How do we create/maintain a reality-based education system?

[Corsair 115]

So should those people who reject the theory of evolution or at least see it as only part of the story be excluded from participating in society?

They'll be excluded by their own beliefs if they wish to pursue a career in biology or astronomy. In order to progress in those fields (amongst other scientific disciplines) they'd have to first unlearn all the creationist claptrap they've learned.

(More generally, I don't quite see how the United States is to advance in the 21st century when many of its citizens seem intent on marching proudly backwards to the 19th century.)

 

[xjx388]

It's important to note that the Common Core Standards only address English and Math.

 

[xjx388]

They'll be excluded by their own beliefs if they wish to pursue a career in biology or astronomy. In order to progress in those fields (amongst other scientific disciplines) they'd have to first unlearn all the creationist claptrap they've learned.

There are plenty of people who are doctors in my city who argue with me about evolution. There's even a couple who are unapologetic Born-Again Christian Creationists. They are otherwise great doctors. They don't need to accept evolution to understand how the body works. They are smart enough to simply regurgitate what their Biology 101 professors ask them for regardless of what they actually believe.

(More generally, I don't quite see how the United States is to advance in the 21st century when many of its citizens seem intent on marching proudly backwards to the 19th century.)

We've done pretty darn well for ourselves thus far. I just don't see this issue as the big progress-killer that so many here do. In most people's lives and careers, accepting evolution is a non-issue. And for those who it might be an issue, I suspect they already accept evolution regardless of their upbringing.

 

[Corsair 115]

I just don't see this issue as the big progress-killer that so many here do. In most people's lives and careers, accepting evolution is a non-issue.

Perhaps. But it does go to an underlying mentality, which is the rejection of reality in favour of fantasy. Surely it is possible to see how such a mentality can lead to all manner of chaos when important political and governmental policy issues need to be decided and the electorate and their elected officials hold a 'fantasy trumps reality' viewpoint.

Also, how many potentially brilliant biologists or astronomers might never be known because they swallowed creationist beliefs growing up and thus were precluded from considering those fields of endeavour?

 

[xjx388]

Perhaps. But it does go to an underlying mentality, which is the rejection of reality in favour of fantasy. Surely it is possible to see how such a mentality can lead to all manner of chaos when important political and governmental policy issues need to be decided and the electorate and their elected officials hold a 'fantasy trumps reality' viewpoint.

But how many national issues hinge upon one's acceptance of evolution? And even if such acceptance were important a lot of the time, where is it written that all decisions must only be decided upon scientific grounds? The US government is supposed to be by the people and for the people -if those people reject science then scientific arguments are moot.

I also think that disenfranchising a large section of American society has equal potential for chaos. A better solution would be to find the common ground that advances us and compromise on the other stuff. In this case, a charter school that serves a small population is not such a bad thing. It might even be better than the alternatives these kids have.

Also, how many potentially brilliant biologists or astronomers might never be known because they swallowed creationist beliefs growing up and thus were precluded from considering those fields of endeavour?

As long as we allow people to have their religious beliefs, that will always be true and there is absolutely nothing we can do about that.

What we can do something about is helping those kids whose socio-economic status is the only barrier to academic success. I wish we'd spend more time debating solutions to that problem than the relatively small "Evolution vs Creationism," problem.

 

[Ladewig]

Texas is not mass-adopting these textbooks; it's a small charter system. Let's try not to inflate the impact this will have. While I'm all for critical thinking and teaching real science, I'm also a realist. Most kids don't care a whit about science or evolution. It's a class they take and quickly forget. The ones that do care about such things will learn the real science on their own and in college.

Let me put it another way: If a person is a Creationist, how does that matter when it pertains to their voting record? Should Christians/Creationists/Hindus/Scientologists not get votes?

I am an evolutionist, and I would fight and die to ensure that no government would take away the voting rights of Creationists. Similarly, I would get all Voltaire-y to ensure Creationists had the right to run for office¹

In 2012, for the first time ever, the number of people who answered yes to this question exceeded 50%

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an atheist, then would you vote for that person?​

I would pay cash money to see the answer if this question were asked to a well-balanced cross section of Creationists. I say that because one of the perennial arguments presented by Creationists is "If you believe that man evolved from apes over millions of years, then you are denying the existence of an Eternal Creator. Therefore you lack any moral compass. Therefore there is absolutely nothing preventing you from harming innocent people. To you, morals are a mere caprice - you could change your (selfish and distorted) perceptions of right and wrong at a moment's notice." It is arguments like that, that make evolutionists like us quite wary of Creationist candidates.


