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.
What some religious folk are so frightened of is that their way of looking at the world is threatened by a larger society that is increasingly based on science, fact, and reason. And less on religious doctrine and "morality".
Where science, and by extension, the teaching of science K-12 is perhaps negligent, is in acting as if the science-based worldview is the only worldview that counts.
Of course, it IS the only worldview that counts in SCIENCE class. But same can be said of literature class, or P.E. class.
The reading and writing crowd couldn't care less whether the timeless appeal of Shakespeare's sonnets make sense to a brain physiologist, or whether evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson would have approved of Ernest Hemingway's views on man's relationship with nature.
When the "no pain no gain" coach says to give him/her 25 push-ups, he/she isn't interested in whether Charles Dickens would have considered it to be adult exploitation of the talents and energies of children.
At present, this war on science is a bit one-sided. Though they might display an arrogant attitude in their classrooms, and public policy might increasingly be based on the advances in science and technology, science and science teachers are still on the defensive. They aren't clamoring to require churches to teach the scientific view of creation alongside Genesis.
Before self-serving political operatives and radio hate-jocks push it any further, , however, both sides really ought to read or re-read the novel "Contact", by the late iconic astronomer Carl Sagan.
To function as a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people, the United States absolutely requires a citizenry which has both the compassion and love for one another taught by religion, and, a strong basic background knowledge of science and fact-based reasoning ability.
The two are not mutually exclusive. If we continue as if they were, however, we can kiss this country good-bye.
Steven:
It is equally embarrassing how few understand science. Einstein versus Bohr to take one (of many, many) examples, showed how we, as humans, always eventually run into a wall in trying to understand. Albert refused to accept statistics as a means to see into the universe. And Neils equally refused to accept that macro- (cosmological) & micro- (quantum) perspectives were compatible.
Face it, the human mind is quite limited. It always run into a wall. At that point, most humans take some leap of faith. Evolutionists leap to natural selection; creationists to a designer. Either way, we don't know for sure.
The best solution to the issue, is to accept and allow each human to reason individually (as evolutionists do, and as creationists do), and then believe individually when reason runs out. That is, accept one another's path. It is of no value to attack the rationality of another. Thus, education should necessary teach the ability to understand and reason, and draw conclusions on one's own.
If you believe that evolution is underpinned by a handful (there really are not more) of bones; so be it. If another believes that certain records point to truth, so, too, be it.
Fossil fuel interests are actively funding efforts to spread confusion and concern about established climate science in our schools. There was recently news of the Heartland Instituate developing a "curriculum" about climate change denial. This "science is unsettled" argument is the same playbook used by the tobacco companies when they were fighting links between smoking and lung cancer.
http://bit.ly/Ib6nul
When a scientific theory has been widely accepted, it's very likely that anything that challenges it can be proven wrong. That is because scientific theories are formed using the "scientific method" which requires substantial amount of intelligence, carefulness, reasoning/critical thinking, and *testing*.
This does not mean that scientific theories can't be wrong. It just means that to prove a widely scientific theory wrong, it requires a lot of intelligence, reasoning, and testing. That's why people like Newton, Einstein... are considered geniuses.
High school science teachers are not qualified as experts in the field, and therefore if they attempt to challenge a scientific theory, it's likely that they are wrong. If a theory can be easily proven wrong, it wouldn't be taught in high schools in first place anyway.
So, why are some people trying to pass a bill that encourage high school teachers to challenge evolution although whatever used to challenge the theory is not testified and is likely false information? What is the hidden agenda?
I'm absolute fine with the evolution theory being critically thought or challenged by students. It's part of the learning. However, challenging a widely accepted theory like evolution should not be part of the teaching and should not be done by teachers.
Mike, you've illustrated my point well by completely missing it. Your concerns about honesty would probably be better directed inward first, before you start accusing others. Did you read what I said in an honest effort to see my point of view? For example, where on earth did you get the idea I consider myself God-fearing, even after I said plain as day that I think Creation Science and ID are bunk? I'm an atheist, not that it matters to anything I said.
Sorry, but but merely raising objections to evolution isn't creationism. It makes room for creationism, but that's not the same thing.
My point remains that this law isn't a big deal, but many scientists and liberals are so worked up over creationism they can't think straight.
donaldk,
No one is forced to "believe" anything in a science classroom, and creationism isn't science. The topic at hand is about a fundamentalist minority trying to force everyone to learn and believe the fundamentalists' religious convictions in the public school science classroom. Its simple enough. What needs to be taught in the science classroom is science.
