Debate Over How to Teach Evolution and Climate Change
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-09/debate-over-how-teach-evolution-and-climate-change
A new Tennessee law would require public schools to allow teachers to teach purported weaknesses in the widely-accepted scientific theories found in textbooks.
Leigh Jay Hicks: http://www.flickr.com/photos/partyofhicks/4498080200/
Nearly 90 years after the famous Scopes monkey trial, Tennessee has once again become a battleground over teaching evolution and other science topics in the classroom. The state legislature passed a bill that would require public schools to allow teachers to challenge widely accepted theories on evolution and climate change. Opponents of the so-called "monkey bill" - after the Scopes trial - are pressuring Tennessee's governor to veto it. They say its real purpose is to elevate religion over science. Supporters of the measure argue it's all about academic freedom. Guest host Susan Page and a panel of experts talk about the debate over teaching science in the classroom.
Guests
David Fowler
president, the Family Action Council of Tennessee; former Republican state senator.
Eugenie Scott
executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
David Masci
senior researcher, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Robert Destro
professor of law; director, Interdisciplinary Program in Law & Religion Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I can`t tell the difference between the Christian clergy and a K Street Big Oil Lobbyist. Wealth redistribution to the 1%,screw the poor. Let the earth and it`s human population pray that God forgives mankind,and heals all. Nice message to kids.
Isn't it interesting that the only science that Christians and regressives seem to care to refute are those scientific theories that challenge their cultural and political beliefs? Evolution challenges the very necessity of god and of human supremacy in nature; global climate change underscores the disastrous results of rampant capitalism and industry. Since these ideas attack bedrock conservative ideals, they must be challenged as science--which doesn't work, so let's just try to get the masses to doubt their reality. You never see fundies and Republicans attacking electromagnetism, chemistry, and physics? No, they like their gadgets--just so long as they can keep playing their games their way without disturbing profits or their sense of self-importance.
In a nutshell: evolution and global warming prove that religious regressives were wrong about the world, and since these people fundamentally are incapable of admitting they're wrong about anything, they try to attack science itself. As the losers in the grand sweep of history, they're flailing about trying to restore their own sense of greatness. Well, tough for them. They've had thousands of years of religious culture and three hundred years of industrial capitalism; good riddance to them. We can't show them the door fast enough.
The basic problem is that we lack the economic power to promote understanding and solutions regarding the real threats fast enough, to enough persons. That is why we need a new global media network. We're working on creating that: www.globalteachin.com, 7 countries, 15+ cities.
Hey Joshua:
It already been proven that climate change is a hoax. Why make such a big issue of it?
"Jonathan M. Feldman wrote:
The basic problem is that we lack the economic power to promote understanding and solutions regarding the real threats fast enough, to enough persons. That is why we need a new global media network. We're working on creating that: www.globalteachin.com, 7 countries, 15+ cities"
New global media huh? We already have tons of global media. It is called the internet and satelite. Sounds like you are one of those climaters that want Mother Earth to be the new god as the Egytians did at the beginning of time.
Until the left can convince everyone that living in poverty is fun nothing is going to change much with fossil fuel usage. The technology for "renewables" is no where even close to being able to replace oil, coal and natural gas. 1% of our energy is produced from solar and wind. If anyone thinks China or India are going to go green anytime soon their only fooling themselves. Truth be told the science on global warming is lacking, global climate change activists are only looking for a political power grab so they can force their one world order socialist utopia on everyone through dictatorial government. No thank you!
It's agreed the earth had five major ice ages and many varying cold and warm spells. To say scientists have a lock on any theory as grand as man-made global warming is ridiculous. In the seventies the certainty was of a coming ice age, a short forty years later just the opposite. Science barely has a grasp on understanding the suns fluctuating energy output, for all we know we could very well be preventing an ice age from coming or lessening it's severity. What science doesn't know far exceeds what it does know. What we don't need is arrogant liberal propaganda disguised as science in the class rooms.
Re: "40 years ago scientists thought we were going into another ice age."
Since I am a Google User, I fired up the Google machine and look what I found: any number of articles that refute this oft-mentioned "fact." Here's one aptly named "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus."
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf
I'm sorry that this link has things like graphs, footnoted references, and statistics to back up its claims. It's much easier to just make claims.
