Benefits of teaching the "controversy"?

Since a fair number of primary public school teachers (perhaps a smaller percentage of science teachers, but hardly a low enough percentage) are sympathetic to creationism and ID, I am at a loss to see how "teaching both" would actually work to the advantage of science. And as far as I know, the teachers who would like to contrast science with pseudosciences like ID are allowed to do so, but I suspect that even those teachers would like to do so would not do it, due to likely backlash from parents.

Well maybe Balter thinks that we can just start out with fresh new teachers and parents committed to science in a way that past ones have not been. Just set up the situation, Balter, and I'll go for your recommendations.

Until then I'd try to just get evolution into the curricula in many places. I guess ol' Balter thinks that evolution teaching is happening most everywhere, but to little or no effect, and he wants to change the teaching that in fact is not occurring in many cases.

And even if he could give us good solid teaching of evolution nearly everywhere, does he really think that beating up on religion would be allowed? Sure, they tell us that ID isn't religion, but Behe explicitly states now that ID points to something "beyond the natural", and if ID were getting picked on by us virtually all of them would suddenly recognize that ID is religious and would sue to prevent our contrasting ID to science. I rather suspect they'd make a really good case for ID being religious.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I think there's a good point here. I've used Literal Creationist arguments myself as a jumping off point to 1) mollify students that they are taken seriously, 2) indicate there are many ways to approach this issue, but they need to learn the scientific way,
and 3) show how science adequately responds to the objections. So teaching the controversy can be good- as long as it's being taught as the history of objections to evolution, and this is how science has shown them to be false or wanting. Too often the meaning of "teach the controversy" is that one presents both sides equally. But if it means showing what the Literal Creationists have said, in order to help students come from one point to another, and then showing how the evidence has accumulated- this seems to be eminently reasonable and a way to help students go through the same process that science has gone through in the last 150 years.

I think people are basically on target here with their skepticism. As a pedagogical device for teaching science, it can be helpful to show how currently value-free misconceptions (the ether, geocentrism, blood-letting, N-Rays) were corrected through the proper application of the scientific method.

But as we all surely know inside out here, creationism is not a quaint long-forgotten scientific error, but rather a current virulent political program that regards the scientific method as irrelevant to achieving utterly nonscientific social goals.

Science might regard creationist claims as falsifiable (and falsified) statements about objective testable reality, but creationists aren't fighting on that playing field. They are fighting to make Jesus primary in every aspect of our lives, and how well this goal is accomplished is the ONLY thing that matters. Not facts or evidence or tests. Not honesty or logic.

So we'd see two approaches applied in high schools. The first (by teachers of real biology) would probably be to simply avoid the subject altogether, to avoid religious arguments in science class and wrathful parents with torches and pitchforks - a guaranteed result of showing how science has "corrected creationist error". The second (by creationists) would be to use this reasonable-sounding proposal as carte blanche to preach the Gospel Of Jesus Christ in science class, while the actual science gets no classroom time.

The Leonard case (at OSU) illustrated that even tenured university professors, IF they are creationists, are willing to game the system and sacrifice their employer's reputation for Jesus if they can get away with it. And we expect more integrity in high schools? Why?

I've been watching the Creationism/ID movement since the mid 1970s and I am convinced that it is primarily a political movement pushing a mean-spirited sectarian agenda. Most of the major advocates of this movement make their living doing this, and they appear to be paid well for their efforts. They have also managed to run up the costs of education in every district they have bullied.

There is no advantage whatsoever to using up class time to cover material that would only encourage these idiots to continue conning people while making big money doing it. We would be participating in an enabling activity that keeps them going at our expense. Administrators in public schools are also part of the problem because so many of them prefer to use appeasement to head off these sectarian activists when they come in to complain. Better to cut Creationist/ID activism off at every opportunity and hit them in their pocketbooks.

One of the biggest services that Panda's Thumb and Talk Origins provide is to keep these parasites under the microscope and to expose every sleazy twitch of their contorted reasoning. This is much more effective than trying to do it in a public school classroom where teachers are already overextended and stressed by a myriad of tasks that are basically unrelated to the subject matter in the class. More public school teachers should be made aware of the material on these sites so they can simply refer student questions to the excellent resources put together by many talented people.

Perhaps a better way would be to take the agenda out of the science. Just as a religious agenda pulls the ID train, an atheist agenda pulls the Dawkins train. But evolution can be upheld by theists and atheists. Problems occur when agendas lead science.

You mean agendas like teaching kids the truth and keeping religious indoctrination out of public schools?

Also, the atheist agenda may pull the "Dawkins train," but that's different from the science train or the education train.

Since a fair number of primary public school teachers (perhaps a smaller percentage of science teachers, but hardly a low enough percentage) are sympathetic to creationism and ID, I am at a loss to see how "teaching both" would actually work to the advantage of science. And as far as I know, the teachers who would like to contrast science with pseudosciences like ID are allowed to do so, but I suspect that even those teachers would like to do so would not do it, due to likely backlash from parents.

— Glen Davidson

Creationism and ID are very relevant to the politics of science, but totally irrelevant to science itself.

GuyeFaux --- Unfortunately, yes you are. Although it depends on the part of the country, I suppose...

"No IDiocy in science classes!"

and his views have been discussed at The Panda's Thumb before now

"...the position appears to be at least superficially reasonable"

Superficially reasonable is right.

To officially deem ID (or YEC or astrology or ...) as being of sufficient intellectual merit to make academic discussion valuable to any significant degree is to implicitly confer unjustifiable credibility on the topic.

Students, who by their very definition are not experienced or fully informed about the objects of their study, have no need to be gratuitously exposed to fallacies they are not yet equipped to recognize on their own.

The opposition, of course, intends that very thing - for credulous minds to be fed noncredible assertions before they're capable of noticing those same assertions' absence of credibility... the same rationale is behind brainwashing children into religious dogma; the likelihood of said dogma to be credible to an adult with no previous exposure to it is small indeed.

- - - - -

Charles Norris -

"...as a religious agenda pulls the ID train, an atheist agenda pulls the Dawkins train."

Kind of you, I'm sure, to offer this observation in a form which would suggest that it is indisputable fact, when it is of course actually nothing of the sort.

Few rhetorical devices are more insidious than cultivating the erroneous perception of 'even-handed' and 'balanced' treatment of an issue where the distribution of supporting evidence is far from symmetrical. See 'teaching the controversy' for a cogent exemplar of this intellectually dishonest stratagem.

We're to be misled into arguments for and against the atheist nature of the so-called Dawkins agenda. Quite spurious, presupposing as it does that such a Dawkins-related phenomenon as an "agenda" actually exists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, empirical and other, to the contrary.

If the 'Dawkins train,' as you would have it, is 'pulled' by anything, it would appear to be by a transparent commitment to the diligent use of rationality in pursuit of solutions to our epistemological shortcomings. The implication that the disinterested search for an accurate model of reality is no more than a disingenuous attempt to garner support for a trivial partisan ideology is insupportable humbug.

Or if you'd rather the long story > short, the act of trying to reduce the promotion of rational thought as the tool of choice for seeking the nature of reality to the petit, ultimately trivial level of merely promoting popular acceptance of superstitious dogma is nothing more than intellectual treason.

Then again, perhaps not, as the case may be. Wouldn't care to sound too dogmatic.

I'm pretty much in agreement with the idea that setting up creationist straw men and then showing what's wrong with them is a great way to teach what evolution really says... but an even remotely realistic assessment would immediately show that this approach is neither appropriate for a public school setting, nor could it even actually correctly work the way Mr. Balter is intending in such an environment.

But creationism is at least tangentially relevant to the history of evolution, which is relevant to its science. In particular, I remember that when I learned about evolution in High School, the teacher wove this very nice story about Charles Darwin, the Beagle's voyage, finches, and in general how the theory came together. It was simply impossible to leave out the theory's historical context, a big part of it being YEC and other good ideas of the time. I wonder if today the same story would elicit a discussion of ID anyway? In which case teachers knowledgeable about the "controversy" would be far more helpful than those who simply hushed it up.

bah ..last sentence has obvious grammer error.

The theocratic pseudoscience underworld CANNOT make the claim that ID, which has been tested by the SCotUS and found to be a religion,cannot be critically examined and compared to mythologies and other cults.(which is its educational catagory)

Gaius Baltar just wants to give us over to the Cylons!

oh, wait, wrong story?

Guyfaux has made an excellent point.

I taught high school physics and mathematics quite a while ago, before Sagan's Cosmos. The physics curriculum I preferred, called Harvard Project Physics, made quite a point of teaching the Ptolemaic view of the solar system and universe, and then following the development of astronomical thought up through Kepler, Brahe, Galileo and on up through Einstein and the modern era. In my opinion, this approach teaches the scientific method and process much better than a straight teaching of astronomy and physics as we currently know them. It's important to understand the thread of logic that connects all the various observations with our evolving ways of understanding them.

Also IMHO, the "take no prisoners" approach to fighting ID in the schools is simply unscientific. We won't win the battle until legions of schoolkids have been walked or find their own way through the arguments that lead so inexorably to our current models, however they may have been updated in the meantime.

If i were a biology teacher, I'd totally address the topic of ID/creationism. However, I would also expect the parents to come after me with pitchforks for attacking their religious views. Apparently, they only want you to say nice things about their religion in science class.

I'm glad to see my piece discussed on the Panda's Thumb, which is always an honor. Since the link to our extensive and heated debate after my October 2005 Los Angeles Times piece is provided, I don't think it is useful for me to enter into the same debate here. It is nice to see that some of the usual suspects, such as Toejam and k.e., are still alive and kicking and fighting the good fight.

That debate did not change my views, and the only question I would pose here is: What do pro-evolution activists intend to do about the fact that the majority of Americans, including American school kids, do not think the theory of evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity? What is their plan to change this? Keeping creationism out of the classroom is not doing the job, so what will?

To Michael Balter;

Creationism and ID are not kept out of the classrooms - they permeate our society, vestiges of religious ideas that just won't go quietly.
You are fighting a dearly held belief system that is almost universally accepted and promoted within our society for no other reason than simple peer pressure.

That debate did not change my views, and the only question I would pose here is: What do pro-evolution activists intend to do about the fact that the majority of Americans, including American school kids, do not think the theory of evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity? What is their plan to change this? Keeping creationism out of the classroom is not doing the job, so what will?

...oh and guyfeux is totally wrong to consider creationism as a tangent and thus a valid topic of a science class.

obviously, in the same vein, we should tangentially consider the impact of astrology on astronomy.

it's a patently ridiculous argument.

Moreover, "creationism" as it currently stands is a far more recent phenomenon than the idea of the genesis story itself. Or have you forgotten the roots of the creationism movement in america? came LONG after Darwin, that's for sure.

can't we put this idiocy to rest?

"can't we put this idiocy to rest?"--Toejam.

It doesn't look like it, since people here seem to want to discuss it. I did not post the IHT piece here, Toejam! However, since we have had an extensive discussion of it here before, I will restrict the rest of my blogging on this subject to The Questionable Authority site. Toejam's beef would appear to be with newspaper editors who think that my opinion is worth airing and bloggers who think it is worth discussing. Nobody is forcing them.

That debate did not change my views, and the only question I would pose here is: What do pro-evolution activists intend to do about the fact that the majority of Americans, including American school kids, do not think the theory of evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity? What is their plan to change this? Keeping creationism out of the classroom is not doing the job, so what will?

