Creationism Continues To Evolve!

[Kyuuketsuki]

A subject very, very close to my heart.

The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom
Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises
By Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott

Key Concepts
    *  Creationists continue to agitate against the teaching of evolution in public schools, adapting their tactics to match the roadblocks they encounter.
    * Past strategies have included portraying creationism as a credible alternative to
      evolution and disguising it under the name “intelligent design.”
    * Other tactics misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial and pretend that advocates for teaching creationism are defending academic freedom.

Professors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that “without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense.”

The sentiment was not original with Landy, of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, famously told the readers of The American Biology Teacher that “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Back then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology teachers to present evolution to their pupils in spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindalâ€"the governor of the state of Louisianaâ€"on whose desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, awaiting his signature.

Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to the bill were the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which warned that “Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education,” and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which told Jindal that the law would “unleash an assault against scientific integrity.” Earlier, the National Association of Biology Teachers had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, pleading “that the state of Louisiana not allow its science curriculum to be weakened by encouraging the utilization of supplemental materials produced for the sole purpose of confusing students about the nature of science.”

But all these protests were of no avail. On June 26, 2008, the governor’s office announced that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law. Why all the fuss? On its face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state board of education to “allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” which includes providing “support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied.” What’s not to like? Aren’t critical thinking, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion exactly what science education aims to promote?

As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprisingâ€"for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator. Indeed, to mutate Dobzhansky’s dictum, nothing about the Louisiana law makes sense except in the light of creationism.

[Read The Rest Of The Article (Several Pages)]

Thoughts?

Kyu

[BadPoison]

I don't understand how in today's modern world - a world filled with reason, and rationality - the religious right still has the USA in a choke hold. They are suffocating our country, the ideas of science, and are crippling future generations. It's unethical, without morals, and wrong. The implications of a continued missrepresentation of the natural world to our children is frightening. This is why it's imperative that ID theory be vigorously opposed.

It really is sick.

[Will]

This makes me glad to live in California (which is nice after being so embarrassed over Prop .

Creationism is the best battleground for atheists and other non-believers to gain political momentum. Honestly, the crazies and fundamentalists couldn't have given us a better open if they'd tried. Science is what we're all good at, and our numbers are growing exponentially. This would seem the best time to make a stand and start asserting our power.

If we beat creationismâ€"and we really canâ€"we can move on to other instances of religion oppressing people in government. We can remove antiquated laws requiring religious faith to run for office, we can challenge tax-exemption for religious organizations, we can take on dangerous cults like Scientology that are essentially just scams (yes, yes, they're all scams), we can take on the Catholic Church for defending pedophiles; we have a lot of work to do.

[Squid]

This is quite sickening as the largest reason, in my opinion, for evolution being rejected is ignorance from lack of knowledge about the theory.  I get on Yahoo Answers every now and again and a question about evolution usually pops up in the religion section, anthropology and even psychology sections and the rampant misinformation these people spew is nauseating.  I've always tried my damnedest to correct perceptual errors especially on the interwebs but many times I feel it's either a lost cause or a Pyrrhic victory.  I've actually contemplated going back and getting another degree in biology with teaching certification but I also have to realize the restrictions I face as a teacher and the flak I can encounter especially from ignorant, overzealous parents.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I wouldn't mind becoming a teacher to help impress scientific reasoning and critical thinking skills on our children. The main question is just what subject I would teach. Undoubtedly it would have to be a high school class. College is too far removed from the christian's stranglehold. I also wouldn't mind staring down parents. After I have tenure, of course.

Hmm... I wonder...

[Will]

The younger the better. The idea is to remove these fairytales from science classrooms early. By Sophomore year, the incorrect information may be too ingrained.

I'd say maybe 4th or 5th grade would be optimal. Before then and evolution might be too complex.

[Whitney]

I wouldn't mind becoming a teacher to help impress scientific reasoning and critical thinking skills on our children. The main question is just what subject I would teach. Undoubtedly it would have to be a high school class. College is too far removed from the christian's stranglehold. I also wouldn't mind staring down parents. After I have tenure, of course.

Hmm... I wonder...

I don't think high school teachers can get tenure.  I know a teacher who purposely doesn't teach science because she doesn't want to deal with the evolution issue; it's just too big of a danger to her job safety since she is so opposed to creationist ideas.

[PipeBox]

I . . . live . . . there.  

My bio teacher taught both sides, because he could at the time.  He probably still does.  He's a great guy, it takes a sense of humor to be a fundie and also teach at a public highschool, where all the students cuss and make out, and a few even did it to spite him.  Which is funny because none of these people would dare call themselves atheists.  Yay for Christians giving other Christians a ride.  Anyway, I think he's a great guy, but he was definitely skewed in his teaching methods, which makes him a poor teacher.  He, however, was given a very prestigious award a few years back for his teaching abilities, which were superb but he put them to very selective use.

Somehow we all left that class with detailed knowledge of telomeres and what grades of filter would protect from what biological hazards, but we also left thinking evolution was on largely equal footing with intelligent design, and knowing jack all about the endocrine or reproductive systems.  Thank the board of education that the videos we had to have parental consent to watch in the 7th grade covered enough to pass any state-mandated test.  You know, multiple choice where they ask the primary function of the one system of the human body and move along (The primary purpose of the reproductive system is:).  For the record, my folks never gave me the talk, either.  Thank science and its un-shy, fact-based proponents, whose goal is disseminating information, for teaching me what no one around here dared.

I have an immense amount of hatred for the intellectually bankrupt practices of this place, but it isn't all cut and dry.  This bill might make Louisiana a joke to academia, but don't think for a second it wasn't that way before the bill.  I've spent a lot of my time, especially since I've become an atheist, trying to fix the damage in my friends, and to some extent, my family, as I don't have the political pull to fix the problem.  I really, really pity people who are given misinformation, or no information, and then never learn the proper answers because of it.  The state endorsing selective teaching pisses me off in a powerful way.  

I hope this gets reversed, but it's really just a piece of paper, and the teaching will still be done selectively by teachers when and where they can get away with it.