According to a number of university education professionals I know, the main reason to teach evolution and nothing else is that there is not sufficient time for students to learn one theory, much less two, so the one with the most weight needs to be taught.
If the people of Tennessee want to turn back the clock 150 years I see no reason to stop them. Less competition for everyone else for jobs in science fields in the years to come.
798 to 2.......Climate Scientists ratio on debate...hmmm??
Isn`t that equal ?
Whoa, Senator Fowler . . . . a little defensive & hostile there. Not doing your side any favors to sound so angry! Goodness!
1. Does Tennessee teach the Theory of Gravity, also?
2. If so they could address how a fat man in a red suit flies in a sleigh pulled by reindeer.
David Fowler's comments about the Galapagos finches show his lack of understanding of the theory of natural selection. The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not scientific concepts, but terms that creationists use to explain data that supports the theory of natural selection.
To the moderator: Please refrain from the improper use of the word "theory" or "alternative theory" for the alternative explanations for either evolution or climate change that have either not gone through the peer review process or achieved the scientific consensus required to be called a theory. At best they fall into the realm of hypotheses.
As to why scientists and science educators might be extremely wary of this bill at the get-go, there is a long track record of attempts to use misrepresentation and duplicitousness to sneak religion into the science class room.
Politicians have done a MARVELOUS job in rewriting textbooks and school curricula in Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, the Soviet Union, Iran and North Korea, all governed by an arm of the Repuglipican party.
What does the previous speaker know about Scientific agenda? None of his proposed theories are Scientific. Creationism, Intelligent Design? Where exactly is the Scientific Evidence to support these theories? And for those of you that still want to claim climate change is "not our problem" and "not our fault" I found it very distressing that just because Fox news has brainwashed into chanting their ignorant mantra you would be comfortable with sticking your head in the sand while you drive your Hummer around and continue to degrade the planet my child has to live on. You are selfish and wrong and irresponsible. The resources will run out. There are to many of us on this planet using to much of its resources and it is not sustainable. If you feel otherwise you are a blind fool.
Children learn less in school today than they do from media and social contacts outside school. I'm sure a few cloistered captive Christian youngsters live under parental superstition for a while without the normal exposures but those are extreme abusive cases. By the time young adults get out on their own they are wishful but they learn from hard knocks and the injustices they witness. Religious dogmatism suffers so many contradictions in real circumstance that it is more a stubborn ideology than a belief system already. Church attendees' minds are forced to run on parallel tracks because the magic-heads usually can't survive in the real world outside unattractive and repressive cults. I am a Biblical scholar which is a difficult literary and sociological discipline. I try to make such knowledge useful but science is so much more quickly and easily applied there is no practical contest between unsupportable belief and proven technique based upon repeated research. Bart Erdman still can't prove Jesus existed but high tech geology finds more frack sites every week. I've yet to see a church produce any energy. They only beg for money like some sort of welfare club. Never feel outdone by stupid people. Their sadism and selfishness exhausts itself. Think of Karl Childers cutting his ignorant abusive father's grass in "Slingblade" because that's where relationships of forced ignorance are headed. The next step after an education in hate would be child soldiering.
We are well into the 21st century and there is STILL debate over teaching evolution? No wonder our country is falling behind in science education. How sad, when real issues, such as climate change are threatening our existence as we know it.
As a former high school science teacher (Biology, Earth Science, Physical Science, and subbed in Physics and Chemistry), I see an opportunity to contrast scientific method with other methods. Scientific method uses inductive reasoning to develop theories about nature. Deductive reasoning often leads to dogma.
I'm white and taught in inner city schools (mostly Blacks and Hispanics) in the 70's. I used skin color adaptation to environments as an example of evolution.
Why can't they offer an elective called Creationism? It would NOT be a science class but a religion or mythology or literature class (like we study Greek and Roman mythology).
Also, how do the "intelligent design" and creation people feel about the US being competitive globally? If we reject scientific theories that the majority of scientific research backs, we may as well live in caves and while China, India, Brazil and the rest of the world move forward, we will move backwards. Do they want their kids to be able to thrive and compete in the world?
According to my understanding, Theistic Evolution does NOT refute Darwinian natural selection! Theistic Evolution is the notion that natural selection and evolutionary change is part of a Divine plan. What is your guest's understanding of this term?