That, and a cold bucket of water..obviously

Discussing bad science in the context of a modern science class:

"In the old days they used to believe the world was flat. It's wrong of course, as sailors figured out, and then we invented the sattelite."

"But sir, what about ID?"

"ID is a load of rubbish."

That'd about do it. ID is a recent concept and was designed as a con anyway. Teaching a little historical perspective on science is one thing, but to teach about the so-called 'controversy' in science class wastes time that could be used to teach proper science. If people wanna know about the 'controversy' then leave it for social studies class or something. In a science class it is just a waste of time.

What is their plan to change this? Keeping creationism out of the classroom is not doing the job, so what will?

Teach science. Teach evolution, which has for many decades been kept out of schools by people pushing creationism/ID. In fact, that's one of their goals in pushing their non-science; it's a form of working the refs which has been quite effective. That's why there are so many people who don't understand the first thing about evolution, and so oppose its teaching in schools.

The controversy is not a science controversy, but a political one. The science of creationism/ID vs. evolution has been settled for over a hundred years.

The physics curriculum I preferred, called Harvard Project Physics, made quite a point of teaching the Ptolemaic view of the solar system and universe, and then following the development of astronomical thought up through Kepler, Brahe, Galileo and on up through Einstein and the modern era.

"Teach science. Teach evolution, which has for many decades been kept out of schools by people pushing creationism/ID. In fact, that's one of their goals in pushing their non-science; it's a form of working the refs which has been quite effective. That's why there are so many people who don't understand the first thing about evolution, and so oppose its teaching in schools."

One step further: teach All life sciences from an evolutionary platform. Don't treat evolution as a "unit" that can be skipped or discarded if time is tight.( or someone gets their panties in a wad) Every topic should be approached from this paradigm, and connections drawn between topics throughout the course. Science is taught in such fragmented ways, mainly because we insist on compartmentalizing not only the disciplines but the topics within disciplines. This is what made the Harvard Physics curriculum so interesting and different.

Moreover, "creationism" as it currently stands is a far more recent phenomenon than the idea of the genesis story itself. Or have you forgotten the roots of the creationism movement in america? came LONG after Darwin, that's for sure.

The proper teaching of evolution and the historical developments of our current scientific understandings have been vigorously opposed by the Creationist/ID crowd for a very long time.

Many here will also remember the fundamentalist response to BSCS, PSSC, Harvard Project Physics, all of which were excellent improvements to the high school science curriculum. Remember the Grablers in Texas and their effects on the content of biology textbooks? Statewide textbook adoption procedures in Texas, California, and other large states kept evolution out of the classroom because publishers didn't want the include topics that would cause controversy and reduce sales. The effects are still with us today.

The Creationist/ID political crowd has always treated science as an interloper and usurper of their own imagined right to determine what the rest of us know and believe. From watching their preachers and political activities over the years, I suspect that the root of their distain is basically a jealous bigotry. Science is treated like a competing religion encroaching on their territory. Anything that deals with the historical development of science is a trigger for the political activists in this crowd to start complaining and threatening. In recent years, their approach has evolved (ironically), and they have become slicker in their pitches, but the underlying bigotry and motivations are still there.

I have taught physics and math to bright high students in advanced science and math programs. I have never encountered a problem with these students or their parents when I presented some of the twists and turns in the historical development of science. But I think teachers in the public schools should not have to compromise their professional integrity and responsibilities if they are confronted with creationist/ID activists. The teachers in Dover did the right thing in opposing the pressure their administrators and school board members placed on them.

What do pro-evolution activists intend to do about the fact that the majority of Americans, including American school kids, do not think the theory of evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity?

"One step further: teach All life sciences from an evolutionary platform. Don't treat evolution as a "unit" that can be skipped or discarded if time is tight.( or someone gets their panties in a wad)"

— KL

... and many more simply don't understand evolution well enough to even teach it accurately, let alone defend it well.

What do pro-evolution activists intend to do about the fact that the majority of Americans, including American school kids, do not think the theory of evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity?

Chong Ho Yu
Philosophical Foundations of Quantitative Research Methodology
University Press of America, 2006 (172 pp)

offers a view for those with but an intermediate knowledge of the philosophy of science and also statistics. For example, I learned that both Fischer and Pearson (the elder) were not only statisticians but also biologists. While mostly concerned with the applications of proper research methods in the social sciences, some applications of statistics to biology are briefly considered.

The final chapter is entitled "Statistical God of the gaps?" and is the main reason for bringing this brief volume to your attention. Here, arguments, from over 100 year ago, for live-birth sex ratios being different than 1:1 are reviewed with appropriate warnings against invoking God as an explanation.

The best part, for me, was the review and analysis regarding Brian Skyrms's Evolutionary Game Theory as a explanation of the emergence of co-operative behavior.

I recommend the book provided you can obtain it from a lending library.

There are multiple problems in attaining a teaching force filled with teachers who have deep knowledge of their subject matter and who also have sufficient time to teach properly.

One of the biggest problems I have seen is what is called "professional development". This activity, as it is practiced in most public schools has nothing to do with developing teachers professionally. It is designed mostly to keep teachers under the thumb of the administration. Typically it is run by administrators and consists of meetings filled with inane activities and pseudo-consultants. Some of these "consultants" are paid con artists peddling astrology based assessments of student learning styles, and other things just as stupid. Teachers have to put in a minimum of 70 hours of time on this crap during the academic year, and it is all done in lock-step. Attendance at professional science meetings doesn't count toward this kind of "development". Most schools of education crank out administrators who have no idea what it is like to be in a classroom day after day dealing with issues that have nothing to do with the subject matter. Thus, much of the blame lies with the system of public education and the societal problems that are dragged into the classroom whether the teachers like it or not.

Then there are the teachers who have no will to learn anything themselves.

REAL professional development would involve having individual teachers improving their knowledge of subject matter and pedagogy tailored to their individual levels and needs. They would participate regularly in the science communities (of which they should be a part), and this should count for something. Part of that professional development needs to be learning how to fight crackpot science.

Good science teachers are relatively rare in the United States. These we see at our scientific meetings, but they are a very small percentage of the people who are at the head of the classroom trying to teach science. Part of the reason for that is that the public doesn't put a high value on having such individuals. Many of the few that are good teachers quickly burn out. And, on top of all that, we get the creationist/ID political activists who want to dictate curriculum.

This is an issue that the professional science societies many of us belong to need to address more seriously, because, apparently, the typical, embattled school district will never get around to it.

nice post, Mike. couldn't agree more.

However, as you say, getting any particular school board interested in the resources an NGO can provide usually gets stalled on the "interest" part.

so many other more "important" things to address, that no time is ever made for such things; at least from my limited experience.

OTOH, groups like NCSE and those in other places have had much success attending and contributing to school board meetings in heavily creationist districts.

Have you looked at what those organizations are doing, and their measure level of effectiveness in approaching various school boards?

It doesn't look like it, since people here seem to want to discuss it. I did not post the IHT piece here, Toejam! However, since we have had an extensive discussion of it here before, I will restrict the rest of my blogging on this subject to The Questionable Authority site. Toejam's beef would appear to be with newspaper editors who think that my opinion is worth airing and bloggers who think it is worth discussing. Nobody is forcing them.

Putting aside Baltar's misguided solution, the question he has asked here is still interesting. The battle is being lost in the classrooms in the US, if we are to believe the statistics. So what is a reasonable strategy to address that that a pro-evolution activist could adopt?

So what is a reasonable strategy to address that that a pro-evolution activist could adopt?

One task in this country is deciding what constitutes science literacy. I teach at a prep school; our primary task is college preparation. In science, that means a select group of skills, some basic concepts, work ethic, organization, etc. Although there are various ideas and philosophies at work, you can get feedback from colleges, former students, admissions departments, etc. to figure out how you are doing. Public schools must do this too, but in addition must acknowledge that they are teaching a diverse group of students, many of whom will not go to college but all of whom will become citizens. How do you define science literacy? What goes into teaching a scientifically literate population? How do you attract and reward teachers in sciences? Most people (myself included) did science in college because we liked it. Most science teachers (myself NOT included) had to give up doing science to become teachers. I am lucky to work at a school that allows us to be scholars and scientists as well as teachers.

I think that our population has a pretty good idea what constitutes "literacy" (reading and writing) even if some of our citizens are not literate. Our population is not "literate" in other ways, however. Take personal economics: We are spending more than we have, and savings rates are at the lowest point since 1933. We carry a heavy debt load, use credit cards incorrectly, and carry multiple mortgages to finance foolish purchases. We are politically illiterate too; many of us do not vote, and when we do, we vote repeatedly against our best interests, following wedge issues that appeal to us emotionally but provide little improvement to our daily lives. We have real misconceptions about health-overweight, couch potatoes that drive cars everywhere and that eat billions of dollars in processed food loaded with sodium, sugar, simple carbs and saturated fat, and wonder why we have diabetes, heart problems, high blood pressure.

The same is true of science literacy. We have almost no idea what science is or how scientific inquiry is conducted. We are not skeptical enough, we know almost nothing about our physical world, and we follow superstitions that have no basis in reality. Is it any wonder that as a society we perpetuate these shortcomings in our education system?

I believe that nothing short of a nation-wide campaign of public awareness is needed for a lot of these things. (similar to the civil rights movement, which had to span several generations to finally see results) We are not a stupid nation, but we have been acting stupid for way too long.

Sorry for the looooong post-we are delayed an hour this morning for ice-I can afford to ponder this a bit!

"Yet the first-year students in Washington were just out of high school ..." is dishonestly misleading; the differences between a high school biology course and a college seminar, as well as the selectivity of the college population, were discussed at length at the "pro-evolution blog"."

I'm just going to step in and correct one comment from Popper's ghost, because in accusing me of being dishonest he has misled all of you--whether it is dishonestly or not is not for me to say. During that discussion Verhey himself stepped in to say that there was little difference between a high school senior and a college freshman in terms of their sophistication and intellectual development, which was what was being discussed--because the issue was whether my approach was too difficult to put into practice at the high school level. Since Verhey was their instructor and had direct contact with his students, I think his judgement counts for something, and should not be distorted.

During that discussion Verhey himself stepped in to say that there was little difference between a high school senior and a college freshman in terms of their sophistication and intellectual development, which was what was being discussed---because the issue was whether my approach was too difficult to put into practice at the high school level. Since Verhey was their instructor and had direct contact with his students, I think his judgement counts for something, and should not be distorted.

During that discussion Verhey himself stepped in to say that there was little difference between a high school senior and a college freshman in terms of their sophistication and intellectual development...

The difference in in the environment: the freshman is in a college, surrounded by students his age and older, and taught by professors who are likely to be a LOT more informed and qualified than the teachers he had in high school. Also, the dumbing-down pressure -- from idiot parents, know-nothing activists, spineless administrators, cash-strapped school-districts, unqualified and/or lazy teachers, and unmotivated students -- is not present in college as it is in high school. As a result of all of this, the college freshman is likely to be both more motivated and less constrained in his education and self-education.

This is STILL not honest. Take every high school senior in the country. Select out the best, and send them to college. Take out the most interested and intelligent of *those*, to attend a (voluntary) biology seminar. Sure enough, they're pretty intelligent, knowledgeable, and curious.

