Who controls America's schools? Who should?

Posted 28 January 2011 by Matt Young

Those are two of the questions that Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer ask in their new book Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms. Their answers are not entirely comforting. The authors, who discussed some of their findings in Science the other day, analyze a number of well-known polls and also their own poll of biology teachers, which they conducted in 2007. They conclude that a substantial majority of Americans want creationism taught in public schools -- not necessarily creationism alone, but creationism nonetheless. They also note that the number of citizens who support evolution alone is increasing at the expense of those who want both taught but not, presumably, those who want creationism alone taught. A myriad of court decisions, however, has ruled out teaching of creationism in any form. The nation is divided, as they put it, by religion, education, and place. The authors go on to examine standards in different states. They show that the quality of the standards is lower and the standards are often cursory in states where a majority is not favorable to teaching evolution. In contrast, the standards are most rigorous in states where the majority is favorable to evolution. Nothing especially surprising, but it is probably worthwhile to have such information documented rigorously. What do teachers actually teach? The authors estimate that 14-21 % of teachers unconstitutionally endorse creationism in the classroom, while others find ways to undermine the theory of evolution or avoid teaching it entirely. Their Science article estimates that 28 % teach evolution according to recognized standards, whereas the remaining ~60 % are cautious for various reasons, not least their own failure to understand evolution themselves. The authors portray teachers as street-level bureaucrats, that is, people who interact with the public and actually implement policy, like police or social workers. Teachers thus may be more responsive to local "standards" than to state or national standards (yeah, those are scare quotes). Indeed, the authors show that teachers in more-liberal areas are more apt to teach evolution than those in conservative areas, more or less irrespective of the state standards. They attribute this result, at least in part, to selection of communities or school districts by teachers, and also selection of teachers by school administrations. Berkman and Plutzer note that the evolution-creation war (their term) has been with us since the 1920's, and they think it will be with us for a long time. It is the result of religious conservatism, the growth and perhaps the success of science, and the achievement of universal public education. It has been propagated, in part, because the debate has been politicized and divides more or less along political-party lines. Worse, the "system" of public education in the United States is highly decentralized, so local communities and local school boards often have more influence over what is taught than state or federal standards, or experts. If science is not taken as seriously as reading and mathematics, then state-wide science standards will not be enforced. Federal court decisions have perhaps prevented some of the worst abuses, but evolution deniers have always found ways to get around or ignore those decisions. Finally, it appears that general scientific knowledge (or lack thereof) does not correlate particularly strongly with creationism, and public opinion has been remarkably stable since polls first investigated it. Who then decides? The authors equivocate a little bit on the question of who should decide, but state clearly who in fact decides: teachers. Their solution to the problem, which is spelled out in somewhat more detail in the Science article, is to go after the teachers: Require what they call preservice teachers (people training to be teachers) to study at least one semester of evolutionary biology in college. They recognize how hard it will be to enforce such a policy and also how long it will take to have any practical effect in the classrooms. But they present evidence that state standards have greater influence on younger teachers than older, Possibly bacause the younger teachers were trained after the widespread adoption of standards, so getting at the problem through the teachers may be a viable solution, but I fear it is not fast enough. Finally, a bit of anticlimactic boilerplate: I thought the book was well prepared and clearly written, but I did not especially like the gray background on all the tables, and I thought it would be good if the copyeditor learned the difference between principle and principal. Additionally, I looked up one or two items in the index and did not find them discussed by name on those pages. See also what I can only call a review by the authors of their own book on the Cambridge University Press website and an interesting interview with Plutzer.

84 Comments

mplavcan · 29 January 2011

This is a spot on review from my experience. Here in Arkansas, a colleague who had to remain anonymous to protect his job (says a lot right there) conducted a survey of k-12 teachers and got similar numbers -- 20% teach evolution, 20% give it a cursory mention, 50% avoid it entirely, and 10% openly teach creationism. Our school district is one of the best in the state, and there is still evidence of religious pressure on teachers. Students at the University from other districts across the state say that religious pressure to avoid evolution is open and forceful, with the result that the students are taught nothing about evolution in many cases. I regularly survey classes, and find that about 1/4 to 1/3 of students say they have been taught anything at all about evolution in high school. The rest have been taught nothing.

Several faculty have made some attempts to work with the education department and other organizations to help prepare teachers to more effectively teach evolution. A few small things were tried, but at least at the University level, nothing happened. Blame for that could be partitioned among several parties, but regardless of whose fault it is, there is tremendous inertia to do nothing.

Joe Felsenstein · 29 January 2011

See also what I can only call a review by the authors of their own book on the Cambridge University Press website ....

A bit unfair to call it that. It is a blurb on the publisher's web site, signed by the authors and referring to “our book”. Publishers want you to do that, and there is no deception involved -- no one is pretending that it is a fair-minded assessment written by someone else. For a book I published a few years ago some of the descriptions of the book on the publisher's web site were in fact written by me. Should I be worried that I did something unethical?

Jim Thomerson · 29 January 2011

Local school boards have considerable influence on who is hired to teach and some on what is taught, regardless of state, national, or legal mandates.

At Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, we required secondary biology education majors to take a course in evolution, and maintain a higher grade point average in science and math courses than we required of pre-meds. When I taught the evolution course, I included a couple of lectures about creationism. I am quite sure our students encounter creationism in their professional role.

harold · 29 January 2011

The individual States should control America’s schools.

States do have departments of education and exert a fair degree of influence over public schools. Unfortunately for authoritarian bigots, it is illegal to violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless of level of control over bureaucracy. Even if local and federal educational bureaucracy were both entirely eliminated and all control shifted to the states, you still wouldn't be able to teach a dogmatic, sadistic, superficially self-serving, and dishonest misinterpretation of a seventeenth century translation of bronze age symbolism as "science" in taxpayer funded schools. The idea that individual states can deprive their citizens of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States of America has been tested many times, most notably in the cases of slavery and segregation, and failed. Although I believe Abraham Lincoln did the right thing in his time, in the present, I, personally, would strongly welcome the secession of any region of the United States where a vast majority is unhappy with basic freedoms and basic scientific reality. If you are interested in such an endeavor, please let me know, so that I can support it. Also, if you are considering a permanent move to a jurisdiction where sectarian religion is enforced as law, I would love to help organize that. You would probably have to choose an Islamic state, but those states do come far closer to your ideals than the US. You can easily find one where homosexuals, uppity women, and the like are severely punished; all you'll have to do is convince people to retain local laws, but switch to using the word "Jesus" where they would normally use the word "Mohammed". If you choose to remain under US jurisdiction, you have the right to believe or pretend to believe whatever self-serving, anti-rational nonsense you choose, buy you'll never, never, never, never, ever, ever be able to legally teach it in public school science classes, not even if you live as long as Methuseleh. Sorry.

Matt Young · 29 January 2011

A bit unfair to call it that. It is a blurb on the publisher’s web site, signed by the authors and referring to “our book”.

Sorry -- I did not mean to imply anything underhanded. It just read like a review, but it was written by the authors. Maybe I was too cute.

Matt Young · 29 January 2011

I have just marked as Unapproved a comment by the IBIG troll and several direct responses, some of which were cogent. If anyone wants to pursue the discussion, please feel free to post your comments a second time, without reference to the IBIG troll. I will continue to remove comments by certain trolls as well as all comments that cite those trolls. It is a pain, so please do not respond to trolls; just wait till I get around to removing their comments.

