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.
This is a state rights issue, if your not of the state then you have no say. And they should ignore your opinion if you're not a Tennessee voter. That being said I'm not a Tennessee voter so they can feel free to ignore my opinion as well.
Christian leaders supported slavery and taught that 'white' people were superior to 'dark' skin. In the last sixty years, this religious teaching was found false through science and, now, no one would dare teach this viewpoint in schools. Should public schools be dictated to teach 'white' superiority religious views because it's their religious belief?
I firmly believe in God and that the universe was created by God. Since my understanding of God is limited to my finite mind, I am not threatened by science. Each scientist, no matter how brilliant, is looking at one small part of God's creation. Scientists have the honor of studying this incredible, complex, and beautiful universe and help me better appreciate the incredible creation. It is unfortunate that so many Christians are threatened by science instead of viewing as a way of understanding God's majesty.
The first pen to paper writing of the Bible occurred 50 years after the death of Jesus. Today,50 years after my baseball career,my mind still has me the next Babe Ruth.Neither notion are burdened with any facts.
Part 2 If you don't like it vote against it(with your voice to the Governor). If it gets signed, you can try to repeal or move. This isn't rocket science, if you have a bunch of backwater hayseeds that want to refute reality then let them live on there own little commune. Then the rest of us can be assured of not running into them.
Supposition and conjecture that is based upon observations that is subjected to testing, peer review, and the requirement of reproducible results of those tests. As someone who did their undergraduate and graduate training in biology, as well as an educator of more than 25 years, I cannot think of ANY of what you call "processes in nature" that are inappropriately connected to evolution. Science is all about interconnectedness of concepts. Adaptation (whether you are thinking of a body structure or behavior that helps an organism increase its fitness or as the process of change in the characteristics of a population that allow that species to better survive in their environment) is a well established and integral part of the process of evolution. Simply because the two words are not perfectly synonymous with each other does not undermine the validity of either.
I really enjoyed the discussion about the proposed law in Tennessee that would allow teachers to discuss flaws in some scientific theories. This book focuses on this very topic: Why Evolution is Not True It evaluates scientific support for the *historical account* of Biblical creation and examines scientific evidence for Evolution theory.
It was very telling in the way that the bill's proponent kept referring to her as "Miss" Scott and not "Doctor". And I am so glad she slapped him down when he referred to university professors as "so-called scientists". That one caller truly illustrated the argument fro ignorance in characterizing scientific consensus as "if just 87% of scientists believe it", with no regard for acceptance based on verifiable evidence from reproducible outcomes. There is a reason for a Methods and Materials sections, something that *every * Creationist publications lacks, in scientific reporting.
Religious education begins, typically, 2-3 years before K-12, with about 1 hour per week for 45-50 weeks each year. So, theists must recognize how fragile is their argument if the 100s of hours of religious education can be threatened by the 10-20 hours of evolutionary biology which children are taught.
It drives me nuts that the lies on these programs (yes, all media discussion programs on this topic have been exactly the same for 20 years) are never called out! The tactic of sticking to your talking points works only part of the time, and then the truly naive listener is left with the unavoidable impression that there are two legitimate sides to the question. The senator was telling several big ones. The "scientific evidence against evolution" IS creationism. The "evidence" against evolution in finch evolution exists only in creationists minds. He was allowed to leave the impression that the bill does not advocate teaching evolution, and that there is "scientific" evidence against evolution. People following this topic for the last 20 years understand this, but how many of your listeners did? The Catholic lawyer was telling big ones. He was allowed to leave the impression that what science is can be dictated by politicians, that "scientific consensus" means that someone took a poll, and that if the understanding of a subject changes in science that means that the previous understanding was "unscientific"! Science is what scientists do! You get the scientific consensus by reading the CURRENT liturature (real research journals), and science changes all the time! That's how you can tell its real live science and not dogma!
I am an HIV/AIDS physician. There is a small but vocal group called AIDS Denialists who insist that AIDS isn't caused by the virus known as HIV. The denialists support their position by citing pseudoscience and quoting a tiny contingent of people with PhDs behind their names who believe as they do. Would it be appropriate to allow that view to be taught? How about giving a voice to those who maintain that cancer can be cured by ingesting ground up apricot pits (that was supported by a handful of scientists and "scientific" papers). There are criteria that science uses to determine whether a hypothesis is scientifically valid. The beliefs that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that apricot pits cure cancer, that the theory of evolution may not valid and that global warming either doesn't exist or isn't caused by man don't meet those criteria no matter how much their supporters scream that they do. You should not protect the official dissemination of misinformation under the guise of intellectual freedom.
Failure discussion here... For more reasons than I would like to list...