Sanpete,
No, I got your point entirely and I thoroughly understand what you're trying to accomplish. But the fact remains that there is no scientific reason to "disbelieve" evolution. The only arguments to the contrary are an endless line of made up bunk popularly referred to as creationism. Your ideology is just a good illustration that right wing science denial is more the result of ideology than religious belief. There is nothing in religious belief that necessarily negates an understanding of actual current science. The religion is just an excuse.
A population with a good understanding of science is vital to our country, not dispensable.
In any controversy, the truth always lies somewhere between two extremes. Everyone insists that they are right, which of course is impossible. No one considers the possibility that perhaps everyone involved in the controversy doesn't know what they are talking about. Personally, I have always believed in a Creator. But I don't believe in a Creator that is easily comprehended. If God exists (which I believe), then God is far more complicated a being than the human mind can comprehend. We try to reduce God to a point where God can be completely understood, like perhaps our next door neighbor. How could you believe in a deity that could be reduced to that level?
If I were God (which I am not), I would not want human beings to know or understand how I created everything. Because once human beings understand how creation was achieved, human beings would use this knowledge to destroy the human race. I believe that it was General Patton who once stated that war is mankind's greatest achievement. We have always been better at destroying than in creating. We are our own worst enemies.
One of the guests said " that 97% of scientists" are in agreement of the global warming consensuses. I would like to know where that number comes from.
Until we stop acting like creationism will just go away as a natural state of things, it won't, and until dialogue is facilitated between creationists and evolutionists, Evolutionary theory will continue to be disputed--to the great shame of the U.S. Educational System--by post-graduate educated individuals.
Why is it assumed, when only 28% of schools in America teach evolution as part of the biology curriculum, that creationism is something that, when ignored, will vanish like a puff of smoke? It seems more a personal revulsion to the fact that such intellectual weaklings dare sit in the same classroom as their betters than any real dedication to the pursuit , or teaching, of the truth.
If you want to talk about how foolish and backward the view of creationism is, please do so on your own time; I agree, and see no advantage in belaboring the subject except to pad one's own ego. Only discussion--discussion done with the absolute minimum of institutionalized (that is, within the construct of the debate) political or religious tension possible--will have a worthwhile effect on a students opinion.
Ignoring the foolish, or the ignorant, is a greater sin than either.
If teachers can offer scientific evidence that challenges evolution and global warming they should get jobs at a university where that kind of critical thinking takes place and is welcomed. If, however, they are religiously influenced amateurs to challenge theories from non-scientific arguments, and not the evidence-based and peer reviewed environment of a community of scientists, they have no place in the classroom of grade schools and high schools. Several hundred years of scientific advancement should not be challenged frivolously for the sake of the flat earth society. No wonder we rank 17th in science and 25th in math! We are trying to regain the ignorance of the 10th century. Long live the leeches!
I'm replying to Joshua Hendrickson, but it doesn't really matter which liberal it is. I haven't read all the messages ... and I don't have to because I already know what they say. Joshua sums up the thoughts of most here.
Now, I've asked this question any number of times on this board, but I am yet to get an answer - here we go again. So, liberals, I ask you. Based on the posts of Joshua and the rest of you, would you say a fair statement would be that "science trumps ideology"? I seem to recall President Obama saying that very thing with respect to teaching Creationism in the schools. It's a simple question, anyone want to give it a try?
Hello Joshua. You were profound. "You never see fundies and Republicans attacking electromagnetism, chemistry, and physics?" You are right. We love science that is demonstrable, repeatable, observable, measureable, quantifiable. We love the science that is pure research as well that does not fall into those categories so neatly, but without the far reaching cultural extrapolations that cannot be demonstrated, but only used to push agendas, indoctrinate, mold society, coerce, and support some other version of "the promosed land." Josh. You said, "Evolution challenges the very necessity of god..." Glad you said that. So that does create a hostile situation in every classroom for people of faith which should not exist. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights protects what the present government wishes to throw down. And, futhermore, we who are fundies don't mind the challenge of evolution. It is apparently, the other way around. They don't like being challenged in the classroom. Evolution is no threat to God, but it can be a threat to civility, openness, logical thinking, and societal health. And, Josh, don't be to quick to forget that many careers, egos, ambitions, and lots of money is riding on keeping evolution safe from question. Just a couple of thoughts. Keep thinking. BTW. don't forget that most fundies don't question the whole of evolution; only certain extrapolations and applications and unsound evidences.