Mike Elzinga · 29 January 2011

Jim Thomerson said: When I taught the evolution course, I included a couple of lectures about creationism. I am quite sure our students encounter creationism in their professional role.

If I am recalling correctly, some education programs are required by their state boards to include a course that deals with the various legal issues confronted by public school teachers. I don’t know how common this is. But I would hope such courses would include the famous court cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, McLean v. Arkansas, and of course, Kitzmiller v. Dover. These would provide some help in preventing teachers and administrators from being blindsided by aggressive creationist parents and children. My own experience with these kinds of people is that they appear suddenly and extremely aggressively; and they will browbeat teachers and administrators with all sorts of specious arguments that anyone familiar with the history of ID/creationist politics can immediately recognize and refute on the spot.

mrg · 29 January 2011

Matt Young said: If anyone wants to pursue the discussion, please feel free to post your comments a second time, without reference to the IBIG troll.

May I politely suggest that all comments specific to IBIG go to the IBIG thread on ATBC? I mean, the guy has his very own thread over there where he and his opponents can trade fire to their heart's content. What more would anyone want?

Mike Elzinga · 29 January 2011

mrg said:
Matt Young said: If anyone wants to pursue the discussion, please feel free to post your comments a second time, without reference to the IBIG troll.
May I politely suggest that all comments specific to IBIG go to the IBIG thread on ATBC? I mean, the guy has his very own thread over there where he and his opponents can trade fire to their heart's content. What more would anyone want?

With AtBC providing mud rooms and the BW providing toilets and urinals, what more could any troll want? Sitting here trying to imagine what it must be like to monitor so many threads on so many topics with so many ID/creationists wanting to achieve top-gun ratings among their cohorts; I’m not sure how one can determine which troll needs to be sent away and when. I don’t even know how involved the process is in shipping these trolls over to those other “venues.”

DS · 29 January 2011

Matt Young said: I have just marked as Unapproved a comment by the IBIG troll and several direct responses, some of which were cogent. If anyone wants to pursue the discussion, please feel free to post your comments a second time, without reference to the IBIG troll. I will continue to remove comments by certain trolls as well as all comments that cite those trolls. It is a pain, so please do not respond to trolls; just wait till I get around to removing their comments.

Thanks Matt, that seems appropriate. Of course, if this site would ban IBIGOT permanently, then it would no longer be an issue. It seems that he is obsessed with this site and will go to any lengths to attempt to disrupt the conversation here. Why make it any easier for him to succeed? I would also suggest that some one check all ISP addresses for IBIG, Kris, Michael Behe, Carolyn and others using the same tactics. I strongly suspect that you will find evidence of extensive sock puppetry. If there is a mechanism to prevent such malicious dishonesty, I would suggest that it be implemented immediately.

Matt Young · 29 January 2011

I thought IBIG had finally been banned, but maybe he has changed his IP address. I will check with our webmaster.

DS · 29 January 2011

Matt Young said: I thought IBIG had finally been banned, but maybe he has changed his IP address. I will check with our webmaster.

As far as I know, IBIGOT has only been banned on individual threads by individual moderators. I do not know if he was ever banned entirely, although by now he certainly should be. I don't know if this can even be done. But, if he is simply using different addresses to avoid banning, something definitely needs to be done. This guy just won't get the hint. Four hundred pages was not sufficient for him to convince anyone of anything. He should realize by now that his crap isn't going to fly here. And he refuses to use ATBC, even after all the trouble that someone went to in order to make him welcome there. He is just making a pest of himself. Of course, maybe that is just what he wants.

John Vanko · 29 January 2011

Thank you Matt.

harold · 29 January 2011

DS -

I would also suggest that some one check all ISP addresses for IBIG, Kris, Michael Behe, Carolyn and others

Although I am generally strongly in favor of letting creationists make points, and then being refuted, I strongly agree with respect to these examples, for the following reasons - IBIG - Has had extensive opportunities to make his or her points; now persists in repetition of refuted points. Kris - Kris has characteristics that would lead me to support his ban no matter what viewpoint he was "arguing". Most notably personal threats, which although not reaching the threshold for reporting to law enforcement, have far exceeded the thresholds of complete obnoxiousness and pathological lack of self-control. Also ignoring or distorting rebuttals and use of obsessive numbers of posts to "overwhelm" a thread. Note that both IBIG and Kris have at times made points that, in isolation, were relevant; it's the overall behavior that's the problem. Michael Behe - Obnoxious impersonation of a real person without their permission; it's a no-brainer. Carolyn - although apparently new, ignores or distorts rebuttals while attempting to "overwhelm" threads with obsessive numbers of posts. May well be Kris. Carolyn, if you're not Kris, my sincere apologies for that.

W. H. Heydt · 29 January 2011

Matt Young said: I thought IBIG had finally been banned, but maybe he has changed his IP address. I will check with our webmaster.

IANABiologist, but I have been working with computer professionally for 40 years... The difficulty with banning by IP address is that most ISP connections are dynamic and the IP address will change from time to time, sometimes pretty radically (e.g. the address is renewed and a large ISP connects to a different router with a different IP pool). As the world moves to IPv6, this *may* change. The IPv6 address space is big enough to give a static 8-bit block of addresses to every man, woman, and child...and each of the non-human primates on the planet as well. It's a switch from 32 bit addresses (~10**10) to 128 bit addresses (~10**42). --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

raven · 29 January 2011

Most of the time most of the states have a huge say in what is taught. This is because the states support local schools with tax money. Not sure if that is true with all states. But in the west, a large amount of a school's budget comes from the state. They can't do without it. If the state doesn't like what a school district is doing, they can withhold money. That happens but it is rare.

Mar 20, 2007 ... The State of Oregon is withholding $1.2 million in state school funds that had been earlier paid out for a disallowed homeschool program that ...

Happened to these people in Sisters, Oregon. $1.2 million isn't a lot of money but it would be out there in the boonies. The same is true of the federal government. They pay some money into the local schools too.

mplavcan · 29 January 2011

Matt Young said: I have just marked as Unapproved a comment by the IBIG troll and several direct responses, some of which were cogent. If anyone wants to pursue the discussion, please feel free to post your comments a second time, without reference to the IBIG troll. I will continue to remove comments by certain trolls as well as all comments that cite those trolls. It is a pain, so please do not respond to trolls; just wait till I get around to removing their comments.

You apparently also blocked one of my comments that had nothing to do with the troll.

Matt Young · 29 January 2011

You apparently also blocked one of my comments that had nothing to do with the troll.

Sorry - the deus ex machina disapproved that important comment (in fact, 2 iterations of it), and I must not have noticed. I have just approved it; it is the first comment on this thread.

paul · 29 January 2011

If I had kids, I would home school them.

I would like to see vouchers so I could send them to a school that taught biology properly.

DavidK · 29 January 2011

harold said: ... If you choose to remain under US jurisdiction, you have the right to believe or pretend to believe whatever self-serving, anti-rational nonsense you choose, buy you'll never, never, never, never, ever, ever be able to legally teach it in public school science classes, not even if you live as long as Methuseleh. Sorry.

There are always ways around this, that's obvious. I've seen it frequently. Q: If one must be certified to teach science in the public schools, what qualifications are required of these creationists to teach creationism? A: None Q: 1) What group/s can openly discriminate in regards to hiring on the basis of sex, religion, and anything else you might think of? 2) What groups cannot? A: 1) Religious organizations, 2) any public institution, e.g., public schools.