All I'll say is that i DON'T CARE about what the public opinion on scientific matters is when it comes to the accuracy of scientific theories.
WHY would I ask the of public's opinion on quantum mechanics? WHY are we letting a general k-12 science teacher determine the veracity of complex scientific theories (even though they have no real discipline/expertise in the area)? WHY are we letting politics determine the academic trajectory of science in k-12 (verses... oh I don't know. SCIENCE? EVIDENCE?).
It vexes me terribly to hear these so called "skeptics" (lol) use the same old, tired, defunct, debunked arguments on a proper program like the Diane Rehm Show and try to present it all as intelligent discussion.
If you, state of Tennessee, want to regress yourself 150 years despite our best efforts to convince you otherwise, just don't be surprised if many people (including myself) want to keep our kids away from your 19th century science curriculum and education system, where Creationism is on equal grounds with the Theory of Gravity/Relativity/Evolution (yes, this bill is that bad).
You believe that "belief in a coming ice age was widespread and respected." You cite a link (thanks) which I followed and read.
The web page features "A Small Sampling of 1970's Reports Warning of Global Cooling." I count 27 links below that heading.
Only three of these links are links to actual scientific papers from that era. Many are links to things like Newsweek articles, NYT articles, or other popular media. In fact, there's a couple of links, speaking of popular media, that apparently reference the old show "In Search Of..." featuring Leonard Nimoy.
Of the three links to actual scientific papers, one gives a 404 Not Found error. (Conspiracy?)
Here is the closing sentence of the second paper's abstract: "Suggestions by several previous authors to the effect that the apparent worldwide cooling of climate in recent decades is attributable to large-scale increases of particulate pollution of the atmosphere by human activities are not supported by this analysis." This does not seem to be stating that human activities were bringing on a second ice age.
Here is a sentence from the third paper's abstract: "In balance, the net thermal impact of all global-scale pollution (including thermal pollution) is likely to be one of warming, perhaps increasingly so after 2000 A.D." This is actually predicting the onset of global warming due to man-made activity.
Quite right. The best use of this bill is to demonstrate the methods by which evolutionary biology are tested, and the myriad disciplines by which it acquires that data to test. Then ask the children to devise the same for creationism.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, there are likely a sizable population of teachers either not qualified to teach evolutionary biology, intimidated by an indoctrinated community, indoctrinated themselves or merely apathetic.
// Euj wrote: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.//
Wrong mnemecek. You are affected. It isn't just rhetoric that our society depends on the advancement of science, and evolution really is the corner stone of biology. You might have noticed that biomedical science is becoming ever more important. So its important that scientists understand evolution, but that's the least important problem. What's more important is that government funding and organization is what drives science advancement, and in this country that is increasingly controlled by ignorant science deniers. That is very bad for all of us, not just Tennessee.
Ms. Scott repeatedly stated that none of the science teachers she spoke with could cite any deficiencies in the theory of evolution. That's odd, given this quototation:
"When a special centennial edition [1956] of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: 'As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution'”. - From the book, "Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?"
It would appear that Ms. Scott's reference group is quite removed from the "best and the brightest" in this field of scientific inquiry.
- "scientific consensus" is not simply polling for a majority opinion. Scientific consensus occurs after a long, documented, and critical process that involves experimentation, peer review, demonstration, etc.
- Critical thinking should, can, and does occur within disciplines. In fact, the most productive critical thinking occurs within disciplines, because certain basic language and structures are understood.
- To claim that critical thinking doesn't occur within a subject determined by scientific analysis, is at best an over-exaggerated and naive simplification of reality, and at worst a lie intended to persuade.
As a physician and scientist, it is interesting to see the flaws in argument. For example, both Davids used the words "belief" or "believe" as in the phrase "believe in evolution" hundreds of times during the show. This is NOT science, and it would behoove them to grasp the fact that they are, as their opponents, taking a religious (leap of faith) tack.
Science is a methodology, not a belief or belief system. And, as a methodology, it has it flaws. One of those flaws, quite evident in this case, as throughout the scientific community, is a failure to examine one's assumptions. In physics, for example, physicists often use the variable for time, without examine the assumptions about time. As a result we wind up with various fantastic propositions, such as dark energy.
In the case of evolution, there are multiple assumptions, taken without evidence or justification. For example, none of your guests could explain the appearance of the first cell, based on evolutionary theory. Reasonable rationalizations about how that cell got to homo sapiens, perhaps. But even in that rationalization process, there are multiple and various holes.
The creationist community has a point, in that it is pointing out the failure of science to use its own process. If science does, it would chance undermining a "belief" system that has to be employed to give full credence to evolution. Thus scientists are loathe to admit that creationists are pointing out a fundamental flaw in the application of the evolutionary theory to current understanding.