.................

As for the harm, well, I think there is at least a bit when a high-school graduate believes that "if we descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" is a valid argument.

..................

The other reason I worry over teaching public school children about Creationism is that to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old means that one must also believe that:

The physicists, archeologists, and geologists who use half-life ratios
The climatologists and ecologists who drill ice cores in Antarctica
The vulcanologists and seismologists who map and measure fault lines
The cosmologists and astronomers who operate deep space telescopes²
....are either (A) part of a world-wide grand conspiracy to hide the Truth or (B) too stupid to notice that all their measurements (which line up perfectly across virtually every discipline) are off by six orders of magnitude. An error of such size that it becomes comic when trying to place it in perspective.³ In such a world it would be dangerously absurd to listen to scientists on most any complex subject.

Creationism is a creation myth and does not belong in the science classroom. Put it in a comparative religions class or a mythology class or wherever; but don't put it in a science class.


.......................
[1] And I would defend to my death your right to say that Voltaire did not say "I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death your right to say it"
[2] Thanks to you from all the JREFers who enjoy those NASA photos.
[3] Six orders of magnitude means the distance from New York City to London is 18 feet and that the moon is a couple of miles from the Earth's surface.

 

[Trakar]

--bolding mine

Source?

Rather wondering the same, it seems to be a state level program sponsored by the National Governors Association. I see nothing in the program (so far - still going through the information) that strikes me as even generally progressive.

 

[Trakar]

That doesn't really answer the question though.

You said in the OP (paraphrasing) that if people want to send their kids to private schools that teach anti-evolution that only they would have to deal with the consequences...

Actually, my "they" referred to the children being taught and the parents who sent their children to such schools. ( I realize that the OP wording was mangled, apologies). There are others that will be impacted by this, but my concern are public school curricula and the teaching of these issues to public school children.

 

[Trakar]

It's important to note that the Common Core Standards only address English and Math.

Which has nothing to do with what is being taught in Texas, which is relevant to this discussion.

 

[tyr_13]

I am an evolutionist, and I would fight and die to ensure that no government would take away the voting rights of Creationists. Similarly, I would get all Voltaire-y to ensure Creationists had the right to run for office¹

In 2012, for the first time ever, the number of people who answered yes to this question exceeded 50%

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an atheist, then would you vote for that person?​

I would pay cash money to see the answer if this question were asked to a well-balanced cross section of Creationists. I say that because one of the perennial arguments presented by Creationists is "If you believe that man evolved from apes over millions of years, then you are denying the existence of an Eternal Creator. Therefore you lack any moral compass. Therefore there is absolutely nothing preventing you from harming innocent people. To you, morals are a mere caprice - you could change your (selfish and distorted) perceptions of right and wrong at a moment's notice." It is arguments like that, that make evolutionists like us quite wary of Creationist candidates.


.................

As for the harm, well, I think there is at least a bit when a high-school graduate believes that "if we descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" is a valid argument.

..................

The other reason I worry over teaching public school children about Creationism is that to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old means that one must also believe that:

The physicists, archeologists, and geologists who use half-life ratios
The climatologists and ecologists who drill ice cores in Antarctica
The vulcanologists and seismologists who map and measure fault lines
The cosmologists and astronomers who operate deep space telescopes²
....are either (A) part of a world-wide grand conspiracy to hide the Truth or (B) too stupid to notice that all their measurements (which line up perfectly across virtually every discipline) are off by six orders of magnitude. An error of such size that it becomes comic when trying to place it in perspective.³ In such a world it would be dangerously absurd to listen to scientists on most any complex subject.

Creationism is a creation myth and does not belong in the science classroom. Put it in a comparative religions class or a mythology class or wherever; but don't put it in a science class.