— Flint

Support the Richard Dawkins Foundation, which is seeking to understand the causes of superstition and how to counter it.

— Popper's Ghost

Typically it is run by administrators and consists of meetings filled with inane activities and pseudo-consultants. Some of these "consultants" are paid con artists peddling astrology based assessments of student learning styles, and other things just as stupid.

Given some of the comments, I am going to recommend the book briefly reviewed in comment #159120 more highly.

Appropriate assessment of student's knowledge is precisely the type of research that Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, Director of Testing, Evaluation and Research for Arizona State University's Digital Media Instructional Technology Department, addresses in his short book.

GuyeFaux:

Yes, I'm serious. I sat through many such meetings. And when the teachers objected to the bullshit, the administrators who set up these meetings became defensive and started accusing the teachers of being unwilling to participate in "professional development" and attempting to circumvent state mandated teacher development rules.

What was really happening was that the administrators in these cases had no idea of what was bullshit and what was not, yet they were the ones who were responsible for enforcing educational mandates. My own criticisms fell on incredulous ears.

And all this was taking place in a program for gifted and tallented high school students taking college level courses.

GuyeFaux:

Yes, I'm serious. I sat through many such meetings. And when the teachers objected to the bullshit, the administrators who set up these meetings became defensive and started accusing the teachers of being unwilling to participate in "professional development" and attempting to circumvent state mandated teacher development rules.

What was really happening was that the administrators in these cases had no idea of what was bullshit and what was not, yet they were the ones who were responsible for enforcing educational mandates. My own criticisms fell on incredulous ears.

And all this was taking place in a program for gifted and tallented high school students taking college level courses.

I also learned from teachers at AAPT meetings that this kind of thing goes on in other schools throughout the country.

Mike Elzinga --- It was certainly worth repeating! Seriously.

David:

Oops! I'm not sure how that happened. I think I may have hit post instead of preview. When the new screen didn't come up right away, I hit preview again.

My apologies for the double post.

I'm just going to step in and correct one comment from Popper's ghost, because in accusing me of being dishonest he has misled all of you---whether it is dishonestly or not is not for me to say. During that discussion Verhey himself stepped in to say that there was little difference between a high school senior and a college freshman in terms of their sophistication and intellectual development, which was what was being discussed---because the issue was whether my approach was too difficult to put into practice at the high school level. Since Verhey was their instructor and had direct contact with his students, I think his judgement counts for something, and should not be distorted.

Or are you claiming that it's Baltar that is dishonest in his reporting of Verhey' comments? Your post wasn't clear on just what wasn't honest. I'm assuming that you were complaining about Verhey, since the rest of the post attacked Verhey's point of view...

The problem can be seen here in that I noted that Verhey said his seminar wasn't appropriate for high school and then Balter says that Verhey claims that high school seniors are as sophisticated as college students, and seems to think that these two claims are contradictory. It's a matter of shallow thinking and ignoring relevant details.

I thought I was pretty clear in post #158921. I'm as astounded as Popper's Ghost by Balter's intransigence. A voluntary college seminar, even though it be attended by students only a few months older than high school seniors, is simply worlds apart. Balter doesn't seem to understand ANY of the relevant factors. Selection has been discussed. College environment has been discussed. The fact that we're mostly talking about introducing decent instruction about evolution in 9th grade, not 12th grade has been mentioned.

What hasn't been mentioned is that college students, simply by virtue of attending college, are acting as independent agents. High school students are still very much proxies for their parents. When evolution is taught in Red America, it's not typically the kids who rise up in righteous anger and make life miserable for the administration. The entire audience is different in character.

Finally, I want to re-emphasize a point Balter seems to have totally misunderstood - creationism is not scientific error, and teaching it as such completely misses the point. Creationism is religious doctrine, smuggled into science class both because science has such a good reputation to piggyback on, and because science class is where Satan's Lies are perceived by be spread in the form of evolutionary theory. Using "scientifically incorrect" religious doctrine as a pedagogical tool to illuminate scientific principles is a frankly STUPID idea. The only conceivable lesson creationist students could come away with is that "Mr. Dumbass the science teacher says science proved God is a lie." Yeah, great way to teach science.

Agreed here. When I said YEC was discussed, I did not mean its current, anti-evolution incarnation. Even before Darwin, people have dug up bones of what appeared to be long-extinct species, which displaced somewhat the popular view. And that I thought was useful, since you really got into the strength of the evidence between two conjectures.

— GuyeFaux

I would hope that any competent biology teacher will go into the historical reasons why evolutionary theory became the accepted foundation of biology, and that will definitely involve showing its superiority over competing theories. But modern YEC and ID wouldn't really be involved there.

It seems to me that one way to counter the influence of creationism is to emphasize the compatibility of Christianity and Darwinism.

At one time in my life, I was a zealous proponent of creationism/ID because I believed that it was inconsistent with my Christianity (then, a stripe of 'evangelical' Protestant). My own intellectual evolution (forgive the pun) included a conversion to Catholicism, and subsequently, a more sophisticated view of Biblical truth. As a result, I realized that the truth or falsity of any empirical theory was logically independent of the truth or falsity of the tenets of the Christian faith (i.e., as Paul puts it, "Christ and him crucified). With that realization, the impediment to accepting Darwinism was removed, and now I see the entire issue as unimportant (from a religious perspective; it is, of course, scientifically important).

Flint just nailed it.

Sorry, Mr. Balter, at this point you're engaged in nothing but avoidance of a whole series of important distinctions between what you think you're talking about and, well, reality...

My own intellectual evolution (forgive the pun) included a conversion to Catholicism, and subsequently, a more sophisticated view of Biblical truth. As a result ...

That sounds illegal; teaching teachers pseudoscience has to be unconstitutional. Endorsement of religion and all that.

— guyfaux

But evangelicals have a different view of "Biblical truth" --- that is, they actually think the bible is true (as opposed to a "more sophisticated" view in which biblical claims are to be ignored whenever they can't be fit into the gaps in our empirical knowledge).

But evangelicals have a different view of "Biblical truth" --- that is, they actually think the bible is true (as opposed to a "more sophisticated" view in which biblical claims are to be ignored whenever they can't be fit into the gaps in our empirical knowledge).

— Popper's Ghost

Or are you claiming that it's Baltar that is dishonest in his reporting of Verhey' comments?

Balter said:

"Keeping creationism out of the classroom is not doing the job, so what will."

Good question. Honestly we just don't know, since nothing so far has seemed to make much difference. Putting creationism back in the classroom hardly seems to be the right answer. However, University faculty in Biology do have opportunities to make a difference.

First and foremost we need to present the basics of evolutionary theory in introductory Biology classes and teach the entire course from an evolutionary perspective. In addition, we should integrate that approach throughout the curriculum.

Second, there are many ways that we can also make a difference in the community. For example, at SVSU in Michigan we have a Regional Math Science Center. Several of our Biology Faculty participate regularly in collaborative education efforts. For example, we offer teacher training programs to area teachers to increase content knowledge, including evolutionary theory. We offer summer workshops to area teaachers for the same reason. We go to area schools and give presentations to increase interest and awareness of science as well as offering on-campus activities for K-12 students, such as science competitions between area high schools. We even participate in lifelong learning programs to increase awareness of science and evolution in the older members of the community.

Is all this enough? Only time will tell. It takes a lot to overcome ignorance. But then again, that is what the goal of all educators should be.

Popper's Ghost wrote: But evangelicals have a different view of "Biblical truth" --- that is, they actually think the bible is true (as opposed to a "more sophisticated" view in which biblical claims are to be ignored whenever they can't be fit into the gaps in our empirical knowledge).

Apparently, you have a simplistic view of truth. On your account, Aesop's fables, are not true in any sense (obviously, as there aren't different senses of 'true') because they are fictional. An uncontroversial example from Sacred Scripture is the book of Job. Very few Christians of any denomination think that Job is (or purports to be) a historical narrative. Nevertheless, there are many truths expressed in Job.

'Factual' is a subtler word than you allow for. Nonetheless, I understand that Popper's Ghost holds that 'true' is synonymous with 'historically' or 'literally' true. It's unclear what you mean by 'culturally relevant'.

If 'truth' is synonymous with 'historical truth,' then there is no sense in which fiction is true. That is obviously incorrect.

As for being 'well-defined,' a more sophisticated account of truth does not lack definition. It is fairly easy to describe the mode of truth in parables. They are literally false accounts that express other literal truths. As such, they are species of analogy.

L.W. --- It is called fiction to separate it from fact. So fiction is not true. It might be illuminating or entertaining, however...

It is called fiction to separate it from fact. So fiction is not true. It might be illuminating or entertaining, however...

— David B. Benson

I've only taken a few minutes to skim all these comments, which I'm seeing for the first time, but here are a couple of quick comments of my own. Please forgive my tone. Reading all the comments at once makes one edgy.

1. The university where I carried out my experiment is not (with all due respect to the students) selective. Given the large fraction of high-school students who attend college nowadays, it is not too much of a stretch to suggest that my students resembled high school seniors.

2. The seminar was part of the first-quarter intro biology class that is required for all biology majors; it was not optional. Students were randomly assigned to the various sections of the class, including mine. I compared grades, amount of college experience, and other characteristics, and students in my sections were similar in all ways to students in the other sections.

3. I don't understand (and I'm not interested in knowing) the need for some discussants to abuse Michael Balter. Please stop it. And leave me alone, too.

4. It is true that during the last (and much more unpleasant) PT discussion I said that I didn't think using my approach with high school students was necessarily a good idea, but not because I didn't think the students could handle it. As you know, there are a fair number of creationist teachers out there, and parents can be exceedingly bloody-minded. This complicates things.

5. I am not impressed with the claim that all US scientific establishments are opposed to the approach I used, even when employed in college. My approach worked, and I have collected additional data to provide much stronger statistical support. On the other hand, the Teach Only Science approach has been tried for years and has failed. It is not based on sound pedagogy. It is tired dogma, and IMO it's time for a paradigm shift.

6. If we were talking about a medical trial, the experiment would have been stopped by now, and my approach offered to all the patients. To do otherwise would be unethical.

7. Why does it sound like I have a chip on my shoulder? Because I got fired by my university, where no one understood what I was doing, after my paper came out. I'm grateful for this because I've gone to a much better place, but it was annoying at the time and some of the discussants here remind me of my former colleagues.

'Factual' is a subtler word than you allow for. Nonetheless, I understand that Popper's Ghost holds that 'true' is synonymous with 'historically' or 'literally' true. It's unclear what you mean by 'culturally relevant'. If 'truth' is synonymous with 'historical truth,' then there is no sense in which fiction is true. That is obviously incorrect. As for being 'well-defined,' a more sophisticated account of truth does not lack definition. It is fairly easy to describe the mode of truth in parables. They are literally false accounts that express other literal truths. As such, they are species of analogy.

I've only taken a few minutes to skim all these comments, which I'm seeing for the first time, but here are a couple of quick comments of my own. Please forgive my tone. Reading all the comments at once makes one edgy.

— Steve Verhey

4. It is true that during the last (and much more unpleasant) PT discussion I said that I didn't think using my approach with high school students was necessarily a good idea, but not because I didn't think the students could handle it. As you know, there are a fair number of creationist teachers out there, and parents can be exceedingly bloody-minded. This complicates things.