Dale Husband · 29 January 2011

harold said: DS -
I would also suggest that some one check all ISP addresses for IBIG, Kris, Michael Behe, Carolyn and others
Although I am generally strongly in favor of letting creationists make points, and then being refuted, I strongly agree with respect to these examples, for the following reasons - IBIG - Has had extensive opportunities to make his or her points; now persists in repetition of refuted points. Kris - Kris has characteristics that would lead me to support his ban no matter what viewpoint he was "arguing". Most notably personal threats, which although not reaching the threshold for reporting to law enforcement, have far exceeded the thresholds of complete obnoxiousness and pathological lack of self-control. Also ignoring or distorting rebuttals and use of obsessive numbers of posts to "overwhelm" a thread. Note that both IBIG and Kris have at times made points that, in isolation, were relevant; it's the overall behavior that's the problem. Michael Behe - Obnoxious impersonation of a real person without their permission; it's a no-brainer. Carolyn - although apparently new, ignores or distorts rebuttals while attempting to "overwhelm" threads with obsessive numbers of posts. May well be Kris. Carolyn, if you're not Kris, my sincere apologies for that.

Kris was already banned from here. Then he went to At the Bar Closes and went crazy there too.

mplavcan · 30 January 2011

Dale Husband said:
harold said: DS -
I would also suggest that some one check all ISP addresses for IBIG, Kris, Michael Behe, Carolyn and others
Although I am generally strongly in favor of letting creationists make points, and then being refuted, I strongly agree with respect to these examples, for the following reasons - IBIG - Has had extensive opportunities to make his or her points; now persists in repetition of refuted points. Kris - Kris has characteristics that would lead me to support his ban no matter what viewpoint he was "arguing". Most notably personal threats, which although not reaching the threshold for reporting to law enforcement, have far exceeded the thresholds of complete obnoxiousness and pathological lack of self-control. Also ignoring or distorting rebuttals and use of obsessive numbers of posts to "overwhelm" a thread. Note that both IBIG and Kris have at times made points that, in isolation, were relevant; it's the overall behavior that's the problem. Michael Behe - Obnoxious impersonation of a real person without their permission; it's a no-brainer. Carolyn - although apparently new, ignores or distorts rebuttals while attempting to "overwhelm" threads with obsessive numbers of posts. May well be Kris. Carolyn, if you're not Kris, my sincere apologies for that.
Kris was already banned from here. Then he went to At the Bar Closes and went crazy there too.

Kris is dangerous and scares me.

mplavcan · 30 January 2011

Matt Young said:
You apparently also blocked one of my comments that had nothing to do with the troll.
Sorry - the deus ex machina disapproved that important comment (in fact, 2 iterations of it), and I must not have noticed. I have just approved it; it is the first comment on this thread.

Thank you. My apologies for the confusion. This is a serious issue.

John Kwok · 30 January 2011

As both a Republican and a Conservative, I strongly endorse your sentiments, harold:

harold said:
The individual States should control America’s schools.
States do have departments of education and exert a fair degree of influence over public schools. Unfortunately for authoritarian bigots, it is illegal to violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States of America, regardless of level of control over bureaucracy. Even if local and federal educational bureaucracy were both entirely eliminated and all control shifted to the states, you still wouldn't be able to teach a dogmatic, sadistic, superficially self-serving, and dishonest misinterpretation of a seventeenth century translation of bronze age symbolism as "science" in taxpayer funded schools. The idea that individual states can deprive their citizens of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States of America has been tested many times, most notably in the cases of slavery and segregation, and failed. Although I believe Abraham Lincoln did the right thing in his time, in the present, I, personally, would strongly welcome the secession of any region of the United States where a vast majority is unhappy with basic freedoms and basic scientific reality. If you are interested in such an endeavor, please let me know, so that I can support it. Also, if you are considering a permanent move to a jurisdiction where sectarian religion is enforced as law, I would love to help organize that. You would probably have to choose an Islamic state, but those states do come far closer to your ideals than the US. You can easily find one where homosexuals, uppity women, and the like are severely punished; all you'll have to do is convince people to retain local laws, but switch to using the word "Jesus" where they would normally use the word "Mohammed". If you choose to remain under US jurisdiction, you have the right to believe or pretend to believe whatever self-serving, anti-rational nonsense you choose, buy you'll never, never, never, never, ever, ever be able to legally teach it in public school science classes, not even if you live as long as Methuseleh. Sorry.

harold · 30 January 2011

John Kwok -

It is entirely possible to be a conservative and agree with what I said there. Indeed, since I'm talking about the very First Amendment to the US Constitution, which reflects issues that long predate the American Revolution, one could say that supporting freedom of conscience is plainly the most conservative possible position on this particular issue (not to imply that I take conservative positions on other issues).

However, I am not sure that it is possible to seriously call oneself a "Republican", at this stage in history, if one supports freedom of conscience. The Republican party has been pandering to religious authoritarians for three decades.

This is probably all I need to say; as a courtesy to the moderators please go directly to the BW if you have a reply. It will surely be seen there.

John Kwok · 30 January 2011

harold said: John Kwok - It is entirely possible to be a conservative and agree with what I said there. Indeed, since I'm talking about the very First Amendment to the US Constitution, which reflects issues that long predate the American Revolution, one could say that supporting freedom of conscience is plainly the most conservative possible position on this particular issue (not to imply that I take conservative positions on other issues). However, I am not sure that it is possible to seriously call oneself a "Republican", at this stage in history, if one supports freedom of conscience. The Republican party has been pandering to religious authoritarians for three decades. This is probably all I need to say; as a courtesy to the moderators please go directly to the BW if you have a reply. It will surely be seen there.

harold, I am in full agreement with what you say except your observation regarding the Republican Party. As far back as 1981, Barry Goldwater warned the Republican Party of the Faustian bargain it was making via its then nascent alliance with the Religious Right. Goldwater's condemnation was far more prescient than even he himself would have dared to admit. No, I stand with my fellow Republicans who are interested in annulling all ties to the so-called "Religious" Right. But I think you should have guessed that already.

Jim Harrison · 30 January 2011

Parents can make life miserable for any teacher who teaches evolution properly; and they can make life especially miserable for school administrators, who, in my experience at least, are not a very courageous bunch.

For all the bleating one hears about the importance of education, teachers are not well respected in the United States. The American system of mediocre, mass produced education has always depended upon low status, low paid personnel who have always been expected to shut up and do what they're told. Our popular culture simply does not value learning, and most of us use do not the word "teacher" with anything like the same deference that goes with its synonyms in other languages. While one honors a person by addressing them as rabbi or sensei, teachers are mostly just figures of fun, especially on television. It would be unfair and certainly unrealistic to expect this browbeaten group to stand up to community pressure, though individual teachers sometimes do so, often at considerable personal cost.

Midwifetoad · 30 January 2011

Is it unrealistic to develop a curriculum based on a historical/evidentiary approach? I grew up reading books like Microbe Hunters, which made science into something of an adventure, or a detective story.

Midwifetoad · 30 January 2011

I don't have much time today to develop this idea, but it seems to me that controversy is interesting and exciting.

And if you set the evolution vs ID controversy in the 19th century, where it belongs, you have a handle with which to portray ID as having made no progress since 1803.

Mike Elzinga · 30 January 2011

Midwifetoad said: I don't have much time today to develop this idea, but it seems to me that controversy is interesting and exciting. And if you set the evolution vs ID controversy in the 19th century, where it belongs, you have a handle with which to portray ID as having made no progress since 1803.