While I enjoyed the show, to get deeper into the world of fundamentalism in which these challenges to Evolution in the public schools flourish, I hope you have a show soon with Rachel Held Evans of Dayton Tn; and Giberson and Stephens, authors of the book The Anointed.
Google great piece by The Anointed on Evangelical disenchantment at religiondispatches.
Evans, a thinking evangelical pilgrimage, reports on her pilgrimage in the book Evolving in Monkeytown.
Would be great show for many reason.
OTOH did enjoy the exchanges on panel today about who controls what a teacher in the classroom can say; at same time I am convinced as the son of a Baptist minister, IDers and the Creationists claims against science in the public school are bogus.
maybe climate change has been "proven" a hoax on Planet Regressive, but here on Earth it remains a very real problem with real consequences for the regressive attitude toward reality. Deal with it.
Nothing trumps ideology if, that is, the ideology in question doesn't want to be changed--such as faith-based ideology.
@sheen: Evolution is "demonstrable, repeatable, observable, measureable, quantifiable." Check it out. The challenge that evolution presents to God ought to "create a hostile situation in every classroom for people of faith"; you claim that this "should not exist", but education is here to challenge ignorance, and I'm sorry you don't like that, but tough. In the past, your kind of people lorded it over everyone, and we had to fight hard to change things. Feel free to fight equally hard to turn back the clock. I for one will keep fighting back against you. by the way, you're right in saying "Evolution is no threat to God"--something which doesn't exist cannot be threatened, can it? Take comfort in the fact that your God is imaginary; I know I do.
Joshua Hendrickson on April 9, 2012 @ 2:18 am wrote: “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; . . . .”
A trifle hyperbolic are we? Your sweeping generalizations are incorrect in so many ways. Here’s a few:
1) Not all Christians are “regressives” or oppose Evolution.
2) Evolution doesn’t really challenge either notion. It is quite possible to believe in a god who employed evolution, and it is equally possible to believe humans are “supreme” (whatever the heck that means) on this planet at this time.
Now it is not possible to scientifically prove either idea. But it’s also not possible to scientifically disprove them. That’s why the first is a matter of faith, and the second is an opinion.
Of course Evolution is contrary to Biblical Literalism: the doctrine that the Bible is literally true, consistent, and inerrant throughout. But that doctrine is also refuted by all of Science, History, Archaeology, and even by the text of the book itself!
meangreen on April 9, 2012 @ 8:29 am wrote: “It already been proven that climate change is a hoax.”
Only in the alternate universe known as Faux News.
That accusation has been leveled, and while there is some (debatable) evidence that some supporters of climate change have been less than honest, the same can be said of its opponents. But proven? Hardly.
There is strong evidence that global climate change is real. There is some evidence that humanity plays a role in it. And there’s at least the possibility that we can do something to slow it down, if not prevent it.
But even then, I’m not satisfied that there’s enough proof to make a judgment either way.
On the other hand, it’s interesting that conservatives, who normally shriek that we shouldn’t take any chances when the issue is national security (and thus rush us to war, profile Muslims, and gleefully trash much of our Bill of Rights), on this issue suddenly advocate doing nothing! What ever happened to their “sense of caution”?
(Oh, that’s right, this will cost money.)
Oct21 on April 9, 2012 @ 9:01 am wrote: “. . . 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.”
Wow! Paranoid much?
By the way, the only people I’ve ever heard seriously advocating a “one world order” were fundamentalist, conservative, Christians, as part of their “end times” hallucinations.
Research Rashdoony, Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism sometime.
Tom on April 9, 2012 @ 10:21 am wrote: “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.”
Hardly, but it does illustrate that between the far right and the far left there’s not a dime’s worth of difference. Stalin made it a crime to teach Darwin’s theory. How nice to know conservatives are the real “pinko’s” and “fellow travelers”!
Pancake Rankin on April 9, 2012 @ 10:24 am wrote: “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.”
Kindly stop parading your prejudice and pretending it's reason. Conservative, fundamentalist, Christians are only a narrow part of the religious spectrum. They don’t represent all Christians, much less all religions.
One of the most effective witnesses at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was Professor Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University. He eloquently destroyed the arguments for “Intelligent Design”, and made the case for Evolution forcefully and effectively. He is also a practicing Catholic.