— Steve Verhey

"In short, it's time to put this idea to bed, permanently."

So Toejam here is Ichthyic on The Questionable Authority. That does not surprise me.

This idea will not be put to bed, permanently, because it takes more than blogging to defeat an idea--despite the illusion some bloggers have that they are acting in the real world when what they are mainly doing is typing. I can assure you that the debate will continue, that I will continue to publish and elaborate on my proposals, and that it is my view that they can successfully be ADAPTED for the high school setting. As Verhey points out in his post here, the teach only science approach has failed, miserably, because it is not based on sound pedagogy. Those who really care about science education should be more open minded about exploring alternatives and engaging with the prior beliefs of the majority of students, who are creationists. That is where we start, and no amount of hand waving about keeping our science classes pure will change it.

The following paper might be of some interest to Mike, Michael and Steve:

Kalinowski, S.T. (2006) Can random mutation mimic design?: A guided inquiry laboratory for undergraduate students. Genetics, 174, 1073-1079

Abstract: Complex biological structures, such as the human eye, have been interpreted as evidence for a creator for over three centuries. This raises the question of whether random mutation can create such adaptations. In this article, we present an inquiry-based laboratory experiment that explores this question rising paper airplanes as a model organism. The main task for students in this investigation is to figure out how to simulate paper air-plane evolution (including reproduction, inheritance, mutation, and selection). In addition, the lab requires students to practice analytic thinking and to carefully delineate the implications of their results.

From the discussion:

Given the controversy in contemporary society surrounding evolution (ALTERS and NELSON 2002; SCOTT 2004), some instructors may think it best to remove the design component from this lab. This would not be difficult to do; the focal question of the lab could be rephrased as "Can random mutations create complex adaptations?" and the design element of the lab could be neatly excised. Below we describe why we have not done this. Before we begin that discussion, we would like to emphasize that we have deliberately constructed the lab so that it is not an investigation of whether species have originated via evolution or design. The lab may refute a criticism of natural selection made by advocates of design, but it does not attempt to evaluate the design hypothesis (see LAWSON 1999 for a lab that does). We discuss evidence for and against evolution and design in the lecture, but have been careful to not put our TAs in the position of leading such a sensitive discussion.

We have chosen to include the design element in the lab because it motivates the lab and because it helps to teach five important lessons:

1. Including the design aspect of the lab gives students an opportunity to read an excerpt from Paley's Natural Theology. As with Darwin, we believe Paley's argument is historically significant, his writing excellent, and his logic impressive.
2. Reading Paley gives students an opportunity to analyze his argument---which gives students practice with a foundational element of scientific thinking.
3. Having students design a paper airplane that flies as far as possible teaches students that there are many possible combinations of wing size and location. We believe students have a poor understanding of combinatorics, so this is an important mathematics lesson.
4. Including the design element also gives students the opportunity to clearly delineate the implications of their results, an important scientific thinking skill.
5. Finally, the design question gives students practice discussing a controversial topic with respect for students who have other views, and this may be as valuable a skill to practice as any other component of the lab.

Oh, and the paper can be found here:

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/174/3/1073

PS; whilst I'm sceptical of Michael's approach here, The Goddess and the Bull is a great book; highly recommended.

SteveF, your posting of this paper is an excellent contribution to the discussion we are having, and I don't say that just because you praised my book! I don't mind you and others being skeptical of my approach, but to me this paper does illustrate the kinds of things that could be done if educators were creative in applying what we know about how students learn from pedagogical theory and research.

As has been mentioned in a number of posts, the environment in a high school and a 9th grade biology class is quite different from the environment in most colleges and universities. There are occasions where, despite the skill and knowledge of a good teacher, attacks come out of nowhere, and the administrators first response is appeasement.

Sometimes one can get a sense of what kind of anti-evolution activity is brewing in the community if there are letters to the editor in a local paper, bleating with "Tammy Faye Bakker tears", about the psychological damage and loss of precious children's souls due to the teaching of evolution in the schools. Most of us have probably seen these. At least in these cases there is some warning about what might occur. But most of the time, there is little warning, except perhaps a scolding by parents in a parent-teacher conference, followed by a complaint to the principle or school board.

I have had some opportunity for up-close observations of approaches that do work well in a high school environment (most of the time), and they scrupulously avoid any mention of the more recent creationist/ID literature and claims. There are plenty of excellent arguments in the works of Darwin, Lyle, and many other authors of the modern synthesis that have put to rest the historical objections to evolution and natural selection in the past. These are extremely interesting readings and well worth bringing to the attention of students. The creationist/ID pushers have added nothing new in attempting to resurrect these old arguments, and there is no need to refer to any of their propaganda. Doing so only provokes the political wing of these groups in the community. One doesn't even need to mention religious objections to things like the age of the earth, but can simply pose such alternatives as historical objections based on human perceptions that date back to much earlier ideas about the observed universe. The important point is to focus on the evidence and steer clear of references to the more recent political/ideological time-wasting activities of the creationist/ID activists.

From what we have seen of attacks on high school science to date, there is usually a politically active creationist/ID group in a community that looks for or perceives a threat or weakness in the science program. My own observation is that they quickly back down in the face of a strong, knowledgeable science faculty, even when the administrators are spineless. It also helps to have students whose parents are knowledgeable about the science being taught and who are willing to defend the science teachers. Teachers themselves need to be well connected to the larger science community. How often does this happen in rural, red state communities?

My own somewhat limited experience with training of science teachers has been that teachers in rural and isolated communities are often at an extreme disadvantage. They often work in authoritarian environments, intimidated by parents and administrators, with few recourses, and no support from scientific organizations. They can't afford to attend professional meetings and the school district cannot or will not help. Their demeanor is often cowed and they are reluctant to try new ideas without official permission. No one even dares to mention the word evolution in these environments.

Inner-city schools dealing with gang wars and violence bring in another set of issues. Teachers and administrators in these environments spend the greater percentage of their time just trying to hold the classroom together. No one cares about what is taught.

While Michael Balter's suggestions may seem laudable at first glance, they appear to me to completely ignore the socio/political dynamics of those schools that have the greatest need to improve their science curricula. The problems are far bigger than he seems to recognize.

Michael Balter has stated that Teach Science Only has failed.

Failed to do what?

A typical 9th grade biology class probably never mentions evolution. Mine didn't, but that was in 1953 or thenabouts.

Add to this the difficulty that rural schools have in attracting qualified teachers in math, science and foreign language. In my state many teach with "waivers"; allowing them to fill positions that they are not certified in because the need is so great. If you come out of college with a degree in one of these areas, there are certainly much better ways of making a living that being a teacher in a rural public school.

Why does it sound like I have a chip on my shoulder? Because I got fired by my university, where no one understood what I was doing, after my paper came out

So Toejam here is Ichthyic on The Questionable Authority. That does not surprise me.

Balter's approach reminds me of some of the more utopian suggestions I used to hear from math profs who wanted to reform primary and secondary math ed in the United States. Those guys had the purest of intentions and a complete lack of understanding of the realities of American public education, in particular the fact that everything in our schools will always be done on the cheap by poorly paid and often poorly trained teachers supervised by principals and superintendents terrified of angry parents.

I'm very unhappy with the treatment Balter has received in these comments. So far as I can see, he is more naive than anything else--a child, not a villain. He doesn't understand that "teaching the controversy" will only provide legal cover for even more religious indoctrination than already occurs in American schools. Policy suggestions must not be evaluated in a vacuum.

As Verhey points out in his post here, the teach only science approach has failed, miserably, because it is not based on sound pedagogy. Those who really care about science education should be more open minded about exploring alternatives and engaging with the prior beliefs of the majority of students, who are creationists. That is where we start, and no amount of hand waving about keeping our science classes pure will change it.

I'm very unhappy with the treatment Balter has received in these comments. So far as I can see, he is more naive than anything else---a child, not a villain.

This idea will not be put to bed, permanently, because it takes more than blogging to defeat an idea

"why did the NAAS recommed boycotting the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt?"--Toejam

This was a tactical decision with which I personally disagreed, I think reasonable people can debate the best course to take in these situations.

"you're absolutely brilliant to figure out something everybody already knows."--Toejam

This is an example of the kind of abusive style of argumentation I complain about. This is the first time I have ever been on The Questionable Authority site, although I certainly know Toejam from The Panda's Thumb. Or is this some kind of closed club where only those who already agree can participate? I don't think that is the attitude of most people here, but it is Toejam's attitude.

Over on The Questionable Authority I said that my ideas should be put into practice first in school districts where they would be easiest to implement, such as major urban areas where creationism is not quite as strong. It would be silly to go straight into the Bible belt with this approach, although the lively debates in Kansas and in Dover make clear to me that there are parents who might be willing to fight for better evolution education. The crux of our debate is that I think there is plenty of evidence that the science only approach is not working, and clear evidence that engaging prior creationist beliefs can work. Some people have actually argued that evolution is not taught in many schools at all; if so, an approach that requires teachers to compare and contrast creationist and evolutionist ideas could only be an improvement over a campaign of silence, especially if there are syllabi that they are supposed to teach from. In essence, the objections to my proposals are really on the level of technical details rather than substantive, IMO.

Maybe Balter should reflect on the wisdom of P.T.Barnum, something the DI has apparently done to great effect.

Intelligent Design is not science. Not created to be science, not intended to be science, and lacking scientific content. ID was concocted for one specific purpose: to *infiltrate* science with religious ideas, to get the camel's nose into the tent. As Barnum said, "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right." The ID people don't care how logically their claims are demolished or how much evidence and scientific method are deployed to do the job. They care to get their religious doctrine recognized as science!. Doesn't matter if it's bad science or wrong science or refuted science, so long as it's presented as science.

Now, let's make some (admittedly silly) assumptions: that the 9th grade biology teacher has nothing else on his curriculum, that he has the support of the administration, and that the parents of these kids won't object to the pollution of their kids' minds with sinful claims that endanger their chance of going to heaven.

Given this situation, what results might we reasonably anticipate? That more 9th graders will come away with a better understanding of science? But of course, the 9th grade biology teacher often teaches Phys Ed, and is often a creationist himself. Too often, the message being communicated is that science is denying God, science is saying the Bible is a lie, science is saying your grandfather was a monkey. The curriculum will be happily provided by the DI, and contain hundreds of links to AnswersInGenesis.

The goal of "intelligent design" is to make religious converts. Whatever it takes. Lying for Jesus is SOP, quote mining is standard, the Gish Gallop is the model for presenting a lesson, and anyone who protests that the *actual science* doesn't agree is ipso facto trying to deny others their religious freedom. Some of the bills before State legislatures are already providing that students who give religious answers on biology tests can't be downgraded!

Treating religious doctrine as "bad science" as a pedagogical tool for teaching better science would have the DI delirious. All by itself, this would justify spending millions of their budget trumpeting how, since it is now "taught in science classes", this proves it was "scientific all along." School boards across Red America would listen.

Balter proposes bringing cheats into the card game to teach honest players better skills.

Flint is confusing the DI and its strategy with the millions upon millions of Americans who sincerely, rightly or wrong, believe in creationism in one form or another. That is a fundamental error which I pointed out repeatedly when we discussed this here in 2005. It leads to thinking that all one has to do is win court victories and that is enough, without dealing with the underlying, fundamental problem.

My main aim here is to get the fundamental principles right, the rest follows from that.