.......................
[1] And I would defend to my death your right to say that Voltaire did not say "I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death your right to say it"
[2] Thanks to you from all the JREFers who enjoy those NASA photos.
[3] Six orders of magnitude means the distance from New York City to London is 18 feet and that the moon is a couple of miles from the Earth's surface.

I agree with all this.

I'm not saying that stupid people must be denied the vote, that creationists should be denied the vote, or that Christians should be denied the vote. I'm saying that there is a compelling state interest to attempt to educate citizens with true information because an informed electorate is more likely to evaluate decisions better. Funding actual lies and misinformation is working against that, even though there will still be people who are willfully misinformed and wrong about very basic things.

Some of them even post in these threads.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think part of the problem is thinking of them as "our" public schools, instead of "their" public schools. You live in Texas, have at it. It's your state, your government, your public schools. Get in there and fight for something better. You live anywhere else, find something closer to home to fight for. Try to avoid finding excuses to intrude the federal government into other people's lives.

So you don't consider them Americans?

 

[xjx388]

I am an evolutionist, and I would fight and die to ensure that no government would take away the voting rights of Creationists. Similarly, I would get all Voltaire-y to ensure Creationists had the right to run for office¹

In 2012, for the first time ever, the number of people who answered yes to this question exceeded 50%

If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an atheist, then would you vote for that person?​

I would pay cash money to see the answer if this question were asked to a well-balanced cross section of Creationists. I say that because one of the perennial arguments presented by Creationists is "If you believe that man evolved from apes over millions of years, then you are denying the existence of an Eternal Creator. Therefore you lack any moral compass. Therefore there is absolutely nothing preventing you from harming innocent people. To you, morals are a mere caprice - you could change your (selfish and distorted) perceptions of right and wrong at a moment's notice." It is arguments like that, that make evolutionists like us quite wary of Creationist candidates.

And I get that. But if a congressional district of Texas or Kansas or any other heavily Fundamentalist Christian area elected a creationist, that would be the will of the people of that area. Is that inherently wrong in some way; do they not deserve to have their views represented?

As for the harm, well, I think there is at least a bit when a high-school graduate believes that "if we descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" is a valid argument.

I get that too. But there is absolutely nothing we can do about people believing what they want to and teaching their kids the same. I stop short at accusing them of stupidity or saying that they don't deserve to participate in society, though.

The other reason I worry over teaching public school children about Creationism is that to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old means that one must also believe that:

The physicists, archeologists, and geologists who use half-life ratios
The climatologists and ecologists who drill ice cores in Antarctica
The vulcanologists and seismologists who map and measure fault lines
The cosmologists and astronomers who operate deep space telescopes²
....are either (A) part of a world-wide grand conspiracy to hide the Truth or (B) too stupid to notice that all their measurements (which line up perfectly across virtually every discipline) are off by six orders of magnitude. An error of such size that it becomes comic when trying to place it in perspective.³ In such a world it would be dangerously absurd to listen to scientists on most any complex subject.

Creationism is a creation myth and does not belong in the science classroom. Put it in a comparative religions class or a mythology class or wherever; but don't put it in a science class.

In the example under discussion, I don't see any mention of creationism. Just a line about how the evidence isn't clear or that evolution is a controversial theory. That's pretty far from teaching that God created the world in seven days 6000 years ago. It doesn't even explore the "theory" of Intelligent Design. It just seems like a pretty innocuous thing to me.

 

[DavidJames]

And I get that. But if a congressional district of Texas or Kansas or any other heavily Fundamentalist Christian area elected a creationist, that would be the will of the people of that area. Is that inherently wrong in some way; do they not deserve to have their views represented?

Some of us don't view science as subject to majority rule or the feel good, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion", mentality. At least not when it comes to teaching science.

In the example under discussion, I don't see any mention of creationism. Just a line about how the evidence isn't clear or that evolution is a controversial theory. That's pretty far from teaching that God created the world in seven days 6000 years ago. It doesn't even explore the "theory" of Intelligent Design. It just seems like a pretty innocuous thing to me.

If you can't draw the straight line from "just asking questions" to full fledged endorsement of religious dogma then you are effectively endorsing such beliefs.

 

[xjx388]

Some of us don't view science as subject to majority rule or the feel good, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion", mentality. At least not when it comes to teaching science.