Tom S, over on the thread about Casey Luskin, put up this link to Herbert Spencer, The Development Hypothesis. It makes it pretty clear that the sectarian objections to evolution haven’t changed much since the 19th century. In fact, much of that anti-evolution thinking is rooted in medieval thinking, along with a considerable amount of the Bonze Age thinking of people in the Middle East. Probably the biggest change is in the socio/political marketing tactics used by ID/creationists along with the pseudo-science they market in order to make themselves appear “legitimate.” In that respect, ID/creationism has become far more dishonest; and consciously so.

mrg · 30 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Probably the biggest change is in the socio/political marketing tactics used by ID/creationists along with the pseudo-science they market in order to make themselves appear “legitimate.”

Oh NO. Since CaseyL is unstuck in time ... now he'll go back to the 19th century and teach the opposition about "information". Curse you, MrE! Time traveling creationists, how appalling. I was thinking that it might make problems for YECs, but silly me -- they could go back to the Precambrian, making lots of stops along the way, and STILL would figure out how to explain it away.

John Vanko · 30 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said: "In that respect, ID/creationism has become far more dishonest; and consciously so."

Dishonest. That's the keyword, for ID and for Creationism. And I ask myself, why? What profit is there is dishonesty? The answer is: power, and money. The leaders of ID & Creationism know exactly what they are doing. And they are doing it for the monetary profit they receive and the power it gives them. Exactly like the corrupt Church 'fathers' of the past, who exploited the uneducated masses, for their own personal profit. I recently finished watching the tv mini-series Pillars of the Earth, having read the book. The corruption was well-portrayed. For shame.

raven · 30 January 2011

Parents can make life miserable for any teacher who teaches evolution properly; and they can make life especially miserable for school administrators, who, in my experience at least, are not a very courageous bunch.

That is true. The tactic of charging into the schools and screaming works sometimes. Sometimes it just gets them a restraining order. It also works both ways. I would gladly get on my horse "Darwin" and charge into the schools waving my swords "Peer Reviewed Literature" and "Court Precedents". But there is no easy way to tell what the schools are teaching. Besides, around here, it is unlikely to be creationism because this is a pretty secular, well educated area. There were some big battles about religions in school a few decades ago. Religion lost. There is a group of secularists who watch the schools closely and they know it. At a minimum, if creationism were being taught, I would say something (without screaming and in writing for a paper trail) and think about yanking the kids out and homeschooling them. One sees all sorts of statistics on who homeschools, but the best I've seen say it is a big majority of secular parents.

Mike Elzinga · 30 January 2011

mrg said: Time traveling creationists, how appalling. I was thinking that it might make problems for YECs, but silly me -- they could go back to the Precambrian, making lots of stops along the way, and STILL would figure out how to explain it away.

Yup; carrying rabbits with them in order to bury them in Precambrian soil.

Kevin B · 30 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
mrg said: Time traveling creationists, how appalling. I was thinking that it might make problems for YECs, but silly me -- they could go back to the Precambrian, making lots of stops along the way, and STILL would figure out how to explain it away.
Yup; carrying rabbits with them in order to bury them in Precambrian soil.

Anyone else got a mental picture of a Calvin & Hobbes cardboard box time machine? The YECers wouldn't be able to find the Precambrian, because their time machine wouldn't have any dates before 4004BC on the dial, so they wouldn't be able to choose to go there.

Mike Elzinga · 30 January 2011

Kevin B said: Anyone else got a mental picture of a Calvin & Hobbes cardboard box time machine? The YECers wouldn't be able to find the Precambrian, because their time machine wouldn't have any dates before 4004BC on the dial, so they wouldn't be able to choose to go there.

So they go back to the Garden of Eden and stop Eve from eating the apple. Then we are stuck with an overpopulated Garden of Eden, with a snake running around tempting everyone to get some scientific knowledge; and no Christians to take offense because nobody has any knowledge of good and evil. And, with a larger population, there is a higher probably that many more than two people bite and God smites. So the mess starts all over again; but now there are better time machines because there was no Dark Ages postponing scientific progress. Heh; ID/creationist science fiction.

Stanton · 30 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Kevin B said: Anyone else got a mental picture of a Calvin & Hobbes cardboard box time machine? The YECers wouldn't be able to find the Precambrian, because their time machine wouldn't have any dates before 4004BC on the dial, so they wouldn't be able to choose to go there.
So they go back to the Garden of Eden and stop Eve from eating the apple. Then we are stuck with an overpopulated Garden of Eden, with a snake running around tempting everyone to get some scientific knowledge; and no Christians to take offense because nobody has any knowledge of good and evil. And, with a larger population, there is a higher probably that many more than two people bite and God smites. So the mess starts all over again; but now there are better time machines because there was no Dark Ages postponing scientific progress. Heh; ID/creationist science fiction.

There wouldn't be any problem of overpopulation in the Garden of Eden: the problem of sex, and procreation is, according to Christians, a horrifying curse levied upon Eve and all women as punishment for not ~~making~~ letting Adam stop her from eating the Forbidden Apple and dooming the entire Universe to God's never-ending wrath.

Mike Elzinga · 30 January 2011

Stanton said: There wouldn't be any problem of overpopulation in the Garden of Eden: the problem of sex, and procreation is, according to Christians, a horrifying curse levied upon Eve and all women as punishment for not ~~making~~ letting Adam stop her from eating the Forbidden Apple and dooming the entire Universe to God's never-ending wrath.

Which raises another issue: why would they not eventually be bored out of their skulls after a few million years dong the same thing? You have this snake running around telling them that this isn’t all there is; and you have a god that put the snake there knowing that these two “perfect” beings experienced temptation. One might think that, after a few million or a few billion years (in a perfect universe which didn’t decay and had no rainbows or the physics that makes rainbows), somebody would eventually yield to temptation. And the god would have known ahead of time that this would happen, but was just messing with these poor creatures to see if the imperfection it built-in finally takes hold and brings down the whole universe. Looks like a deity piling up a house of cards to see just how long it will take to collapse. It didn't take long, according to legend. Sectarian origins stories are so “cute.”

John Kwok · 30 January 2011

Kevin B said:
Mike Elzinga said:
mrg said: Time traveling creationists, how appalling. I was thinking that it might make problems for YECs, but silly me -- they could go back to the Precambrian, making lots of stops along the way, and STILL would figure out how to explain it away.
Yup; carrying rabbits with them in order to bury them in Precambrian soil.
Anyone else got a mental picture of a Calvin & Hobbes cardboard box time machine? The YECers wouldn't be able to find the Precambrian, because their time machine wouldn't have any dates before 4004BC on the dial, so they wouldn't be able to choose to go there.

No I have a mental picture of Davros and his Daleks holding Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and the entire DI staff hostage as they seek to alter forever the course of history of life on Planet Earth.

Jim Harrison · 30 January 2011

Presumably, the snake would have to be a vegan. Does that mean that its venom would contain Roundup?

John Vanko · 30 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said, concerning time-traveling creationists: Yup; carrying rabbits with them in order to bury them in Precambrian soil.

At the risk of boring you with ancient history, I submit the following: Long ago, the

Founding Mothers said in response to eddie:
eddie said: As it happens, I have a fossil rabbit embedded in Precambrian rock, found in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
Eddie: Show me the bunny. SHOW ME THE BUNNY!

Deja Vu, all over again.

Stanton · 30 January 2011

Jim Harrison said: Presumably, the snake would have to be a vegan. Does that mean that its venom would contain Roundup?