Science and Religion can co-exist, as long as each keeps to its proper sphere. Biblical Literalists keep trying to parade that false doctrine as a basis for science, and that’s why they are constantly wrong!
Ingrid on April 9, 2012 @ 10:25 am wrote: “Scientific method uses inductive reasoning to develop theories about nature. Deductive reasoning often leads to dogma.”
I’m afraid you don’t know what you’re talking about. Both inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are valid parts of logic, and both are used in Science.
The problem is that dogma dispenses with reasoning altogether!
stuboneknoby on April 9, 2012 @ 10:40 am wrote: “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.”
Or as “dogmatic” as teaching the moon is made of rock (not green cheese), the Earth is round (not flat), the Sun is the center of the solar system, or that diseases are caused by microorganisms too small to be seen with the naked eye (but visible through technology) instead of by invisible demons.
You are forgetting one little thing: Evolution has proof and reason on its side, Creationism has only fanaticism.
barvazit on April 9, 2012 @ 10:43 am wrote: “This, BTW, is the reason serious evolution scientists refuse to debate ‘creationism’ . . . .”
A tactical mistake they’ve since corrected. Left unchallenged Creationism (and its drag queen offspring, “Intelligent Design”) grow like weeds.
Challenged, they shrivel and die. See, Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Oct21 on April 9, 2012 @ 10:43 am wrote: “. . . control the fuel source = control the people. It' that simple.”
No, it’s that simplistic. What you are overlooking is the fossil fuel source is already controlled, by corporations and OPEC. Thus, by your argument, our freedom was destroyed long ago.
In fact, the alternative energy movement, by providing substitutes for fossil fuel, should lead to more freedom - especially since much of the alternative energy won’t be subject to monopolistic or oligarchic control.
Of course, this has nothing to do with whether global warming theories are true or false. But then, paranoia rarely has a connection to the real world anyway!
Dawsons16 on April 9, 2012 @ 10:43 am wrote: “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.”
Hogwash.
There is definitive evidence that evolution has taken place, and strong empirical evidence backing Darwinian theories about how it happened.
In contrast, there is no evidence supporting Creationism, and strong empirical evidence refuting it. Furthermore, the underlying “theory” for Creationism (Biblical Literalism) is refuted by the Bible itself.
Louis Clavelli on April 9, 2012 @ 10:47 am wrote: “When one discusses creationism one should always distinguish between young earth creationism and other forms.”
Young or old, Creationism is not a scientific doctrine, and should not be “taught” as one. Furthermore, even if you try to argue that the Biblical “days” actually represent eons, the account still cannot be squared with Science (or even with the first two chapters of Genesis, which clearly contradict each other).
Now, one can argue for Theistic Evolution, the idea that a god (or gods) employed and supervised an evolutionary process for the development of life on this planet. But that is still a philosophical or theological idea, not a scientific one.
It might ultimately be valid, but it’s not Science.
stuboneknoby on April 9, 2012 @ 10:50 am wrote: “Evolution is also full of suposition, speculation, and conjecture. Evolutionists have also become dogmatic. . . . . Is adaptation evolution....or is it...adaptation?”
Just because you keep repeating that lie, that doesn’t make it true. Evolution has fact and reason to back it up, Creationism has none.
And your supposed ‘example’ of “supposition, speculation, and conjecture” is just silly. Adaptation is the mechanism by which Evolution proceeds. Your question is like asking: “Is eating nutrition . . . or is it . . . eating?” You gain nutrition by eating. Evolution proceeds by adaptation.
Heraclitus on April 9, 2012 @ 10:55 am wrote: “Why don't they teach the supernatural in Law School?”
Actually they do.
In Civil Procedure class I learned about alternate forms of trials (alternatives to trial by jury).
There was trial by ordeal: where accused witches were bound and thrown into a lake. If they drowned they were innocent, and were buried in holy ground. If they floated they were guilty, and were burned alive.
Then there was trial by combat, in which the parties would fight to the death, and God would defend the right!
As you might imagine, trial by jury (with lawyers doing the actual “fighting”) became increasingly more popular over time.
Legal trivia: the right to choose trial by combat lasted in Great Britain until the mid-19th Century. It was a case of an obsolete law no one had bothered to repeal. Then came a contract case in which one bright, and strapping, party invoked his right to trial by combat. The other side (preferring losing to death) defaulted. An embarrassed Parliament quickly eliminated trial by combat!