But science itself is not subject to majority rule. What is included in the curriculum of a public school is, though. And while it is Unconstitutional to teach creationism or intelligent design in the public schools that every child is compelled to attend, I don't see a problem with alternative schools arising, even with some public funding, that do teach it directly. I would even support a complete voucher system where parents could choose to send their kids to religious schools they couldn't otherwise afford.

If you can't draw the straight line from "just asking questions" to full fledged endorsement of religious dogma then you are effectively endorsing such beliefs.

I don't see it that way. The other side of that is that if you are forcing kids to learn something against their religious beliefs, you are effectively teaching against that religion. The State isn't supposed to do that either.

 

[newyorkguy]

And while it is Unconstitutional to teach creationism or intelligent design in the public schools that every child is compelled to attend, I don't see a problem with alternative schools arising, even with some public funding, that do teach it directly...

That really isn't the issue, though, is it?

It's not that the school in the OP is teaching creationism or intelligent design, it's that they're ALSO teaching AGAINST science by teaching the kids evolution is a fraud. That the "fossil record is sketchy." They're teaching lies and deceit to further a religious agenda.

I don't have a problem with MY local school teaching the kids about creationism or intelligent design. So long as they do it in Religious Studies and don't try it pass it off as peer-reviewed and validated science. Because it's not.

 

[tyr_13]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. That doesn't mean that it's alright to lead thirsty horses away from water...

 

[DavidJames]

But science itself is not subject to majority rule.

I didn't say it was.

What is included in the curriculum of a public school is, though.

Hence our disagreement. You believe tax money can be spent to teach religious nonsense, I don't.

I would even support a complete voucher system where parents could choose to send their kids to religious schools they couldn't otherwise afford.

I would have bet that was the case.

...you are effectively teaching against that religion. The State isn't supposed to do that either.

Where, specifically, do you draw the line? Should science teaching avoid all subjects which conflict with religious beliefs (of all religions) that conflict with science?

 

[SumDood]

Rather wondering the same, it seems to be a state level program sponsored by the National Governors Association. I see nothing in the program (so far - still going through the information) that strikes me as even generally progressive.

I wanted another actual source, but I've heard some of the complaints. At my old job I had a 45 minute commute and I would listen to Phil Valentine, a standard small time AM talk radio host. He had a guest on there that said because the correct answer to a question about parents instructing a child to clean her room was 'nagging', that meant the entire thing is 'socialism'. Some examples:

Children asked to clean their rooms are said to be subject to parental "nagging" (the correct answer to an actual multiple-choice question).

For example, English language arts curriculum in Utah inculcates the welfare-state mentality and characterizes a parent’s directions as “nagging.”

She then went on to complain that the source and examples weren't based on the bible, but the host actually cut her off then.

I don't have a problem with MY local school teaching the kids about creationism or intelligent design. So long as they do it in Religious Studies and don't try it pass it off as peer-reviewed and validated science. Because it's not.

QFT

 

[xjx388]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. That doesn't mean that it's alright to lead thirsty horses away from water...

If thirsty horses are kids and water is education, I don't think that the relevant parents feel that leading their kids away from evolution is leading them away from education. You and I may feel that way, but as long as it's legal for them to have a religious belief, we don't (or shouldn't) get to dictate what parents want their kids to learn.

 

[xjx388]

I didn't say it was.
Hence our disagreement. You believe tax money can be spent to teach religious nonsense, I don't.
I would have bet that was the case.

I think religious freedom is a cornerstone of American freedom. I am not at all religious, but I don't think that my atheism should dictate what other people must learn. I support the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Raising them as religious people is not abusive, so I don't see any reason for the State to dictate what their religious beliefs can and can't be in this case. If a parent wants to send their kids to a school where they learn about creationism, that is their right. I see no harm in giving them an alternative through the charter system or through a voucher system.

Where, specifically, do you draw the line? Should science teaching avoid all subjects which conflict with religious beliefs (of all religions) that conflict with science?

The line is simply, "what the parents want to teach their kids." I have faith that the vast majority of Fundamentalist Christian parents want the best for their kids. I have enough experience to know that children of Fundamentalist parents turn out just fine. Based on that, I really don't see a compelling reason to deny them their constitutional rights.