No, melted butter. What kind of sicko uses Roundup as a condiment?

Lynn Wilhelm · 30 January 2011

Stanton said:
Jim Harrison said: Presumably, the snake would have to be a vegan. Does that mean that its venom would contain Roundup?
No, melted butter. What kind of sicko uses Roundup as a condiment?

Awww, come on. I thought it was a cute joke. But then I am a horticulturalist... I would've called it glyphosate though (Monsanto gets too much publicity!).

Chris Lawson · 31 January 2011

I am surprised by one thing in this report: that scientific knowledge was not correlated with creationism. I can't see why this would be true.

mplavcan · 31 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Stanton said: There wouldn't be any problem of overpopulation in the Garden of Eden: the problem of sex, and procreation is, according to Christians, a horrifying curse levied upon Eve and all women as punishment for not ~~making~~ letting Adam stop her from eating the Forbidden Apple and dooming the entire Universe to God's never-ending wrath.
Which raises another issue: why would they not eventually be bored out of their skulls after a few million years dong the same thing? You have this snake running around telling them that this isn’t all there is; and you have a god that put the snake there knowing that these two “perfect” beings experienced temptation. One might think that, after a few million or a few billion years (in a perfect universe which didn’t decay and had no rainbows or the physics that makes rainbows), somebody would eventually yield to temptation. And the god would have known ahead of time that this would happen, but was just messing with these poor creatures to see if the imperfection it built-in finally takes hold and brings down the whole universe. Looks like a deity piling up a house of cards to see just how long it will take to collapse. It didn't take long, according to legend. Sectarian origins stories are so “cute.”

Just to be thorough.... remember that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He didn't wait to see what would happen -- He knew from the moment He created the set-up. And then He punished all humanity and condemned them to Hell for all eternity for Adam's sin. Sort of like punishing a 2-year-old's family and all the families' descendants because you put a loaded, cocked gun on the table in a day care center, painted bright colors with dangling play things on it, told the kid not to play with it, and then waited for the kid to inevitably shoot another kid. Nice guy. And just as a cherry on the top, God didn't have to do it, being all omnipotent and all. (other questions -- why the hell did that sick bastard put the tree there in the first place? what was the purpose? free will? Really? So I don't have true "free will" unless I have the opportunity to ruin all creation with a single bite of fruit? WTF?)

eric · 31 January 2011

Midwifetoad said: Is it unrealistic to develop a curriculum based on a historical/evidentiary approach? I grew up reading books like Microbe Hunters, which made science into something of an adventure, or a detective story.

Its been done. The BSCS curriculum has evolution as one of its eight overarching themes for K-12 biology. My understanding is that it has not been popularly adopted by school districts. Not being a H.S. biology teacher, I'm not sure why but would be interested in hearing what teachers have to say about it. Could be the quality suffers in other areas. Or maybe its expensive to implement or the districts like to maintain a higher level of local control (vice adopting a whole-package curriculum). Or maybe there's another reason. Any teachers familiar with it out there want to say why (they think) it hasn't been adopted?

Matt Young · 31 January 2011

I am surprised by one thing in this report: that scientific knowledge was not correlated with creationism. I can’t see why this would be true.

According to the authors, neither general cognitive ability nor scientific literacy correlates with a disbelief in evolution. Regarding scientific literacy, they used data from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey, which includes true-false questions like

All radioactivity is made by humans. Antibiotics kill bacteria, but not viruses. Astrology -- the study of the star signs -- has some scientific truth. Human beings developed from earlier species of animals. All man-made chemicals cause cancer if you eat enough of them.

Acceptance of human evolution did not correlate with scores on the test. The GSS test is, very basic, to say the least. But the authors also cite research that used a larger and more sophisticated set of questions; that research showed only a very low correlation between acceptance of human evolution and scientific literacy. There is, however, a strong correlation between acceptance of human evolution and formal education. For example, 38 % of those who do not have a high school education think that evolution is definitely false, whereas only 9 % think that it is definitely true. 18 % of those with graduate degrees think that evolution is definitely false, whereas 38 % think it is definitely true. I think the last statement is much sadder than the first.

Gaythia · 31 January 2011

paul said: If I had kids, I would home school them. I would like to see vouchers so I could send them to a school that taught biology properly.

Then what kind of planet would they grow up to be part of? What would it be like if your kids were part of a very small subculture of educated ones? A strong democracy, and a strongly supported scientific community both require an educated public.

Mike Elzinga · 31 January 2011

eric said: Its been done. The BSCS curriculum has evolution as one of its eight overarching themes for K-12 biology. My understanding is that it has not been popularly adopted by school districts. Not being a H.S. biology teacher, I'm not sure why but would be interested in hearing what teachers have to say about it. Could be the quality suffers in other areas. Or maybe its expensive to implement or the districts like to maintain a higher level of local control (vice adopting a whole-package curriculum). Or maybe there's another reason. Any teachers familiar with it out there want to say why (they think) it hasn't been adopted?

BSCS was part of a response to Sputnik. So was PSSC in the physics curriculum. There was also the Harvard Project Physics attempt to get physics to a wider audience. All of these programs generated a tremendous backlash from the fundamentalists, especially BSCS because it included evolution as a central theme running through the curriculum. But there were other factors as well. Teachers were not up to speed in these concepts; and the curricula were considered too advanced for high schools at the time. The implementation of these programs was haphazard and very poorly done. Bureaucratic inertia as well as lack of funding for new textbooks and lab equipment (even though there was a serious attempt to develop lab equipment that was inexpensive) played a large role as well. Similar changes were going on in math with the “New Math” curriculum. This program introduced abstract concepts in set theory and made the mistake of introducing abstract ideas before any concrete examples could be developed as examples. This curriculum got bogged down in excruciating nit-picking over definitions (e.g., “measure of an angle” instead of angle) before students knew enough concepts to even know there was an issue. All of this left a bad impression about educational reform.

harold · 31 January 2011

Chris Lawson said: I am surprised by one thing in this report: that scientific knowledge was not correlated with creationism. I can't see why this would be true.

I can think of two explanations, which are not mutually exclusive, and both of which I think are to some degree operative. 1) Creationists are obsessed with specifically disrupting science class and thus pursue those credentials and become superficially aware of the material. In much the same way, many holocaust deniers would not test as ignorant of history. If the general public, rather than teachers, were tested, there would be a strong inverse relationship between scientific knowledge and creationism. Likewise, if creationism itself were counted as extreme ignorance and incompetence in the arena of science knowledge, as it should be, this would change the result. 2) People decide to become or remain creationists when they choose sides in the overall American political environment. If creationism actually were supported by facts, it would not associate one way or the other with homophobia, ethnic and religious bigotry, and so on, yet it does, and every creationist who posts here proves these associations all the more. If a high fraction of teachers all have very low science knowledge, yet some of these identify as creationists and some do not, for purely political and social reasons, this, too, could contribute to the effect you describe. In sum, most US teachers probably have low scientific knowledge whether or not they are creationist, and among those who have better knowledge, "stealth creationists" who have memorized the material solely to get themselves into a place where they can lie about science to children are present, and can't easily be distinguished by many testing methodologies.

W. H. Heydt · 31 January 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Similar changes were going on in math with the “New Math” curriculum. This program introduced abstract concepts in set theory and made the mistake of introducing abstract ideas before any concrete examples could be developed as examples. This curriculum got bogged down in excruciating nit-picking over definitions (e.g., “measure of an angle” instead of angle) before students knew enough concepts to even know there was an issue.