This was a tactical decision with which I personally disagreed, I think reasonable people can debate the best course to take in these situations.

Flint is confusing the DI and its strategy with the millions upon millions of Americans who sincerely, rightly or wrong, believe in creationism in one form or another. That is a fundamental error...

"Creationists are willing to lie, to cheat, to break all the rules, whatever it takes. Reasonable debate? Forget that, it doesn't make converts."

Wow, Flint is absolutely quaking at the mindblowing, awesome power of the creationists. How could science possibly win against such an invincible enemy? Best to just accept that 45% of Americans believe in the Biblical version of creation and leave it at that. No progress in those figures for 25 years, despite everything that scientists have done, just more proof of God's omniscience--or proof that we need a new plan?

I am not an education expert, but I have to say the the tone of Verhey's and Balter's recent posts here have caused serious damage to the credibility of their arguments.

Verhey wrote:

On the other hand, the Teach Only Science approach has been tried for years and has failed. It is not based on sound pedagogy. It is tired dogma, and IMO it's time for a paradigm shift.

First, teaching only science in science classes worked pretty well for me: I didn't major in any science, but the science classes I took taught only science, and I learned a good bit from them. I certainly didn't need to hear any creationist hooey to enhance my appreciation of evolution.

Second, I don't think there's a single pedagogical approach that can be called a "success" or a "failure" in such absolute terms as Verhey uses here. I've been to public and private schools, and have heard lots of arguments, in a variety of fora, over which approach "works" for students, and I can tell you that what worked for me did not work for everyone else in my generation, many of whom had high (and IMHO sincere) praise for the schools I considered hellholes.

Verhey's dismissive tone, and his use of fuzz-phrases like "paradigm shift," imply a closed mind or a rigid agenda.

And when Michael Balter echoes the same statement and then adds:

Those who really care about science education should be more open minded about exploring alternatives...

...he starts to sound like a hypocrite.

Balter also says:

This idea will not be put to bed, permanently, because it takes more than blogging to defeat an idea---despite the illusion some bloggers have that they are acting in the real world when what they are mainly doing is typing.

So why is he typing on this blog? Here he sounds like a creationist who insists that there's a huge "controversy" over evolution, and vows to keep on posting about this "controversy" -- i.e., to keep on manufacturing a controversy -- and dismissing, not addressing, those who respond to him.

Some people have actually argued that evolution is not taught in many schools at all; if so, an approach that requires teachers to compare and contrast creationist and evolutionist ideas could only be an improvement over a campaign of silence...

This is a false dichotomy: Balter is implying that the only two options are to ignore creationism altogether or take it seriously as something it clearly is not. There's a third alternative which he refuses to consider: teach the real science, and answer creationist objections by exposing their logical fallacies and dishonesty.

This is an example of the kind of abusive style of argumentation I complain about. This is the first time I have ever been on The Questionable Authority site, although I certainly know Toejam from The Panda's Thumb. Or is this some kind of closed club where only those who already agree can participate? I don't think that is the attitude of most people here, but it is Toejam's attitude.

If Balter is at all familiar with PT, he would already know that we're not an exclusive club: in fact, we welcome stupid ideas like a slaughterhouse welcomes cows. Why is Balter being deliberately obtuse about this?

Over on The Questionable Authority I said that my ideas should be put into practice first in school districts where they would be easiest to implement, such as major urban areas where creationism is not quite as strong.

Slick strategy -- introduce creationism where it's weakest, rather than waste time where it's already strong. And this contradicts his previous premise that evolution wasn't taught at all. Also, he fails to answer an obvious question: if creationism isn't as strong in these urban areas, then how can their current science-education approach be labelled a "failure?" Why is the Balter/Verhey "compare and contrast" approach necessary here?

Wow, Flint is absolutely quaking at the mindblowing, awesome power of the creationists. How could science possibly win against such an invincible enemy?

Best to just accept that 45% of Americans believe in the Biblical version of creation and leave it at that. No progress in those figures for 25 years, despite everything that scientists have done, just more proof of God's omniscience---or proof that we need a new plan?

Balter (no relation to Gaius Baltar, I hope) further bloviates:

Best to just accept that 45% of Americans believe in the Biblical version of creation and leave it at that. No progress in those figures for 25 years, despite everything that scientists have done...

Well, back in the nineteenth century, that figure was around 100%, so I'd say bring it down to 45% is progress of a sort. Why is Balter blinding himself to the longer view?

By using opinion polls to decide what to teach in science classes, Balter sounds even more like a creationist; and his proposal sounds more like "teach the (nonexistent) controversy" all over again.

I just gave Balter's "let's have a debate" article a quick read, and it seem to me that Balter is, at best, naive, gullible, easily bowled over by creationist bullying and flim-flam, and thus offering "son of teadch-the-controversy" as an attempt to appease enemies he's given up on trying to defeat.

Consider his paragraph about that 2004 Gallup poll:

Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans don't believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for our own origins. A November 2004 Gallup poll, for example, found that only 13% of respondents said they believed that God had no part in the evolution or creation of human beings, and 38% said they thought humans evolved from less-advanced forms but that God guided the process. About 45% said they believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 or so years. These results echoed similar Gallup polls dating to 1982.

He simply spits this stuff out without question or discussion, not even mentioning the wording of the questions, and oblivious to the fact -- obvious even to me, despite being a virtual ignoramus on polls and statistics -- that those categories he cites are simply not mutually exclusive or all-inclusive.

It is possible, for example, both to believe in evolution and to believe that "God" created us in pur present form: after all, if God created the Universe, and I'm part of the Universe, then God created me in my present form (what other form do I exist in?), evolution or not.

Also, that 13% who "believed that God had no part in the evolution or creation of human beings" probably reflected ONLY atheists, and completely ignored deists and theistic evolutionists, who reject creationism in all its guises.

I wonder what Raging Bee's point is here? That I have greatly exaggerated the strength of creationism among Americans, slightly exaggerated it, or given no useful information whatsoever? Obviously I picked out a few findings from the Gallup poll that I thought best illustrated the overall findings, but he is free to go look at the polls and the questions himself and come to his own conclusions. He also misquotes the findings about God creating humans in their present form, the finding is that 45% of respondents think that God did that within the last 10,000 years. Most people here would recognize that as a proxy for Biblical literalism.

I would say that picking apart the poll findings is not a very persuasive argument against what I am proposing.

I would say that picking apart the poll findings is not a very persuasive argument against what I am proposing.

It was not intended to be. Care to address the points I actually made against your proposal?

I would say that picking apart the poll findings is not a very persuasive argument against what I am proposing.

"By now, I'd be willing to say that you wouldn't find ANY argument against your proposal persuasive."

No, only the arguments I have seen here so far. This is really almost comical. The proof of my unreasonableness is my failure to be persuaded I am wrong by your arguments. By that standard, anyone who gets into an argument anywhere or anytime is unreasonable.

As for my proposals: The idea here is not to convince creationist activists that they are wrong, but to use a pedagogical method that is more effective in teaching evolution. Other than saying that they can't work in high school, few people here have been willing to tackle or address the very interesting pedagogical findings in the Verhey and Kalinowski papers.

Other than saying that they can't work in high school, few people here have been willing to tackle or address the very interesting pedagogical findings in the Verhey and Kalinowski papers.

That's not all we've said here, and you know it. Your failure to address the points we've made here make you look dishonest; and the impression of dishonesty is compounded when you ignore arguments and then pretend you haven't heard them. (Start with my posts, for example, and tell me why I'm wrong.)

This is what creationists do: state reasonable-sounding objections to the theory of evolution, and keep on repeating the objections long after they've been addressed, while pretending they've never been addressed.

Also, when your article talks about the evolutionist "monopoly" in science-education, you are merely repeating an old creationist talking-point, which anyone with a basic understanding of how science works can see through.

No, only the arguments I have seen here so far. This is really almost comical. The proof of my unreasonableness is my failure to be persuaded I am wrong by your arguments.

No, only the arguments I have seen here so far. This is really almost comical. The proof of my unreasonableness is my failure to be persuaded I am wrong by your arguments.

One more question, Mr. Balter: if you really want a debate where evolution and creationism are compared and contrasted, why not start with a transcript of the Dover trial, or a good synopsis thereof? Why do you fail even to mention that debate? It seems to me that would be a good reference for those students you wish to reach out to with your "compare and contrast" approach.

"One more question, Mr. Balter: if you really want a debate where evolution and creationism are compared and contrasted, why not start with a transcript of the Dover trial, or a good synopsis thereof? Why do you fail even to mention that debate? It seems to me that would be a good reference for those students you wish to reach out to with your "compare and contrast" approach"

I will get to Flint's comments later, but to deal with this from Raging Bee now: Just because I "fail to mention" something does not mean that I have not thought about it. Having students read segments of the Dover transcript would be a good pedagogical tool in a science class teaching evolution, provided that the students were allowed to read the testimony of Behe and others--something that many here seem not to want--as well as the testimony of Ken Miller and other scientists and the decision of the judge. That would be an interesting way of doing exactly what I am suggesting, or at least one possible way of doing it along with many others.

It leads to thinking that all one has to do is win court victories and that is enough, without dealing with the underlying, fundamental problem.

My main aim here is to get the fundamental principles right, the rest follows from that.

No progress in those figures for 25 years, despite everything that scientists have done

just more proof of God's omniscience

or proof that we need a new plan?

History is repeating with this "Teach-the-Controversy" ploy. Back when BSCS, Harvard Project, PSSC were introduced to improve high school science (partly in response to Sputnik) the fundamentalists went ballistic and started pushing their "creation science". They knew then that there was a major attempt to improve the teaching of evolution with BSCS and that more of the history of science would be introduced. Bringing up the reasons that science has come to the conclusions it has would be devastating to them, even though no mention of their sectarian beliefs were part of the new science programs.

Their efforts pretty effectively scuttled the proper teaching of evolution in most school districts throughout the country in spite of the court decisions that went against them. In that victory they had the help of textbook publishers, school administrators, and school boards that didn't want controversy. The basic strategy continues today.

The bills that they are now introducing in state legislatures are in response to Dover and the efforts of the science community to get an integrated approach to biology into the classroom. It is their ongoing attempt to scuttle any effort to teach evolution in the schools. The basic strategy is to allow all sorts of sophistry into the classroom and to eat away any time for a proper presentation of the science. Everything the creationst/ID crowd appears to be doing now has the effect of preventing teachers from presenting the scientific evidence for evolution by polluting it with the garbage generated by the Discovery Institute and the older garbage generated by the Creation Research Institute. It relies on the "I'm ok, you're ok, and everyone is entitled to their opinion" technique.

The basic effect will have the whole scene in the biology classroom take on a character that is as surreal as someone returning from a vacation in Hawaii and being confronted with a hostile crowd of people who deny that such a place exists.

There are many of us in the science community who have been involved with education for several decades and have worked at nearly every level from elementary schools to graduate programs and in a wide variety of circumstances. We have seen what works under what conditions and with what resources. One of the most robust observations is that knowledgeable teachers who have the enthusiasm, support and the resources to teach the subject matter do a good job in a wide variety of circumstances. No one that I know of who has been involved in these kinds of activities for years would suggest that using false controversies to teach young adolescents subject matter is an effective technique. First of all, it underestimates the abilities of these young students to detect disingenuous bullshit. It wastes time when there are far more effective and efficient techniques already available.

