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.
quoting meangreen:
"It already been proven that climate change is a hoax."
Evidence, please
If this bill really is about critical thinking then it seems like the perfect opportunity to teach all the blatant falsehoods and distortions in creationism and show what bad science really is. Unfortunately my guess is there are more teachers in TN ready to throw intellectual integrity out the windowing favor of idealism and fanaticism.
This is maddeningly asinine. Those conservatives (including Santorum, by the way) are living in the 15th century with 21st century technology (which science provided. Oh, wait, maybe it was God?).
Parents in Tennessee - good luck getting your kids into a respectable university (with the exception, maybe, for theology). But then again - YOU voted this administration into office. (And, of course, YOU can do something about that in the next elections.)
As I once stated to a friend who brought up this point, the theory of evolution is that microevolution leads to macroevolution.
A teacher who won't address a subject because of questions a student MAY raise simply shouldn't be a teacher. The concern that this law allowing teachers to address creationism will cause them to not teach evolution is horribly shallow. The curriculum is evolution and teachers are expected to teach the curriculum. The law doesn't change that.
why can't a teacher respond by saying" this is a school and I am teaching Science" If you want to know about the Bible you need to go to church, I don't teach the Bible."?
Why can't a teacher or scientist be neutral or objective. The teaching of evolution has become as dogmatic as those who teach that the universe was created in a period of six 24 hour days. A good evidence of that is the statement of your guest that "evolution has no weaknesses". Even within the evolution camp the is much dissention and disagreement. Evolution is also full of conjecture, speculation and suposition. It appears to me that BOTH camps lack objectivity and an abundance of subjectivity and creativity (no pun intended).
Stuby
I went to Catholic school from 2nd grade through 12. We were taught evolution in science class.
Grades 2-6 had a bible/catechism classses, never once were we taught about creationism, and we had nuns that woud smack you with rulers when you did something wrong.
Can't teachers already introduce different theories and pro's and con's of some issues? The fact that creationism isn't touched on is that there is no scientific evidence what-so-ever to support it!
Since global warming, evolution, and cell phone development all use the same science, where are the cell phone denier?s
Oh, please, "don't confuse me with facts. I believe and that's enough". This, BTW, is the reason serious evolution scientists refuse to debate "creationism" - it's like comparing oranges to socks.
Mike Sergeant wrote: ." I don't see how proving global warming is man-made pushes us towards a "one world socialist utopia"."
All modern prosperity exists because of the availability of cheap fuel sources, control the fuel source = control the people. It' that simple.
Craig:
As to your 1st question, there really are none. It has been a common practice of conservatives in the "discussion" of issues to simply say "there are inaccuracies" or "there are other schools of thought" without backing up such assertions. An example of this was the constant attacks of Michael Moore's documentary about 9/11, where conservative pundits would state that it was full of inaccuracies, yet never (in my experience) saying what these inaccuracies were.
Your second question: Probably, but going beyond the fact that religion and scripture are based on faith and therefore beyond the realm of science would be going beyond the pale of good science education.
Here's a novel idea. Why don't we approach this subject from a non-absolutist perspective. Since there is no definitive empirical evidence pointing to either of these disciplines as absolute fact, we should present both ideas in a neutral context and leave it up to the student to make the decision that best suits their ideal.
Certain facts should be admitted by all:
Evolution describes the change of species due to natural selection. This is as well established as the fact that the earth is not flat. However evolution does not describe the rise of life in the first place.
"Young earth creationism", the idea that earth was created a few thousand years ago, is contrary to overwhelming data and should never be discussed as a possibility in schools. However, how the universe came into being on cosmic time scales is not established and probably can never be established scientifically. When one discusses creationism one should always distinguish between young earth creationism and other forms.
The need for this conversation is an absolute embarrassment to this country. I really hope the rest of the world is not listening today. We are a laughing stock.
Well Oct21 our fuel sources aren't cheap anymore and we are not doing anything about it are we. We are defending the expensive old way of thinking.
The easiest way to control people is to convince them the status quo is the absolute best way to do something and keep them so busy working hard to maintain that status quo that they don't even notice they are being controlled.