To my mind, the opposition to choosing either side, is justified, as young minds need to be presented the truth, fully, and allowed to make their own choice. If this is not done, then they are left with choosing between one fantasy and another. Nothing scientific, nor believable, about that
The quote from the centennial edition of Darwin's book was published before the Watson, Crick and Franklin's description of the structure of DNA in 1959. Without that structure, the method for cellular reproduction could not be worked out. It is at the cellular reproduction that the mechanism of evolution is expressed. Therefore this quote is just useless, except from a historical view.
I am a nurse with patient care experience, have worked for insurance company denying care and have helped attorneys defend doctors in medical malpractice I am passionate about fraud and abuse in healthcare.
My advice to listeners:
O
1/ Don't go to the doctors office alone, have some one with you in the exam you, and with you in the hospital. Two heads are better than one in most decision making.
2/ Ask a " qualified nurse" or two or three their opinions on your plan of care.
3/Use the internet's reputable sources for information.
4/second opinions obtained in the same town are often a waste of time.
/5/ physician , hospital greed is rampant. Assume these providers are looking out for themselves first.
Oh, yes. And hello to Dr. Topol, l believe we worked at the same hospital in Atllanta many years ago.
tmcsys,
While I think Ms. Scott may have meant to say that the overwhelming majority of biology scientists cannot show evidence of any serious deficiencies in the theory of evolution, the book you present as the source for a counter-argument should be critically examined as a reliable source.
It is published by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, authored by Harry Peloyan (Jehovah Witness) and quotes J. Francis Hitching heavily. It seems fairly obvious that the publishing company has a heavy bias towards creationism, which in and of itself is not reason to discount it, but should make us wary. As far as Hitching is concerned he is an inappropriate authority on the topic as he is a television scriptwriter/producer.
Obviously, if we were really serious about this discussion we would critically analyze each argument presented in the book, thankfully it looks like some folks have already done this for us here, Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation?.
Patsy, you really aren't concerned with facts if you think that none of the bible was written 'til 50 years after Jesus' death! Are you saying that the bible does not contain most of the history of the ancient world (proven and verified)? You know you are not the "next Babe Ruth"—you are writing fiction on purpose. Waaaay different!
I'd be happier if people like those making up the Discovery Institute, which in an internal memo stated as one of their goals the rejection of 'naturalism' (the notion that scientific explanations are possible without a deity) were simply to avoid using the fruits of naturalistic, modern, science....the Intarwebs, television, radio, modern printing presses, Aldiss lamps,....
After all, aren't they risking ideological contamination by using methods which would not have been around had their way of looking at things supervened? It wasn't until naturalism dominated that the pace of scientific knowledge grew so well as it did. There are at least two reasons for this:
1.) So long as naturalism doesn't hold sway, any conclusion at variance with the powerful's notion of Scripture will be able to be used to contradict it---meaning that we now know more about Scripture, as opposed to the objectively-discernible world.
2.) Modern science is built upon the notion that variance from the results we do expect must be explained; without naturalism, there is no reason at any point not to just throw up one's hands and say, 'I guess God wanted it to be that way,' which is an explanation that explains nothing.
The scientific method is based on the falsifiability of a hypothesis with empirical evidence. The converse is not true, in that the failure to falsify a hypothesis doesn't prove it is true, only that the probability that it is false decreases with the breadth and depth of the weight of scientific evidence over time. Conversely, there is no evidence one can provide that will falsify any religious belief, including creationism, because it is a religious belief based on revealed truths, so creationism is not science and cannot be taught in a science class. However, creationism could be taught in a comparative religions course.
It is appropriate to teach the scientific method in every science class and the historical context for the emergence of the science and the evolution of human understanding on the classroom subject over time. So, for example, the science of thermodynamics emerged at the time of the advent of the steam engine in response to a need to maximize the amount of energy one could extract from an energy source. However, the science of thermodynamics precludes the existence of perpetual motion machines. Despite this, there are still skeptics who believe that perpetual motion machines exist and/or that the government has issued patents for such devices but is colluding with the private sector to suppress such devices, because it would destroy the profitability of the gasoline engine and the oil used to supply its gasoline. Should the thermodynamic skeptics be given equal time in the physics and chemistry classrooms?
Dealing with the Religious Right is so aggravating. Like Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts." There is no "debate" on science, except the one that these people have been making up now for years. It's a shame that educated people still have to sit down with these anti-science charlatans and even "pretend" that there is a debate. It only gives the shysters more voice and more "cred". They must be stopped.
tmcsys, did you really just use a quote about science from 1956 to discredit *Dr.* Scott's claim regarding the science of evolutionary biology as understood in 2012? Unlike religion, science progresses and does not depend solely on sources which remain intellectually and realistically stagnant. The technology of Polymerase Chain Reaction, which is what has revolutionized genetics and allowed for more precise and accurate studies of the mechanics of evolution by molecular biology, was still 30 years away. That quote is obsolete and utterly irrelevant. You should avoid any further derogatory remarks about other people being "removed from the 'best and the brightest' until you can demonstrate better skills of analyzing your own evidence.