The best evidences for our current scientific understanding are already in the scientific literature, and getting this evidence into the classroom has been part of an ongoing effort by the scientific community. It is that ongoing effort that is being fought by the creationist/ID crowd. Their primary techniques have almost always involved the use of confusion and taking gratuitous offense loudly and publicly.

My basic impression of Michael Balters' proposal is that it is another one of those ideological teaching proposals that always sound good to people who have no experience with the realities of a situation, but yet they can push them because they have the power or a loud enough microphone to sound authoritative. Teachers in most public schools already have to put up with too much of that crap.

Pop psychology and pop sociology are filled with as much garbage as the creationist/ID propaganda. Using this crap just because it sounds good or plausible is not what a scientific approach would recommend. The knowledge is out there, and a lot of experienced people who have been working these streets know what it is and how to do it. They should not be ignored.

Michael Balter --- Are you seriously proposing wasting the time of students in 9th grade biology class with reading the transcript of the Dover trial?

Now for some responses to Flint.

"I argue that creationists will take advantage of your proposal to preach in science class, they will use your proposal to make the claim that magic is scientific, and they will gear up their PR apparatus to trumpet these claims widely. I argue this because this is exactly what they have done in the past, without exception."

This represents a misreading or misunderstanding of what I have proposed both in the LA Times piece and the IHT piece more recently. The creationists will not "preach" in science class because they will not be invited to do so, nor would it be legal for them to do so. Rather, I have suggested that science teachers stage debates in class over these issues, where the students take sides, play roles, etc., and there could also be debates on a schoolwide level where someone like Behe is invited to debate someone like Jerry Coyne, for example. In addition, the science teachers would use both creationist and evolutionary materials suitable for high school students, which do in fact exist as everyone here knows. Read the Verhey and Kalinowski papers for examples of the KINDS of stategies that can be employed.

"I asked you to exert your persuasiveness on sites where creationists control the forum, to get the flavor of your opposition. Your answer to this request is to pretend you never "found" it."

The second part of this is pretty much a lie. The first part: The idea is not to persuade professional creationists, but students. So proving that I can persruade a diehard creationist is irrelevant to the pedagogical issues that we are discussing here.

"I suggested we restructure 9th grade biology in such a way that everything in biology is made to make sense in light of evolution. Your response is to pretend you didn't notice this either."

The second part of this is another lie. I agree wholeheartedly with the first part.

"I asked you to consider the integrity of Leonard's OSU committee, which is emphatically worth some consideration. "
I have not studied the Leonard lesson plan in detail, but my understanding is that there was considerable evidence that Leonard was deliberately biasing it in favor of a creationist outcome. The fact that it included creationist materials, however, is not in and of itself proof of such bias, as the Verhey study illustrates. Verhey deliberately included creationist materials, as did the Kalinowski study (Paley). There would obviously need to be safeguards and lesson plans that would be subject to approval. I have not ignored such concerns but consider them to be a red herring by and large.

"I pointed out that creationist claims are founded on miracles, and do not present any purchase to scientific approaches."

If this is true, all the better to present them in comparison with evolution. But in fact the arguments put forward for intelligent design by Behe and others are fairly sophisticated and their claims to be scientific must be addressed, rather than ignored. Again, my argument is that ideas we do not consider science should be explored in the classroom if they are the ideas that are challenging evolution. Read, again, Verhey and Kalinowski for the basic pedagogical principle, applicability to high school is a different question.

"I explained why NAAS had the good sense not to get suckered into a rigged game."

I think that scientists should grab every opportunity to present their views, especially when there is likely to be significant media exposure, even if they feel they are not on a level playing field. Evolution is not on a level playing field in America, with such a great majority having creationist views. So what, deal with it. The Kansas situation was a tactical decision, on which honest people can disagree. There is no need to say I am dishonest because I disagree with you.

"claiming you haven't seen any good objections"

What I said is that I have not seen any objections that convince me I am wrong. There are a lot of difficulties with my approach, to be sure, and it would be challenging to put into practice, I never said differently. But once again, just doing a better job of teaching evolution is not as good an approach as engaging prior creationist beliefs, as demonstrated--need I say it again?--by the Verhey paper, which specifically contrasted these two approaches and there was no contest in how it came out. This is the basic pedagogical finding. How to apply it to the high school setting is an entirely different issue, although Flint and so many others want to conflate the two.

provided that the students were allowed to read the testimony of Behe and others---something that many here seem not to want

"By now, I'd be willing to say that you wouldn't find ANY argument against your proposal persuasive." No, only the arguments I have seen here so far. This is really almost comical. The proof of my unreasonableness is my failure to be persuaded I am wrong by your arguments. By that standard, anyone who gets into an argument anywhere or anytime is unreasonable.

"Michael Balter --- Are you seriously proposing wasting the time of students in 9th grade biology class with reading the transcript of the Dover trial?"

No, Raging Bee suggested this. I said I thought it was an interesting idea. Would it be a bad idea to show high school biology students the film "Inherit the Wind" about the Scopes trial? In my opinon, it would be an excellent idea. As an earlier post on PT pointed out, there are several books coming out on the Dover trial, which many consider the latter-day version of Scopes. Assigning one of them to high school students might not be a bad idea either.

"No one here has indicated, or suggested, or implied, that if the Dover trial were made a subject of high school science classes, they would not want the testimony of Behe and other IDists to be included."

They don't have to explicitly, because the position many here have taken is that creationist views (including ID) should be kept out of the classroom, period. My argument has been that there are certain contexts in which they should be brought into the classroom, specifically the context of teaching evolution. You can't have it both ways.

Rather, I have suggested that science teachers stage debates in class over these issues, where the students take sides, play roles, etc., and there could also be debates on a schoolwide level where someone like Behe is invited to debate someone like Jerry Coyne, for example.

Let's take your "approach" into other areas of study. Should geography classes include debates between round-Earthers and flat-Earthers? Should history classes include debates between Holocaust-survivors and Holocaust-deniers? And while we're at it, how about debates on the validity of germ theory? WE could have a debate between a biologist trying to find a cure for AIDS, and a bigot who insists that AIDS is God's punishment of gays. It's all part of your "paradigm shift," no?

Why should students waste precious class time having "debates" between evolution, which is universally accepted among honest and competent scientists; and creationism, which has been repeatedly shown to be false, dishonest, and scientifically vacuous? Any attempt to treat these two obviously unequal sides as if they were equally worthy of attention is either breathtakingly ignorant or just plain dishonest -- and, in either case, a dereliction of duty on the part of any teacher who allows it. There is nothing to be gained by "debating" an issue that has already been settled, or allowing students to believe, or pretend, that it hasn't been settled.

In addition, the science teachers would use both creationist and evolutionary materials suitable for high school students, which do in fact exist as everyone here knows.

Yes, we know they exist. We also know that the creationist materials are pure crap, not merely obsolete or uninformed, but blatantly dishonest, intended to deceive, and no more valid than a geography textbook written by flat-Earthers.

"Why should students waste precious class time having "debates" between evolution, which is universally accepted among honest and competent scientists; and creationism, which has been repeatedly shown to be false, dishonest, and scientifically vacuous?"

Raging Bee really should step aside and let someone who is capable of at least putting this issue into its proper context step up to the plate to debate. Unlike the other examples he gives, flat earth and the Holocaust, etc, creationism is the majority view in America. Crushingly so. If it were a fringe view, like his other examples, I certainly would not be making my proposals.

"I asked you to exert your persuasiveness on sites where creationists control the forum, to get the flavor of your opposition." The idea is not to persuade professional creationists, but students. So proving that I can persruade a diehard creationist is irrelevant to the pedagogical issues that we are discussing here.

If this is true, all the better to present them in comparison with evolution.

But in fact the arguments put forward for intelligent design by Behe and others are fairly sophisticated and their claims to be scientific must be addressed, rather than ignored.

Again, my argument is that ideas we do not consider science should be explored in the classroom if they are the ideas that are challenging evolution. Read, again, Verhey and Kalinowski for the basic pedagogical principle, applicability to high school is a different question.

Such staged 'debates' might be appropriate for the (voluntary) debating club or team. But such does not even seem appropriate for the (voluntary) science club.

I am referring to high school. The situation at college is different...

In my view the question of applicability to high school is the weakest argument against my proposals. If high school students should be taught evolution, as many here seem to agree, then they should be taught its history, the continuing challenges to it, and the responses to those challenges. Otherwise they will just walk out the door and back into church and that is that.

I have to do some other things now, will check back tomorrow and see how we are doing.

Raging Bee really should step aside and let someone who is capable of at least putting this issue into its proper context step up to the plate to debate.

That statement would carry more weight if you had actually addressed and refuted my previous arguments beforehand, rather than simply ignoring most of them, as you continue to do.

Unlike the other examples he gives, flat earth and the Holocaust, etc, creationism is the majority view in America. Crushingly so.

First, why should public opinion affect your assessment of the effectiveness of this or that method of teaching science? And second, creationism is a significant MINORITY view, not a "crushing" majority view, as the recent Ohio school board elections -- and a few other elections in 2006 -- demonstrate. Your distortion of this fact raises serious questions about your objectivity and credibility. Intentionally or not, you're echoing the creationists' verbal bullying -- "You can't stop us, WE'RE THE MAJORITY! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!"

The creationists will not "preach" in science class because they will not be invited to do so, nor would it be legal for them to do so.

The idea is not to persuade professional creationists, but students. So proving that I can persruade a diehard creationist is irrelevant to the pedagogical issues that we are discussing here.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part. (That we restructure 9th grade biology)

I have not studied the Leonard lesson plan in detail, but my understanding is that there was considerable evidence that Leonard was deliberately biasing it in favor of a creationist outcome.

If this is true, all the better to present them in comparison with evolution.

But in fact the arguments put forward for intelligent design by Behe and others are fairly sophisticated and their claims to be scientific must be addressed, rather than ignored.

I think that scientists should grab every opportunity to present their views, especially when there is likely to be significant media exposure, even if they feel they are not on a level playing field.

Evolution is not on a level playing field in America, with such a great majority having creationist views.

They don't have to explicitly, because the position many here have taken is that creationist views (including ID) should be kept out of the classroom, period. My argument has been that there are certain contexts in which they should be brought into the classroom, specifically the context of teaching evolution. You can't have it both ways.

This was a tactical decision with which I personally disagreed, I think reasonable people can debate the best course to take in these situations.

Just because I "fail to mention" something does not mean that I have not thought about it.

In essence, the objections to my proposals are really on the level of technical details rather than substantive, IMO.

Locally, one semester of biology is required of all (college) students, irrespective of major. To be fair, there is a way out by taking and passing a challenge examination. But almost nobody does so.

As a mass college course, there are big lecture sections. For those taking the course as a lab course, there are lab sections supervised by TAs. Since all of biology is introduced, nothing can be done in depth. But it is all introduced, including evolution.

About a decade or two ago there was a flurry of YECers complaining. There response was that belief was not required, simply understanding evolution well enough to pass the course.

Despite the fact that the infamous DI is located in the largest city in this state, every little IDiocy has arisen here. When it did, the response was the same as for the YECers. In any case, since Dover there is no vocal IDiocy around here.

So, at least at one university, just science in science classes seems to work. I mention this here because I am under the impression that requiring a semester of biology of all students seems not to be the norm.

