chapter of Al Qaida. He writes of their affiliation with the ACLU in the way most neocons refer to the ACLU, as though it was a coven of Satan incarnate.

You will notice, however, that Tonka Focus is the very same group that posts the information about the candidates. Tonka Focus represents the citizens of this community as well as any other group. And, I know the Tonka Focus people. Tonka Focus does not steal lawn signs.

Minnetonkans! Vote for The Other Guy!

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Evolution v Creationism, Education, Politics, Commentary, Creationism, Science Education by Greg
6 Comments »

Teaching Resource: Mouse Brain

A multi-institutional consortium including Duke University has created startlingly crisp 3-D microscopic views of tiny mouse brains — unveiled layer by layer — by extending the capabilities of conventional magnetic resonance imaging.

Story and links here.

Tags: Education, Science Education by Greg
No Comments »

Europe: “No” to Creationism

The human rights monitoring Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved (48-25 vote) a report criticizing creationism, and determining that teaching creationism in schools potentially sacrifices chidlren’s education by imposing religious dogma.Castle, Stephen. “European lawmakers condemn efforts to teach creationism. International Herald Tribune.

European lawmakers condemn efforts to teach creationism

The vote in Strasbourg highlighted the growth of Christian creationism, promoted by socially conservative parties in Eastern Europe, and of a Muslim variant pioneered in Turkey …

The report said that creationism … was “an almost exclusively American phenomenon” but that such ideas were “tending to find their way into Europe” and affect several of the 47 Council of Europe countries.

It added that denying pupils knowledge of theories like evolution was “totally against children’s educational interests” and that creationists supported “a radical return to the past which could prove particularly harmful in the long term for all our societies.”

…

The vote is nonbinding but means that the assembly will ask the 47 member states to consider their views.

…

Although the Council of Europe is a human rights watchdog and a guardian against discrimination, it is increasingly divided on moral issues because its members includes mainly Muslim Turkey as well as East European countries, among them Russia, where social conservatism is strong.

In June, members of the assembly put off voting on an earlier draft of the report on creationism because of opposition to the document, which was drawn up by a senior French member of the assembly’s culture and education committee, Guy Lengagne.

At the time Lengagne said he was “appalled” by the decision and warned that the growth of creationism had “the makings of a return to the Middle Ages.”

…

The report Thursday described Turkey as the “one of the main cradles of Islamic scientific creationism” and noted that “The Atlas of Creation” had been sent to “a very large number of French schools and resource centers.” Another 1000 copies were sent to French-speaking Switzerland and others were sent to Belgium and Spain.

In Poland, a staunchly Roman Catholic country, the theory of evolution was described as “a lie” last year by the Deputy Minister of Education, Miroslaw Orzechowski, a member of the ultra-conservative League of Polish Families.

In Serbia in 2004 the Minister of Education, Liliana Colic, was “forced to resign after ordering schools to stop teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution if creationist ideas were not also part of the school curricula,” the report said.

In Russia, the document added, the teaching of the theory of evolution “is being increasingly called into question by pupils and their parents who want access to teaching that is closer to their religious and personal convictions.

A copy of that Turkish Atlas showed up in my mailbox a few months ago, by the way. It is an impressive book, judging just by variables such as mass, binding, and number of colors used in the printing process. It weights, like, 97 pounds. It is red. Otherwise, I can’t tell you much about it.

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Evolution v Creationism, Education, Atheism and Religion, Commentary, Creationism, Science Education by Greg
3 Comments »

Review: The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism

REPOST

”Everyone needs to understand the basic facts of evolution as well as the essentials of the scientific method… When people are deprived of a scientific approach to reality as a whole, they are robbed of both a full appreciation of the beauty and richness of the natural world and the means to understand the dynamics of change not only in nature but in human society as well.”

-Ardea Skybreak, “The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism”

Ardea Skybreak’s new book, “The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: Knowing what’s real and why it matters” is a comprehensive treatment of creationism, in all of its forms, in relation to the practice and teaching of evolution and science in general. This book provides a point by point description of creationist arguments and refutation of those arguments, and a very usable summary of the related evolutionary concepts.

Skybreak describes and summarizes evolutionary theory focusing on the areas usually brought up by creationists (such as speciation, micro- vs. macro evolution, transitional fossils, etc.). She clearly positions anti-evolution arguments in a broader context as an “assault on science in the name of god” and she positions the “science of evolution” as fundamental to science itself. In her treatment of the most recent forms of creationism such as Intelligent Design Creationism, she makes the argument that IDC is largely just more of the same thing, but does not dismiss the specifics of the argument … rather she address them. Then, of course, they are dismissed as the drivel that they are. You can expect this volume to serve as a reference tool in that it describes and carefully treats all the creationist “schools of thought” providing both convincing arguments (for fence sitters) and the tools an educator should have in addressing these issues. At present, this may be the most comprehensive discussion available, and it is certainly up to date.