As a college student one of my first assignments in my Western History class detailed creation stories from around the world. Some of which were very similar to the Christian story but pre-dated it by hundreds of years. Almost every group of ancient people had a story about the creation of the universe and the Earth. What's keeping a teacher from choosing one of those stories instead of the Christian explanation of the world? it seems to me that Creationist believe that teachers only have two choices and they don't. It seems to me that this legislation opens the door for ANY story to be taught to our children.
Evolution is also full of suposition, speculation, and conjecture. Evolutionists have also become dogmatic. Why not just address these subjects in an objective way. Let the kids question the subject. They are not so dumb. There are many processes in nature that are taught as evolution that are not evolution. Is adaptation evolution....or is it...adaptation?
Stuby
As a K-12 Science Curriculum Coordinator for a charter school district, I find that many of our students struggle with concepts supporting the understanding of evolution, and I fear the creationism is an easy way out. I believe this to be true of the vast majority of educated adults, including some of the panelists on this show. The concepts require a deep understanding of genetics, geology, ecology and biology.
There is more evidence to support natural selection than gravitational force, and continued research supports the theory instead of refuting it. This law is a blatant attempt to pander to religious fundamentalist voters.
With the growing achievement gap that exists between white youths and youths of color, with the budget cuts that are eviscerating our public school systems and with the important problems of the school-to-prison pipeline - I find it amazing that THIS is the topic that lawmakers are spending their time and money on. It begs the question - do they really care about the education of our children?
Why is it only Science that bears the brunt of people wanting to use supernatural explanations? Why don't they teach the supernatural in Law School?... or in History class?
David Cruz wrote:
The need for this conversation is an absolute embarrassment to this country. I really hope the rest of the world is not listening today. We are a laughing stock.
"Laughing Stock"? Really? I'm really glad that I live in the part of the world that has the technical capability and freedom to have this kind of discussion in real time.
The arguments that gall me are those that insist that belief in either point of view automatically makes you an idiot. Plenty of reasonable people on both sides.
Linking global warming and creationism is a false narrative. Very different in scientific terms and in long term political implications. We have been living with creationism for a couple thousand years and know it's effects. Man made global warming is a relatively new theory that has not been given the test of time to stand on it's own.
As a former teacher in a community college in the southeastern US in which the concept of "critical thinking" was being pushed as a necessary integrated element, I have a very strong opinion on this. Critical Thinking is nothing more than common sense, which CANNOT be taught. It's idiotic. Anyone with a functioning brain is capable of reason, even on a minor level. Let a person decide for themselves which theater of thought to follow. They will anyway. It's called free will, folks.
Ms Scott states students should not be taught there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution!?!? What a narrow-minded twit. The world isn't all black and white, right or wrong. The earlier kids learn it's OK to challenge conventional wisdom, the better. I deeply sympathize with Ms Scott's own kids or others' whose intellectual development she's stymied.
It often happens, sadly, that the reasonable people aren't the ones with the microphones and cameras. . . and that applies to both ends of the political spectrum.
I wonder what your guests think about the work of Dr. Jobe Martin, author of "The Evolution of a Creationist". I believe he has put forth plenty of good evidence against the evolution in his book, lectures and videos ("Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution"). Also, I would remind your guest from California that Creation was taught in schools first, then Evolution "came in the back door", not the other way around. One last thing to consider—all the "experts" in science (so often referred to) are all taught the same thing in higher education, then they go out to teach. If they do not conform to and tout the same teachings they are not considered "experts"—they are marginalized or ousted. Therefore all the teachers of science are cemented in the faulty evolutionary teaching mold.
The sad fact is that in most public schools critical thinking is not taught and that is ok. History has proven the power of education. Critical thinking is the skill an individual develops to enhance and develop one's own education. It inspires questioning. But much like what we've seen in the middle east is happening here. In reality those in power don't want to be questioned and fostering these kinds of debates cloud what's actually happening. Time moves on, students are moving through school and out without developing real critical thinking skills and as a result these poorly educated are easier to control and incite through inflammatory presentation of information. I agree with the statement I heard that "the rest of the world is laughing at us". It's long past time for this country to wake up
How is it that this is actually up for debate? Evolution by natural selection is probably the most profound scientific theory that we know of. In terms of explanatory value, evolution trumps any other theory that we know of. Without evolution, the foundation of biology would crumble. I completely disagree with your speaker that teachers would be allowed to introduce "opposing theories" in contrast to the majority of the scientific community. Why don't we introduce opposing theories of thermodynamics, or gravity?