//tmcsys wrote: Ms. Scott repeatedly stated that none of the science teachers she spoke with could cite any deficiencies in the theory of evolution. That's odd, given this quototation:
"When a special centennial edition [1956] of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: 'As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution'”. - From the book, "Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?"
It would appear that Ms. Scott's reference group is quite removed from the "best and the brightest" in this field of scientific inquiry.
What surprised me, listening to the show, was that no one, not even your scientific experts, explained the difference in science between a law, theory and hypothesis. This left listeners thinking that when Ms. Scott said there were no alternative theories, that she was simply ignoring other "theories." The assumption that science uses the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" as equivalents is part of what is confusing people. A theory is an explanation supported by data, which may be generated by observation or by experiment. Because all data has inherent bias (another scientific term that is widely misunderstood), data needs to be gathered in a number of different ways. There is general consensus in the scientific community about what criteria need to be satisfied for data to be trustworthy. Absent sufficient scientific data, there cannot be a theory, only a hypothesis. Intelligent design is a hypothesis.
Theories are by their nature falsifiable, but they have to be falsified by data collection that meets scientific criteria.
I am an historian by training, not a scientist. However, understanding these things about science means that I trust science, that is, I trust theories based on evidence. These change over time as evidence is gathered.
As for critical thinking--all students in all subjects should be ready to ask about any verity they are told, "What's the evidence for that?"
Teaching kids s science dogma or religion dogma is a crime against ourselves. The problem is we are teaching kids how to accept dogma. The result on humanity? Iraq is a perfect example. A disaster for American global standing based on the population accepting a dogmatic stream of 'information'. Unless you endow kids with the tools needed to parse information for themselves and make a critical analysis of what's being argued, it detracts from science to have kids accept science as blindly as some out there would have them accept the bible.
The tools kids need are mathematical proof along the lines of what I received in my sophomore year of high school, a logic and debate class, and the parsing of information from sentences just as grammar is parsed from sentences. It's sad to hear both sides revert to dogmatism. I understand the the religious right calling for a dogmatic approach. They are about dogma. However as a member of the scientific community it makes me cringe to hear people who say they are working to advance science in the American population call for a dogmatic approach. One of the boosters of science as "What do we do, tech thermodynamics?". Yes! If you cannot then then teach the tools to get the person ready for thermodynamics. Don't turn it into a dogmatic argument on logical par with the religious nut cases.
It's astonishing how bad people are at understanding views they strongly disagree with. It was explained in the plainest terms possible at the beginning of the show that the bill at issue doesn't allow creationism or Intelligent Design to be taught in school. It's not in the approved curriculum. Yet the host sums up the bill as about allowing it to be taught, and that's what much of the discussion centers on. It's no wonder the state senator is so frustrated.
In my view Creation Science and Intelligent Design are bunk, but it's no more embarrassing to rational thought than the hysterical reaction to it among scientists and liberals, who continually show they can't think straight about it. Entirely too much is being made of this bill. It's clearly designed to allow teachers to raise questions about scientific orthodoxy, which may be at most harmful at the margins, if it's harmful at all. It doesn't allow creationism to be taught. It's not a big deal.
Sanpete wrote:
"It's astonishing how bad people are at understanding views they strongly disagree with. It was explained in the plainest terms possible at the beginning of the show that the bill at issue doesn't allow creationism or Intelligent Design to be taught in school. "
And I find it astonishing that someone who considers themselves God-fearing could make such a dishonest argument. The "weaknesses in evolution" lies the senator referred to ARE creationism. Just claiming that something is science and not creationism doesn't make it so. Like it or not, scientists get to define what science is, or is not. Science is what scientists do, not politicians and political activitists.
You have been told, for decades now, in the strongest language possible that scientists and the results of their work determine what science is. And yet you persist in promoting dishonest arguments against science education.
Richard Dawkins said Debating some one who believes in the "Intelligent Design" is like debating someone who believes in flat earth."
The settlement on the debate is clear Evolution has no holes "intelligent Design" relies on beliefs not facts.
The more we learn about genes the more the door is shut on this ignorant attack on truth. this is worse than ignorant because these people are choosing to be ignorant anyone who has the ability to write a bill has the ability to understand that there are no holes in evolution. I am often embarrassed by the way people around the world view us. This stupid step in Tennessee is the reason why.