I remember "New Math" only too well...I ran smack into it high school. It assumed, of course, that you'd been using it all along...which I hadn't. The only good thing about that exposure to set theory was some 30 years later when i realized that SQL is just set theory. And there is always Tom Lehrer's commentary..."so simple, so very simple, that ONLY a child can do it..." --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

eric · 31 January 2011

Harold, I think you have missed an important third reason.

Its that critical analysis is a learned activity, not a instinctual one (at least not primarily). You have to train people to work against their own confirmation bias. And they have to practice such critical analysis to get good at it. This is why acceptance of evolution correlates to higher education in all fields and not just in science. Because successful postsecondaries of pretty much all stripes usually become good at critiquing their own ideas - whether their field is literature, history, or biology. You almost have to, because if you submit a paper with boneheaded errors in it, it will not likely get accepted, which means you have to learn to find the boneheaded errors yourself before you submit them. Or you will fail at your profession.

And once you've learned to do that in your professional life, it would be at least somewhat natural to start applying those skills to your non-professional beliefs too.

There can be exceptions at every stage (successful PhDs who never learn to see the faults in their own arguments, etc...) but IMO "critical thinking is a learned skill" goes a long way to explaining the trends we see.

Jim Thomerson · 31 January 2011

Back around 1958, I watched at 6 AM on Saturday morning, on a round screen TV, a series on teaching science and math. The one on the new math had a professor teaching a group of fifth grade students, whom he had not encountered before. By the end of the program the students were jumping up and down with excitement, shouting original theorems and proofs. The problem with the new math was that very few math teachers were competent and comfortable with it.

Mike Elzinga · 31 January 2011

Jim Thomerson said: Back around 1958, I watched at 6 AM on Saturday morning, on a round screen TV, a series on teaching science and math. The one on the new math had a professor teaching a group of fifth grade students, whom he had not encountered before. By the end of the program the students were jumping up and down with excitement, shouting original theorems and proofs. The problem with the new math was that very few math teachers were competent and comfortable with it.

Indeed; this can happen with almost any part of the curriculum in the public schools. But there are important caveats. You have to have a room full of students who are there to learn. Unfortunately a frequent occurrence in the public schools is a classroom with at least one student that disrupts the class routinely; and no back-up from the administration. That class you saw on TV was not typical of many of the classrooms around the country. And clearly the producers of that program would never permit a typical classroom to be shown to an entire television audience. Then you have to have teachers who not only know the subject matter of the curriculum, but who also have knowledge and experience well beyond the material being taught so that the teacher is always organizing the presentation within a larger context of experience and knowledge. That is extremely rare in most public schools. Then you have to have a school environment in which professional development for teachers is more than wasting time on inane and irrelevant activities that repeat year after year after year, while making no allowance for (no even allowing) challenging opportunities for increasing knowledge and real experience. The number of summer research programs for teachers of science is extremely small; and professional development requirements of most schools systems don’t usually count these. Then you have to have administrators who have enough knowledge of subject matter, enough teaching experience, and enough backbone to stand up to all the complaints and pressures to dumb down the educational program. Most administrators and principals are not required to have much teaching experience; and most couldn’t teach or control a classroom if their life depended on it (and in some schools, one’s life actually does depend on it). Then you have to have parents who genuinely value education and scientific knowledge, and who are supportive of the teaching staff in producing a school environment that gets those results. Most school environments are the end result of messy political tug-of-wars among various socio/political factions and politicians who have no understanding of what it takes to learn science and math.

JGB · 31 January 2011

In general I'm a fan of the Sputnik science curricula. I had BSCS in high school, though I don't know that it was done terribly well. I use a modified IPS curricula to introduce chemistry, and with a modest amount of effort I tracked down the Harvard Project Physics curriculum to supplement my physics course. The one thing with the Harvard Project Physics course is that I have no idea how that was originally intended to be sequenced between the supplements and the readers it comes in at around 2000 pages. That and it gets bonus points for including Haldane's "On Being The Right Size".

nmgirl · 1 February 2011

This report has really bothered me. I don't have kids so don't have an automatic entry into the schools to find out what is really going on. I am going to contact ncse for advice on getting info from the schools here in beautiful rio rancho. wish me luck!

(I have to do something tomorrow when snowed in)

Matt Young · 1 February 2011

I have just removed a comment by the Byers troll along with several responses. Please do not respond to trolls.

Jim Thomrson · 1 February 2011

One of the student teachers I supervised had a class with three disruptive students. They were bright kids not intending to be bad; maybe ADD or some other thing. She figured out to co-opt them into acting as assistants for her, giving them something to do in a constructive manner. I was pleased that it all worked out. It was a real challenge for her. Incidentally, that school was built on the "open classroom" model, one of the worst educational innovations.

Mike Elzinga · 1 February 2011

Jim Thomrson said: One of the student teachers I supervised had a class with three disruptive students. They were bright kids not intending to be bad; maybe ADD or some other thing. She figured out to co-opt them into acting as assistants for her, giving them something to do in a constructive manner. I was pleased that it all worked out. It was a real challenge for her. Incidentally, that school was built on the "open classroom" model, one of the worst educational innovations.

Near the end of my career, I fell into a dream job teaching in a highly selective program for really bright high school students at a math/science center. The first year I was there, one of the classes I was teaching was AP Calculus to high school freshmen and sophomores. These kids tended to be skeptical of most teachers, and many of them decided that they would set the tone of the class by simply not paying attention and doing what they wanted to do. Fortunately I had had considerable teaching experience they didn’t know about. Most of the class flunked the first exam; and the entire class flunked a pop-quiz for which the answers were still up on the white board in front of the class. I mentioned to them that they were perfectly capable of acing this stuff and that I wouldn’t hesitate to flunk the whole class if necessary. One day I overheard one of the students saying to a classmate in the hall that I wouldn’t dare flunk the entire class. Then nearly the entire class flunked the next exam. Unfortunately for these kids, there were two or three freshmen in the class who didn’t know the game that was being played and they were acing the exams (100%; so the exams were not impossible). I had meetings with the director of the program and with parents and let them know what was going on; and I had the backing of most parents. After a third flunked quiz, the kids finally realized that I meant business, and that I had the backing of parents and administrators. Their exam grades immediately jumped into the A’ and B’s; and the class went on to take my multivariable calculus course and my calculus level physics out of Halliday, Resnik, and Krane. Then some of them took differential equations and I was able to find them positions with local researchers in the community; and this resulted in some published papers for them. And, typical of most of the students who went through this program, they went on into science or engineering programs and got their PhDs at some of the best schools in the country. These were not the academically challenged kind of students that often cause trouble. They were students who had never been pushed to the levels they were capable of achieving, nor did any teacher ever really push them to the limits of their abilities. The teachers in that program were extremely familiar with this phenomenon; and knew how to handle it. It is in fact sometimes the very bright student who is a distraction in class because of extreme boredom and cynicism about the entire process of education. Challenge them to their limits and beyond, and you and they discover just how much is really possible. And it is far more than most teachers and parents can imagine. Compared to this, those sectarian programs that coddle kids and keep them scared of the secular world are extremely depressing to look at.