No need to get snotty "GoogleUser" You just cannot compare the advantage of the modern Internet and the way 1970's information was passed around. Like it or not belief in a coming ice age was widespread and respected.
"Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970's global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media."
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet...
Oct21 wrote:
" What science doesn't know far exceeds what it does know. What we don't need is arrogant liberal propaganda disguised as science in the class rooms."
It's true that extrordinary claims demand extrordinary evidence. Those who insist that Creationism is a legitimate scientific theory would seem to be unable to bear the burden of proof. Besides, why couldn't a Creator use evolution as a method to express His (Her?) plan? I've never understood exactly how the agency of natural selection negates God. Does evolution contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible? Y'all realize those stories weren't originally written in English, don't you?
While corporate capitalists and apologists for their continued rapacious plunder and habitual mass murders dismiss notions like carrying capacity and global warming, it seems to me that the real arrogance is to suppose that humans can use the land, water and atmosphere as a planet-wide dump for generations and cause mass extinctions along with eradicating the vast majority of natural habitats without ruinously affecting the chances for our own long-term survival -- leaving aside how we've ruined the rest of Creation.
Again, those who loudly proclaim their own naive and childlike faith in the wisdom of markets and the power of technological development to save us conveniently ignore the history of the development of these areas of human endeavor: while significant investment has occasionally been made that results in widespread benefits, current economic practices discourage anything but maximizing short-term monetary profit at the expense of everything -- and everyone -- else. Doesn't this blatant disregard and merciless greed anger God?
Oct21,
Do you ever get tired of looking for, worrying about and preparing for an event that will ultimately only occur in you mind? IF there is a "one world socialist utopia through dictatorial government" conspiracy out there, it won't get far, were not a stupid as Hollywood portrays us as. Let's get to the bottom of this, global warming is occurring, man-made or not. If it man-made why is this such a threat and needs such a vigorous attack to disprove. I don't see how proving global warming is man-made pushes us towards a "one world socialist utopia".
Here is what needs to be focused on. Petroleum is a limited resource, it WILL run out. If it won't then why are we paying so much for it? For national security's sake, we need to develop domestic energy resources that will meet the needs of our country. Drill, baby, drill will NOT work unless ALL the oil that is extracted is kept in the domestic market and not put on the global market. That leaves natural gas, wind and solar as potential sources, the exact same technologies that the "leftist one world socialists" are promoting. It makes sense for the USA to develop them now and China and India will bear the brunt of economic collapse when the oil runs out. When that event occurs, we will merrily go along doing whatever we want with only an academic concern for the rest of the world's economic problems.
We need switch our mind set from spending hundreds of billions defending countries with oil reserves, so they can bomb us and economically rape us, to spending hundreds of billions creating our own energy and tell them to bug off, keep your oil were fine here thanks. I once heard that to convert the automobile fueling system to hydrogen would cost $100 billion to do, assuming that we had hydrogen powered cars, that is about what 1 year of the Middle East wars we fought cost and saved thousands of American lives.
It's important to remember that the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations have no theological problem with evolution. This is about a subset of fundamentalists who think that only their view should be taught. We SHOULD be teaching comparative religion, and science teachers could then present just the science, supported by evidence, and let kids have the discussion at home with their parents about why their religion says that what they're being taught in science class is a lie.
trinity- You are correct that the chanting of magic words remains an obstacle to sanity. People are zombiefied into "robo-callers" believing that if they deny reality incessantly they can wish it away. Prosperity gospel and positive thinking are the same perversion, with or without Jesus. It finally culminates in a hunger to see Civilization and all Creation destroyed to satisfy their misconceptions. "If we can't have it our way then no one will have anything because we will nuke it all." Jesus hid his true nature so well in the Gospels, either that or they're Satanic worshippers.
As a geologist, I was shocked about your comment that there is "there are now weaknesses in evolution". The fossil record is not complete. You cannot show or prove that one organism evolved into another. Overall, the fossil record strongly endorses evolution, but it does not prove it.
Steve Olson
Two questions...What are the alternative scientific theories that Sen. Fowler was referring to during his interview?
And...If this bill opens up questions about evolution then by extension, doesn't it also allow students/teachers to question the religious beliefs surrounding creationism if it is allowed as an alternative to evolution?
Thanks
Craig Rhodes
Brookport IL