Perhaps it should become so?

In my view the question of applicability to high school is the weakest argument against my proposals.

If high school students should be taught evolution, as many here seem to agree, then they should be taught its history, the continuing challenges to it, and the responses to those challenges.

Otherwise they will just walk out the door and back into church and that is that.

But in fact the arguments put forward for intelligent design by Behe and others are fairly sophisticated and their claims to be scientific must be addressed, rather than ignored.

So, at least at one university, just science in science classes seems to work. I mention this here because I am under the impression that requiring a semester of biology of all students seems not to be the norm. Perhaps it should become so?

Henry J --- I chose geology rather than biology for my one optional science course (along with required chemistry (1 year) and physics (2 years)).

Indeed, geology suffices to demolish YECer arguments. Not so clear it demolishes IDiocy, tho'.

Now I have had highly competent colleagues who denied biological evolution. These men, PhD in EE in hand, had somehow avoided learning any historical science, i.e., biology, geology, etc., despite considerable training in physics and chemistry before specializing in EE.

A more liberal proposal might be that either biology or geology is required. Indeed, many students doing a non-science major take just those two subjects to fulfill their science requirement.

Anyway, I suspect that even that is far from the norm in American colleges and universities...

The creationists will not "preach" in science class because they will not be invited to do so, nor would it be legal for them to do so.

I have suggested that science teachers stage debates in class over these issues, where the students take sides, play roles, etc., and there could also be debates on a schoolwide level where someone like Behe is invited to debate someone like Jerry Coyne, for example.

my argument is that ideas we do not consider science should be explored in the classroom if they are the ideas that are challenging evolution.

creationism is the majority view in America. Crushingly so.

Um, ya mean that Balter's compulsive urge to "debate" both "sides" of the "issue" is itself the result of his overexposure to debating both sides of the issue, regardless of merit, perhaps during what passed for his education?

Mr. Balter, you're trapped in a circularity not of your own making!

Please return to the factory for a free warranty-covered adjustment...

In my conversations with teachers over several decades, there is nothing that sticks in their craw more than the lack of professionalism with which they are treated in many school districts around the country.

This argument that the majority of people in the US want creationism in the classroom is extremely revealing. It says that creationists view teachers as paid political whores who must submit to the majority johns. It is quite consistent with the attitudes fundamentalists have historically had toward women and slaves.

Teachers are supposed to be experts in their subject matter, hired on the basis of that expertise with the expectation that they will bring the best of what knowledge we have to the students in the community. Asking them to participate in fraudulent controversies in a way that gives legitimacy to junk science not only compromises them professionally and ethically, it destroys their credibility as experts, drives out real expertise and replaces it with submissive political whoredom.

I remember that in my high school biology class, we talked a little bit about the history of the theory of evolution through natural selection (like the discredited idea that acquired characteristics could be passed on and punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism), watched the PBS film on Charles Darwin (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, I think it was called), and discussed evolution and intelligent design. But although we had a largeish minority of people who all went to the same church and seemed to all be creationists, we also had a teacher who was not afraid to say, in essence, "that's a nice-sounding idea, but it's factually wrong", an administratrix who would have backed her up no question if there'd been any problems, and a good group of smart, well-spoken, unabashed Darwinists (*cough*me included*cough*), so the "debate" (discussion after we finished the movie) didn't last long and together with a couple of other well-made videos on the modern "controversy", "why would anyone want to believe that we came from monkeys/some primordial soup" met fairly quickly with "why would anyone want to believe that we came from dirt and God's spit".

But this was at a charter school, a college prep school, and like I said, an awesome teacher/director/student/movie-creator team. I doubt that it would have gone like this at pretty much any of the fully public schools in the area. We were using a textbook that was typically used for AP biology classes that seemed pretty much on the same level as the textbook I'm using for both of my biology classes I'm taking at the college, which are basically for science and pre-med majors. And there were only five periods in a school day. We had very good resources.

Do I think that teaching the history of evolution as a way of explaining evolution is a good idea at the high school level? If it's implemented properly--proper resources, good teacher, students who are ready for it, lots of time not taken up with Feng Shui and astrology--yes. Do I think that teaching New Math, or philosophy, is a good idea in grade school is a good idea? If it's implemented properly, same caveats, yes. Do I think that it will be implemented properly, not taken advantage of, not touted as "see, it *is* science", &c. if it's tried nationwide by everybody? Um, no. Let's stick to requiring biology teachers to understand and then teach random mutation and natural selection first, and move up from there.

Or we could just use the Daily Show's special "Evolution Schmevolution" to teach the controversy. 'Cause it was *awesome*.

Gwen --- Well put. Think of that, actually teaching an easily understood, central principle of biology in 9th grade biology class...

Re "why would anyone want to believe that we came from monkeys/some primordial soup"

Whenever I hear that "argument", I want to ask why is anybody dumb enough to believe that what they want has anything to do with whether the premise is true or not. I don't particularly like the idea of being related to monkeys, shrews, worms, etc., but I know better than to mistake that for an argument against it.

Henry

Oh, Henry!

Don't say that about worms...! I was just hanging out (for, y'know, an hour or so that my day didn't have to give) up in the eye doctor's office the other day and the National Geographic on the slush-pile had a great article on marine worms of Hawaii.

Ooh, pretty! And oh so many kinds! Not like those nasty old shrews!

Ouch! Ouch! Miss Potter, I take it back about the shrews!

Depends on the worm, I guess. LOL.

Henry

Gwen's comment is very interesting. Teaching evolution in its social and historical context is fine for well off charter school students, but out of bounds for the plebes who just couldn't handle it right.

We can meet here again after I publish the next piece I am planning to write on this subject.

Teaching evolution in its social and historical context is fine for well off charter school students, but out of bounds for the plebes who just couldn't handle it right.

Glen, Gwen, Flint, and many others have clearly taken a lot of time to give articulate and informed responses to Balter's/Baltar's arguments here; and how does Balter/Baltar respond? By very hastily kinda sorta maybe calling us elitists and running away. This only reinforces my impression that, whatever Balter himself may think, he's been pretty much suckered into the creationist camp, and has bent an entire educational philosophy to rationalize shoewhorning religious doctrine into science classes.

I guess I should have seen this earlier. A look at his "let's have a debate" article strongly implies that he either does not understand, or is unwilling honestly to address, the creationist talking-points he quotes.

There seems to be some sort of assumption here that a large percentage of biology teachers in the public schools are creationists and so can't be trusted to handle the teaching of evolution in its historical and current context, and/or that they are intimidated by school administrations. Is there evidence for this notion? If not, then such assumptions on the part of many here do indeed smack of elitism. Gwen's post was explicitly elitist in that regard. And if there is evidence for this, then a curriculum that requires teachers to compare and contrast evolutionary and creationist materials in class could hardly make things worse, since it is unlikely that creationist biology teachers are teaching evolution effectively anyway.

So I am not calling some here elitists and then running away. I am calling some here elitists and hanging around.

he's been pretty much suckered into the creationist camp, and has bent an entire educational philosophy to rationalize shoewhorning religious doctrine into science classes. I guess I should have seen this earlier. A look at his "let's have a debate" article strongly implies that he either does not understand, or is unwilling honestly to address, the creationist talking-points he quotes.

Interesting hypothesis, Flint, although it has the major weakness that I am not an academic. I am a journalist, a science writer, although I do have an MA in biology from UCLA. But I left my academic career behind 30 years ago.

Back to the drawing board with your psychological profile of me.

Balter/Baltar dodged thusly:

There seems to be some sort of assumption here that a large percentage of biology teachers in the public schools are creationists and so can't be trusted to handle the teaching of evolution in its historical and current context, and/or that they are intimidated by school administrations. Is there evidence for this notion?

We just gave you a veritable truckload of such evidence, from our own experiences as well as from the news we read and see. It's in the posts above, and on too many other PT threads to list completely. And, like all creationists, you simply ignored (or refused to comprehend) the answers, and simply asked the same question again. And you think your opinion on education policy matters...why?

Gwen's post was explicitly elitist in that regard.

Gwen's post was explicitly factual, whatever epithet you think you can pin on her. She was writing of her own real-world experience and applying it to the issue being discussed (or, in your case, avoided like the plague) here.

Besides, if you know ANYTHING about education, you would know that it's based on an "elitist" premise: that those who don't have knoeledge need to listen to and learn from those who do; and having received knowledge, they then need to pass it on to those who still don't. Calling Gwen "elitist" for stating the obvious is not just dumb -- it's stupid.

Interesting hypothesis, Flint, although it has the major weakness that I am not an academic.

Flint, I have never said that creationism is bad science rather than religion. You should look back at the October 2005 debate (there were actually two of them here) that Mike links to at the top of this thread where I stated my position ad infinitum which is why I have not elaborated on it here: That creationist views should be debated and evaluated in the classroom despite the fact that they are religious views, because they are the main obstacle to students learning about evolution. I have been so crystal clear on this point that your waving this around now is nothing but a red herring.

Nor, as you imply, have I now substituted teaching evolution in its historical context for a direct confrontation between creationism and evolution as part of some shifting of my position. These are simply two nuances of the same strategy and I think both should be done.

I hate to be pugilistic, as someone said above, but we really need to get people more astute than both Flint and Raging Bee in here or just forget it because we are getting nowhere. On the other hand, I suppose if I can call you elitist you can call me a closet creationist if you want to, ridiculous as that charge is. Why don't you go online at Science and read my stories on human evolution to see if you can catch any whiffs of creationism.

...That creationist views should be debated and evaluated in the classroom despite the fact that they are religious views, because they are the main obstacle to students learning about evolution.

I will repeat this again: your basic assumption -- that "teach only science" has failed, or is somehow responsible for the current strength of creationism among adults -- has not been backed up by you, and has been refuted by the experiences of many respondents here, myself included. And since your basic assumption fails, all conclusions based on said assumption likewise fail. (And BTW your statement quoted above is a non-sequitur.)

Nor, as you imply, have I now substituted teaching evolution in its historical context for a direct confrontation between creationism and evolution as part of some shifting of my position. These are simply two nuances of the same strategy and I think both should be done.

No, they are two clearly different actions, not "nuances" of any overall "strategy."

I hate to be pugilistic, as someone said above, but we really need to get people more astute than both Flint and Raging Bee in here or just forget it because we are getting nowhere.

In case you haven't noticed, Flint and I are far from the only people responding to your assertions. Glen, for one, had a good bit to say, and you can't even bring yourself to mention his name. Avoiding something, are we?

There seems to be some sort of assumption here that a large percentage of biology teachers in the public schools are creationists and so can't be trusted to handle the teaching of evolution in its historical and current context, and/or that they are intimidated by school administrations. Is there evidence for this notion?

— Michael Balter

If not, then such assumptions on the part of many here do indeed smack of elitism. Gwen's post was explicitly elitist in that regard.

"And if there is evidence for this, then a curriculum that requires teachers to compare and contrast evolutionary and creationist materials in class could hardly make things worse, since it is unlikely that creationist biology teachers are teaching evolution effectively anyway."

I am quoting myself here, because our worthy debaters have already forgotten this part of my post. I will have to see if any of the suggested sources actually provide figures for the percentage of high school biology teachers that are creationists, but if it is a large percentage then what do people here propose to do about it? Fire them all and start over? One of the advantages to my proposals is that they would require evolution to be discussed in the classroom, as well as creationism, a situation far better than nothing on these subjects being taught at all. And there would be curricula to follow, and readings, of course, just as with other subjects. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we have to start with the biology teachers we have, not the ones we would like to have.