John Kwok · 1 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Jim Thomrson said: One of the student teachers I supervised had a class with three disruptive students. They were bright kids not intending to be bad; maybe ADD or some other thing. She figured out to co-opt them into acting as assistants for her, giving them something to do in a constructive manner. I was pleased that it all worked out. It was a real challenge for her. Incidentally, that school was built on the "open classroom" model, one of the worst educational innovations.
Near the end of my career, I fell into a dream job teaching in a highly selective program for really bright high school students at a math/science center. The first year I was there, one of the classes I was teaching was AP Calculus to high school freshmen and sophomores. These kids tended to be skeptical of most teachers, and many of them decided that they would set the tone of the class by simply not paying attention and doing what they wanted to do. Fortunately I had had considerable teaching experience they didn’t know about. Most of the class flunked the first exam; and the entire class flunked a pop-quiz for which the answers were still up on the white board in front of the class. I mentioned to them that they were perfectly capable of acing this stuff and that I wouldn’t hesitate to flunk the whole class if necessary. One day I overheard one of the students saying to a classmate in the hall that I wouldn’t dare flunk the entire class. Then nearly the entire class flunked the next exam. Unfortunately for these kids, there were two or three freshmen in the class who didn’t know the game that was being played and they were acing the exams (100%; so the exams were not impossible). I had meetings with the director of the program and with parents and let them know what was going on; and I had the backing of most parents. After a third flunked quiz, the kids finally realized that I meant business, and that I had the backing of parents and administrators. Their exam grades immediately jumped into the A’ and B’s; and the class went on to take my multivariable calculus course and my calculus level physics out of Halliday, Resnik, and Krane. Then some of them took differential equations and I was able to find them positions with local researchers in the community; and this resulted in some published papers for them. And, typical of most of the students who went through this program, they went on into science or engineering programs and got their PhDs at some of the best schools in the country. These were not the academically challenged kind of students that often cause trouble. They were students who had never been pushed to the levels they were capable of achieving, nor did any teacher ever really push them to the limits of their abilities. The teachers in that program were extremely familiar with this phenomenon; and knew how to handle it. It is in fact sometimes the very bright student who is a distraction in class because of extreme boredom and cynicism about the entire process of education. Challenge them to their limits and beyond, and you and they discover just how much is really possible. And it is far more than most teachers and parents can imagine. Compared to this, those sectarian programs that coddle kids and keep them scared of the secular world are extremely depressing to look at.

Mike, what you described isn't too far removed from what one sees in some of the elite science, mathematics, and technology-oriented high schools, such as New York City's Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High School. Moreover, a friend who teaches journalism at Northwestern University, Alec Klein, has emphasized in the final chapter of his book, "A Class Apart", that what is especially needed is to have students adhere to high academic standards, and have them have these expectations reinforced not only in school, but also, at home by parents who were as supportive as yours in that highly selective program you mentioned.

Michael Clough · 1 February 2011

Our secondary science teacher education program requires those earning a primary endorsement in biology to earn an undergraduate degree in biology and successfully complete a biological evolution course. However, we have had students earn very high grades in their undergraduate major and even in the biological evolution course, yet not accept biological evolution as a sound science idea that must be taugh in secondary school. We also require all our preservice secondary science teachers to take a Nature of Science and Science Education course that I teach. We explicitly address the biological evolution/creationism/ID Public education controversy, why biological evolution is sound science, and why creationism/ID is not science. But most every year I have at least one biology major (having done well in the biological evolution course) make clear they do not intend to teach biological evolution. I have even had such students maintain that the Earth is approximately 10,000 years old. So while I am a strong advocate of requiring an undergraduate science degree and a nature of science course, those experiences do not ensure that all those becoming biology teachers will teach biological evolution.

Mike Elzinga · 1 February 2011

Michael Clough said: We explicitly address the biological evolution/creationism/ID Public education controversy, why biological evolution is sound science, and why creationism/ID is not science. But most every year I have at least one biology major (having done well in the biological evolution course) make clear they do not intend to teach biological evolution. I have even had such students maintain that the Earth is approximately 10,000 years old. So while I am a strong advocate of requiring an undergraduate science degree and a nature of science course, those experiences do not ensure that all those becoming biology teachers will teach biological evolution.

This is where scientists, no matter whether involved in only research or in an academic environment, need to become involved in professional organizations and committees that review educational standards at the elementary and secondary levels of education. If possible, one should also become involved in those committees that prepare standards for state boards of education. Many professional organizations nowadays have such committees. Years ago, even the professional organizations connected with teaching didn’t bring pre-college education into consideration; nor did they welcome pre-college teachers warmly. Fortunately things have changed. Yet very few professionals not directly involved in teaching ever develop an interest in the educational standards and practices. I made it a point throughout my career – even when I wasn’t teaching - to maintain my membership in and to attend state and national meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers in addition to my attendance at other professional conferences. Yet I encountered very few other researchers who knew or even cared about what was going on in education. If state boards and local boards of education insist on high curriculum standards, and at the same time expect teachers to teach to those standards, the only places such rigid sectarians can go is to sectarian schools that teach creationism. Phony scientists from the ICR, AiG, and the DI do get involved; and their scams need to be exposed.

raven · 1 February 2011

MC: But most every year I have at least one biology major (having done well in the biological evolution course) make clear they do not intend to teach biological evolution.

Which is odd. You don't have to "believe" something to teach it or learn it. Quite a few biblical scholars and seminary teachers end up agnostics or atheists. Actually looking at what is in the magic book, seeing the bones i.e. how it is a kludgy stitched together anthology with little continuity, and reading the atrocity parts (most of it) can do that. Some are quite notable in their fields and they still teach. Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos, and Marcus Borg come to mind and many others. Looks like those well educated biology major creationists are either cowards or more likely, raging blind fundie xian religious fanatics. Wouldn't want them around my kids in a million years but, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes, not much to be done about.

Dale Husband · 1 February 2011

raven said:
MC: But most every year I have at least one biology major (having done well in the biological evolution course) make clear they do not intend to teach biological evolution.
Which is odd. You don't have to "believe" something to teach it or learn it. Quite a few biblical scholars and seminary teachers end up agnostics or atheists. Actually looking at what is in the magic book, seeing the bones i.e. how it is a kludgy stitched together anthology with little continuity, and reading the atrocity parts (most of it) can do that. Some are quite notable in their fields and they still teach. Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos, and Marcus Borg come to mind and many others. Looks like those well educated biology major creationists are either cowards or more likely, raging blind fundie xian religious fanatics. Wouldn't want them around my kids in a million years but, as long as they do it in the privacy of their own homes, not much to be done about.

Being unwilling to follow consistent logic should disqualify anyone from being considered a legitimate scientist. It doesn't matter if the object of their fraud and/or prejudicial thinking is the Bible or astrology. It still stinks.

paul · 1 February 2011

Gaythia said:
paul said: If I had kids, I would home school them. I would like to see vouchers so I could send them to a school that taught biology properly.
Then what kind of planet would they grow up to be part of? What would it be like if your kids were part of a very small subculture of educated ones? A strong democracy, and a strongly supported scientific community both require an educated public.

Planet? I'm talking about if I lived in a town where the teachers didn't teach evolution.