The book is loaded with dozens of “supplemental” inserts, which you can think of as side-bars, on a variety of topics. For example, “Were We Bound to Evolve? — The Role of Random and Non-Random Factors in Evolution;” “Humans and Dinosaurs?! Another Creationist Absurdity;” and “Rare Variants of the Almost Entirely Universal Genetic Code Are Evidence of Evolution, Not Design.”

The author could possibly be characterized as a nontheist or atheist with Marxist or progressive leanings. Her treatment of the religious aspects of creationism’s attack on evolution is crisp and dismissive. At the same time, her approach is not idealistic, but rather, appropriately materialistic and straight forward. Her philosophical comments are limited to the obvious condensate from the interaction between incredibly stupid ideas and basic science. I don’t think Skybreak’s book requires rejection of religion to accept evolution, but if you are looking for a way to reconcile religious belief with scientific reality, you won’t (thank god) find it here.

I think you could use this book in a college biology class, because it covers the basics of evolution, along with well chosen examples. If you are interested in teaching students evolutionary biology and at the same time giving them the tools to address creationism as it rears it’s ugly head in social, educational, and political contexts, then add this inexpensive and well written volume to your reading list. The book is organized in such a way that various chapters and side-bars (supplementals) can be linked to the usual reading material in any introductory or intermediate course on evolution. One could argue that setting up any straw man is good pedagogy if done correctly. This volume does a good job at teaching evolution by using creationism in its various forms as a kind of Swiss Army Knife of Straw Men.

(Click on the Amazon link to see a table of contents.)

This is the only book I have read that has encomia from both leading experts in the field as well from guys in prison… oh, and from one high school student.

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Education, Books, Creationism, Science Education by Greg
7 Comments »

This is why appeasers suck! (NEA screw-up)

Unions. Gotta love them. Were it not for unions it is very possible that your life would suck.

I once worked on an exhibit that was going to be installed in an Industrial Archaeology museum. It was a great exhibit. We were going to have a big pile of bolts of cloth, and then show what it took to make that cloth. One thing would be a big clear Plexiglases container representing the amount of water that would flow through the mill races if water power were to be used to make that cloth. Then we would have a big hunk of coal showing how much coal would be burned to make that cloth. Then we would have manikins of workers representing the number of people over a certain amount of time to make that cloth. The manikins would represent the actual people who actually would have made that cloth 100 years earlier.

So they would all be female. Most would be under 16 years of age. And a certain number of them would be missing their hands or arms from accidents common in the factory.

That would be the pre-union days.

So two union things just hit me this very moment. The doorbell rings and Amanda surprisingly actually answered the door. We live in a semi-rural suburb where nothing good ever happens when the doorbell rings at nearly 7:00 PM on a Monday. It’s always Mormons or somebody. So this guy is at the door asking Amanda if she is upset about all the union jobs going overseas, he’s claiming to be representing the AFL-CIO and he’s clearly casing the house. He was acting so strangely that I went ahead and contacted AFL-CIO to see if they had canvassers in the neighborhood. (They’ve not gotten back to me yet.) I’ve never seen a Union canvasser before anywhere.

Have you? Do they ever do this? Anybody know? Let me know!

Anyway, at that very moment I’m checking out Pharyngula as I do every so often to find ideas to steal for my own blog. And PZ Myers is ranting about the fact that at the NEA (National Education Association …. the union for teachers) convention currently underway in Philadelphia there is booth run by Answers in Genesis pushing creationism. As PZ notes, this is like the mafia opening a booth at a policeman’s convention. They are pushing material that would be ILLEGAL for a teacher to use in a classroom.

So, why does the NEA allow this? Anybody know? I’m sure they don’t have to. Is it because there is a link to christianity, and therefore, because we live in a christian society we have to give those fuckers the benefit of some misguided doubt?

This is why Appeasers suck.

Hey, NEA: Those of us who support you in the face of widespread anti-union sentiment need to be treated better than this. You are on notice.

Here is the NEA contact page. Just in case you want to drop them a line.

Tags: Creationism in the Classroom, Education, Creationism, Commentary, Science Education by Greg
6 Comments »

… not just a theory anymore.

~books~

Topics

Entries Tagged as 'Science Education'

The Best Of ….

Controversy over Controversy: Moran disagrees with everybody, but he is probably correct.