The comments about elitism once again miss the point. I am talking about elitism that says that only well off students in charter schools and their teachers are capable of handling these complex issues and that public schools are not, which is what Gwen said, not about the relationship between teacher and student which of course is one of inequality in knowledge and experience (or should be.) But of course that doesn't stop folks like Flint and Raging Bee from distorting what I said.

Oh, and Anton Mates, sorry.

"And you think your opinion on education policy matters...why?"

I can't resist this one. Why are you debating with me? Because whether my ideas are right, wrong, stupid, or whether I am a dupe of the creationists--whatever--I have managed to get them published in two major publications with more than a million readers between them, the Los Angeles Times and the International Herald Tribune. Again, that does not mean they are right, and I have never claimed that it does, only that it means you must debate me or ignore me--you choose to do the former. But it means they are publicized, disseminated, commented on, analyzed, and it also means that the editors of these publications think they are worthy of dissemination. Again, for those blockheads here who can't get this straight, it does not mean that they are right, but it means that you have to contend with them. Why else have they been posted here and made the subjects of threads and nearly 150 comments now? It couldn't be because people here have nothing better to do, could it?

So go ahead and disagree with me, but you have to deal with these ideas because I can tell you they resonate with lots of people and not just creationists. I can also tell you from the response that I have received from working scientists, that while only a minority agree with me, they don't feel as threatened by these ideas as some of the people here on PT. Subscribing to scientific rather than religious explanations for the world does not necessarily make one superior in any fundamental way, although a few here seem to get their sense of self worth from their notions of themselves as great heroes in the anti-creationist fight.

I will talk to you when someone on PT posts the next article I write on this subject--as they will.

I must de-lurk a moment to respond to the question whether there are any creationist biology teachers in public schools. There are out here in the Bible Belt. In fact, a local organization promoting creationism in schools is headed by a biology teacher. They are organized and aggressive. Introduction of such a concept, no matter how well meaning or carefully constructed, would be an unrecoverable disaster in this Red State. David G.

And if there is evidence for this, then a curriculum that requires teachers to compare and contrast evolutionary and creationist materials in class could hardly make things worse, since it is unlikely that creationist biology teachers are teaching evolution effectively anyway.

So now you're justifying a radical policy change merely by insisting that it can't make things worse? Is that the best, most stunning endorsement you can offer for your proposed solution?

Even if the premise is true, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because a situation is bad, does not in itself prove that a particular proposed solution can "hardly make things worse."

Besides, if your propsed solution can't make things worse, how can you be sure it can make things better?

And here's something else you haven't thought through: if creationism is, as you have admitted, a religious doctrine, then why should only one religion's doctrine get shoewhorned into biology classes? Christians aren't the only ones with a non-scientific creation story; why not get the Norse and Native American versions of "creation science" in as well? (The Norse version is really cool and dramatic! More fraught, as Douglas Adams would say.)

I am talking about elitism that says that only well off students in charter schools and their teachers are capable of handling these complex issues and that public schools are not, which is what Gwen said...

The point here is that you called Gwen "elitist" without even pretending to address the actual substance of what she said. You were avoiding the central issue then, and you're avoiding it now. You can hang around, like a fart in a Russian space station, as long as you want, but you're still running away from reality, and hiding behind a lot of diversionary name-calling.

Why are you debating with me? Because whether my ideas are right, wrong, stupid, or whether I am a dupe of the creationists---whatever---I have managed to get them published in two major publications with more than a million readers between them, the Los Angeles Times and the International Herald Tribune...

I'm sure Ann Coulter and Noam Chomsky can make a similar boast.

And the fact that you're using the argument itself as proof of "victory," only proves that you know you've lost the argument, and can't pretend to have won any other way.

PS: if we're the ones feeling threatened by your ideas, why are you the one running away from our responses?

Flint, Raging Bee, and others have done a good job stripping back Michael Balter's journalist facade. I suspect members of the schools of journalism would be raising their eyebrows over the genuineness of his credentials.

If he really wanted to get at the realities of this matter, he wouldn't be doing it sitting on his ass debating with people on the internet. He would be spending quite a few years of his life "living among the natives" in a wide variety of circumstances. He would be living with the same crap that teachers put up with day after day for years. It is obvious to those of us who have immersed ourselves in this world that he is blowing smoke and looking pretty pathetic.

I suppose he has the right to make a fool of himself in the eyes of people who actually know what is going on, but apparently he feels it worth price he pays to be a shill for the creationist crowd and getting some imagined fame by publishing in widely circulated newspapers. Rush Limbaugh has become quite wealthy with this kind of shtick and has drawn a lot of wannabe imitators. Find a subject that people argue about and throw gasoline on the fire while appearing to report facts. Unfortunately, it is this pseudo-journalism that is a big part of the problem.

Golly. So Balter's questioners are dismissed as not "astute" enough to realize that historical, correctible (and corrected) scientific error (among scientists) is really just a nuance, but not essentially different, from *current religious doctrine*, put forth by religious people for religious purposes, without the slightest respect for integrity, facts, error, falsifiability, or anything else about science. And which hasn't budged, despite all advances in knowledge, for a century. Golly, those nuances sure are hard to grasp.

I don't know if Balter deserves to be called a creationist, but he sure has taken more than one page out of their playbook. Don't listen, dismiss the opposition with pejoratives, repeat error, ignore anyone who's been there and has experience, and when statements are demonstrably false, repeat them some more.

What's obvious to those of us not too astute to know better, is that IF creationism held any water scientifically, there wouldn't be any need to use political and legal means to get it into science class; it would have earned that in the literature. Us people not astute enough to be listened to have mostly *been through* religious arguments in discussions of science, and have seen how well they communicate knowledge about science. But I guess demonstrated failure is a bit too subtle a nuance. Certainly experience can't defeat ideology in a fair fight, because ideology has never permitted one.

Gwen's comment is very interesting. Teaching evolution in its social and historical context is fine for well off charter school students, but out of bounds for the plebes who just couldn't handle it right.

Again, for those blockheads here who can't get this straight, it does not mean that they are right, but it means that you have to contend with them. Why else have they been posted here and made the subjects of threads and nearly 150 comments now? It couldn't be because people here have nothing better to do, could it?

a few here seem to get their sense of self worth from their notions of themselves as great heroes in the anti-creationist fight

we really need to get people more astute than both Flint and Raging Bee in here or just forget it because we are getting nowhere

There seems to be some sort of assumption here that a large percentage of biology teachers in the public schools are creationists and so can't be trusted to handle the teaching of evolution in its historical and current context,

a few here seem to get their sense of self worth from their notions of themselves as great heroes in the anti-creationist fight

Why are you debating with me? Because whether my ideas are right, wrong, stupid, or whether I am a dupe of the creationists---whatever---I have managed to get them published in two major publications with more than a million readers between them, the Los Angeles Times and the International Herald Tribune.

I have suggested that science teachers stage debates in class over these issues,

I will have to see if any of the suggested sources actually provide figures for the percentage of high school biology teachers that are creationists, but if it is a large percentage then what do people here propose to do about it? Fire them all and start over?

— Michael Balter

One of the advantages to my proposals is that they would require evolution to be discussed in the classroom, as well as creationism, a situation far better than nothing on these subjects being taught at all.

The comments about elitism once again miss the point. I am talking about elitism that says that only well off students in charter schools and their teachers are capable of handling these complex issues and that public schools are not, which is what Gwen said, not about the relationship between teacher and student which of course is one of inequality in knowledge and experience (or should be.)

Oh, and Anton Mates, sorry. "And you think your opinion on education policy matters...why?"

"I am talking about elitism that says that only well off students in charter schools and their teachers are capable of handling these complex issues and that public schools are not, which is what Gwen said, not about the relationship between teacher and student which of course is one of inequality in knowledge and experience (or should be)."

A. The students at the high school I attended were not especially well-off. Not everyone went to this particular high school as a first resort. I suspect that that situation is similar to the situation at most, if not all, charter schools. Charter schools *are* public; they are funded by the government and have to teach what the government mandates (a little more flexibility on some things, I think). The major advantage a charter school has over a traditional public school is that you are put into the latter by default, and have to actually "apply" (as far as I know, the school cannot reject an application, but can say that they don't have enough space; good charter schools, at least in our area, have waiting lists) to get in. They're not answerable (again, AFAIK) to the elected school board of the "public" school district. And, depending on the school, they may attract a different type of teacher.
Tri-City College Prep High School took full advantage of the flexibility afforded it. We had a shorter overall day with longer class periods (only five total, and some students weren't enrolled for all five periods; seniors mostly, I think, because we had a credit-based graduation system), and we had, as I said, a rock-solid biology teacher who was nice but wouldn't've let herself be pushed around, backed up by Dr. Halvorsen, same on both counts. And it only takes a couple of perfectly-willing-to-be-vocal ToE supporters, the aforementioned PBS videos, such a teacher, and a solid textbook to make the somewhat-tentative "but I heard in church" people get the idea that ID wasn't going to be terribly welcome in class.
But (and let me spell this out for you) we had a lot of things on our side:
-the videos and video equipment. No, they weren't HDTV monitors and DVD players by any means; it was the only video equipment in the school and we were stuck with a fickle VCR. (Prescott, AZ is not Silicon Valley.) But it's still more than that inner-city school you're thinking of doing this at, where they're a little more worried about keeping the roof from leaking and the textbooks less than fifty years old; still more than extremely rural areas like some places in Mississippi and the Appalachias where if you're an adult and you can read you're in the (statistical, still substantial) minority.
-the teacher, and Dr. Halvorsen. The "doctor" should tip you off that we had more in her than most schools have, and she got it in education. D'ya think she'd make her teachers waste their time learning feng shui and astrology? Didn't think so. And the teacher was in the seventy percent of biology teachers who reject creationism (think about that, only seventy percent) and in the maybe thirty percent total who was willing to fight the good fight and everyone else knew it.
-the time, the knowledge, the inclination. The students. The parents.
These are simple facts, Mr. Balter. And you can talk about how elitist I am for using facts to support my argument 'til you're blue in the face, but I will still think, at the end of it all, that it's more elitist by far to care so little for the students who will be harmed by your proposal that you refuse to even look at the facts, to consider the attitudes toward creationism in the places where more than anywhere else students cannot afford to be failed again, to consider how fair the fight can be when one side will give anything to win and obfuscation and outright lying are its favorite weapons, that you refuse to even look at those oh-so-elitist facts or listen to the oh-so-elitist teachers and the people who live in the places you're trying to affect because you're afraid that your pet theory of how to teach science to high school students will be rejected if you actually listen to scientists, teachers, or high school students (or recent high school students). You're willing to sacrifice all these students on the altar of your philosophy of pedagogy, and you know so strongly that you are right, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that you will gladly do this because you've got truthiness on your side, and your gut, and everyone knows that facts are elitist.

The thing that I don't get with Baltar's proposal is that to me, it's exactly the same as "Teach the Controversy", proposed by creationists.

Michael, I'm very interested to hear how your proposal is different from Teach the Controversy, or, if they are substantially the same, why you think it's a good idea to adopt a creationist tactic in public schools?