JGB · 2 February 2011

I can't say I'm terribly surprised that even with an Evolution course and a history and nature of science course you still find some resistance. The research I have seen on actually teaching the nature of science really quite dramatically points out the limitations of any single course on imparting a very deep sense of how science is conducted. I believe the only really effective strategy is to seriously rework some of the assumptions about how much emphasis is given to this subject. I think you'd get a much higher quality grad student out of the process as well. Perhaps something like a sophomore and senior coursework pair that covers material relevant to the major and some select examples from other science disciplines. The courses in the history and nature of science would ideally be smaller discussion sections, and you would adopt a teaching seminar format where most of the time is spent discussing the readings and building it into a coherent picture of how science works.

henry · 2 February 2011

Stanton said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Kevin B said: Anyone else got a mental picture of a Calvin & Hobbes cardboard box time machine? The YECers wouldn't be able to find the Precambrian, because their time machine wouldn't have any dates before 4004BC on the dial, so they wouldn't be able to choose to go there.
So they go back to the Garden of Eden and stop Eve from eating the apple. Then we are stuck with an overpopulated Garden of Eden, with a snake running around tempting everyone to get some scientific knowledge; and no Christians to take offense because nobody has any knowledge of good and evil. And, with a larger population, there is a higher probably that many more than two people bite and God smites. So the mess starts all over again; but now there are better time machines because there was no Dark Ages postponing scientific progress. Heh; ID/creationist science fiction.
There wouldn't be any problem of overpopulation in the Garden of Eden: the problem of sex, and procreation is, according to Christians, a horrifying curse levied upon Eve and all women as punishment for not ~~making~~ letting Adam stop her from eating the Forbidden Apple and dooming the entire Universe to God's never-ending wrath.

Sex isn't a problem when it's within the marriage of a man and a woman.

Wolfhound · 2 February 2011

henry blathered:Sex isn't a problem when it's within the marriage of a man and a woman.

Millions of married couples would beg to differ.

PPP · 8 February 2011

The phrase "how science works" gets at the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution. Creationism (regardless of your position on the matter) should be regarded as a sort of politics or history of science. Whether someone agrees with it being taught in schools or not, is irrelevant, and the fact of the matter is, it's a perspective (again, whether valid or not). One might argue that "I think 2+2=5, so we should teach it in schools, because it's a perspective". The difference here, is that Creationism is extremely popular. Should we teach popular perspectives? It's probably not the best approach, if we want to advance the sciences, but it's important to arm people against the populace, perhaps manifesting as a "history of evolution" course. "How science works", on the other hand, does not include creationism. There is no way to simultaneously argue for the advancement of any scientific research while including creationism in that argument.

bjdeofdwq · 9 February 2011

It's sad that none of you follow the constitution anymore. It's called the freedom of religion, in case you haven't heard. There's also this thing called freedom of speech- ring a bell?

mrg · 9 February 2011

bjdeofdwq said: It's called the freedom of religion, in case you haven't heard.

More explicitly, the exclusion clause, which prohibits the government from elevating any religion over another, or for that matter over any pattern of nonbelief.

fnxtr · 9 February 2011

Oh, look, Byers learned how to sock.

stevaroni · 9 February 2011

bjdeofdwq said: It's sad that none of you follow the constitution anymore.

You mean the part where the state shall not involve itself with establishing religion, or the part where the state shall require no religious test for holding office? And IIRC you're Canadian, Byers, what difference does the US Constitution make to you? You should be worrying about the Canadian Constitution. Oh... Wait... that one keeps state and church separate too (Sec 2b again, IIRC).

Matt Young · 9 February 2011

Oh, look, Byers learned how to sock.

Whether it is the Byers troll or a new one, please do not feed it.

Ichthyic · 9 February 2011

Sex isn’t a problem when it’s within the marriage of a man and a woman.

In a tub.

full of jello.

with some of the neighbors along for more fun?

hey, if you can make arbitrary rules that AREN'T even fun, surely I can make some up that are.

Ichthyic · 9 February 2011

Being unwilling to follow consistent logic should disqualify anyone from being considered a legitimate scientist.

even if it didn't, given the choice to hire someone for a research position that exhibited problems with logic, vs one that did not...

it defacto selects against the irrational.

Ichthyic · 9 February 2011

it’s a perspective (again, whether valid or not). One might argue that “I think 2+2=5, so we should teach it in schools, because it’s a perspective”. The difference here, is that Creationism is extremely popular. Should we teach popular perspectives?

no, we should teach USEFUL things.

holocaust denial is a perspective which is NOT useful or predictive in understanding human history.

creationism, in any form, is NOT useful or predictive in understanding how the world around us works and has come to be the way it is.

it's the very reason science exists:

it works.

besides, I'm quite sick of the religious thinking they get TWO chances to educate our kids in nonsense.

they already have tax-deductible churches; and while I think THAT is excessive, they most certainly shouldn't be allowed to pervert the other public forms of education.

greedy bastards.

Ichthyic · 9 February 2011

earlier...

According to the authors, neither general cognitive ability nor scientific literacy correlates with a disbelief in evolution.

that doesn't agree with the Gallup Poll data for the last 30 years, at all:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

something ain't right here.

stevaroni · 9 February 2011

Ichthyic said: In a tub. full of jello.

Funny story. I had a friend back in college who actually tried this with his girlfriend. (He worked in a nursing home and had access to huge amounts of gelatin.) He related that it works a lot better in the movies. In real life, apparently, body heat causes you to sink in. And then... there are the logistical problems that nobody ever tells you about. Like after you're... um.. done, you find yourself all gooey and covered with re-congealing gelatin - but you can't clean yourself up because your tub is full of freakin' gelatin. And just how do you get rid of it all. Todd assumed that he'd just melt it with hot water. That doesn't work. Apparently, what happens in the real world is that you try to melt it and flush it down the drain, then, after you realize that you have now created the largest drain clog you will ever have in the whole rest of your life, you cut the rest of it into pieces, and drag the chunks out into trash cans all over the block. Or so I am told.

SWT · 9 February 2011

stevaroni said: And just how do you get rid of it all. Todd assumed that he'd just melt it with hot water. That doesn't work. Apparently, what happens in the real world is that you try to melt it and flush it down the drain, then, after you realize that you have now created the largest drain clog you will ever have in the whole rest of your life, you cut the rest of it into pieces, and drag the chunks out into trash cans all over the block.

Seems like you should be able to toss a bunch of meat tenderizer into the tub and let proteolysis work its magic. I sense a home science experiment in the offing (at the bowl scale, not the tub scale).

Ichthyic · 9 February 2011

And just how do you get rid of it all

hmm.

it's a cartilage based protein, yeah?

I'd say a solution of bleach should break it down pretty rapidly.

regardless of the headaches....

so totally worth being able to say you tried it, dontchya think?

stevaroni · 10 February 2011

SWT said: Seems like you should be able to toss a bunch of meat tenderizer into the tub and let proteolysis work its magic. Ichtyic said: it’s a cartilage based protein, yeah? I’d say a solution of bleach should break it down pretty rapidly.

Both possibly viable solutions. Sadly, none of us knew anything about dissolving proteins so this is far better than we were able to offer, which mostly involved guffawing loudly and marveling to each other about what Todd and his girlfriend got up to (and wondering why we couldn't find girlfriends like that). Ahhh, college truly was a magic and marvelous time. The hero of our story, by the way, eventually got into law enforcement. Be afraid.

Kevin B · 10 February 2011

fnxtr said: Oh, look, Byers learned how to sock.

Maybe. However, there's a hole in the toe. Surely, in times past, marriage was less about sex, and more about having someone to do the mending. :)

Jjim Thomerson · 17 February 2011

Public schools are funded by a mix of local, state, and federal taxes. Education funding, and educational access, at all levels, is going to be greatly reduced in coming months. That is a much greater problem than the occasional neglect of evolution as such, or injection of a little creationism.