If you fit that description, please report to Greg Laden. The NCSE has a little job for you.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
If you fit that description, please report to Greg Laden. The NCSE has a little job for you.
You might want to include this from the Wedge Document:
Prophetic!
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Dammit, Texas. I was just starting to not mind living here, and then you have to go and pull this. It’s not me, baby. It’s you.
Already typing it up PZ, thanks for the head’s up!
Texas has scientists?
(I kid, I kid)
I’m not going to say I believe the ID/Creationism “theory” as it is currently presented, but how can you honestly respond to criticism of evolution, itself a theory (arguing this topic is not my purpose here), with only a dismissive wave of your hand?
The NCSEWEB page on this topic is both offensive and disturbing. Comments such as this, in particular:
“it is unreasonable to ask high school students just beginning to learn about a topic to sit in judgment as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of scientific evidence they do not yet have the mathematical and chemical background to understand in depth.”
In other words, “Let us do the thinking for you. We’ll tell you what to believe because we’re experts.” Is that not the evolution crowd’s central argument against its opposition? Is this not what the Roman Catholic Church did for most of its history? Galileo, anyone? The priesthood: “Believe what we write in catechisms, the bible will only confuse you. We’re experts.” The big thing Luther did was to say the bible is for everyone. It does not need a priesthood to (re-)interpret it for mankind. Let all read and think for themselves.
One of the major problems with public school is its inability to teach children how to think. In supporting this kind of attitude/approach/language, you’re not addressing the problems you should be, and it calls your purpose into question. “It’s more important that they believe our side of the story than they be able to think for themselves.”
#6 David Mabus99-
So, ya slipped through the main filters again. They finally let you out of the mental hospital in Montreal there Dennis?
Funny how that challenge is still live. Of course you won’t be on this blog once PZ dumps you again.
Mikesbo: School is for learning the facts and techniques of the scientific disciplines; once you know the facts and the techniques, you can prove them wrong (provided the evidence is there).
Creationism and crintelligent designism have no scientific merit and no supporting evidence; as such, they should not be taught in schools. The less well-supported hypotheses in science, like the evolution of sexual reproduction, are left to university-level students.
You might be able to salvage some of your point by asking that schools emphasise oration, debate and the nature of logical fallacies in argument; I’d certainly back that idea.
but how can you honestly respond to criticism of evolution, itself a theory (arguing this topic is not my purpose here), with only a dismissive wave of your hand?
Evolution is a fact. It’s a fact of biology. Scientists have no responsibility to respond to dishonest criticisms that deny the facts of biology. If you don’t understand basic ideas like this, what makes you think the DI-style criticism of evolution are honest and relevant?
@Mikesbo
People like PZ are only obligated to respond in depth if the other side has genuine evidence for their beliefs, not merely loud complaints. If someone thinks evolution is false, let them prove it in real research and scientific journals. Otherwise, those objections are a waste of time.
Also, the experts have consistently demonstrated their expertise, which is why we must first listen to what they have to say before questioning their knowledge. Likewise, evolution is already very well established (for reasons given at http://www.talkorigins.org/) as the basis for modern biology, and so I don’t think it’s any different than teaching the concept of limits as the basis for calculus.
Davema
You are seriously, seriously deranged if you believe that some guy writing vague predictions about general stuff in any way shows that he had paranormal abilities.
Now, had he provided precise details of what would happen, and when, then that would constitute evidence.
Also, as an aside, capitalism hasn’t fallen (as much as I would like that), it has merely stumbled. The majority of the world’s countries will continue to be capitalist, or moderately socialist, perhaps, but McDonalds isn’t going to become an arm of government any time soon.
@ Mikesbo
You completely disregard the value of expertise. In a physics class we do not teach Newton’s theory of gravity vs Einstein’s and let the students make up their minds. It is too complex a subject to expect a brief high school level introduction to prepare students to adequately judge. Evolution is, for the thousandth time, not JUST a theory. Explaining it to students as accepted scientific fact is the same as explaining trigonometry or aerodynamics.
See the stork theory vs sexual reproduction in the Dawkin’s/Oklahoma thread.
PS
There is a difference between teaching something because it is supported by scientific evidence from multiple fields and in ways you probably aren’t smart enough to count and the church teaching something because a book written by bronze age goat herders tells them it’s right.
Mikesbo
When a child is learning how to read, do we start them on “a, b, c…” or “War and Peace”? When a child is learning math, do we first teach them how to count, or differential calculus?
Teaching kids, even high school kids, the fundamentals of biological sciences is the first step in them becoming future scientists. Just as we do not expect 14 year olds to derive Einstein’s theories of Relativity from first principles by themselves, neither is it appropriate to try and teach the whole of evolutionary theory, thousands and thousands of papers, books, and articles, in 3 hours a week.
It is certainly NEVER appropriate to teach “magic man did it” in science class.
Ha! Like that’s gonna dissuade me!
Thomas,
The US public school system is modeled after the Prussian. It’s society was broken, educationally, into two classes, officers (thinkers), and soldiers (technicians/employees). The difference between them was that the soldier school taught disjoint functional information only, separated by topic, while the officer school integrated all subjects and taught students how to use the total to think, argue, form policy, lead.
The classical education model copied this, currently into three schools: grammar (grade 1-5), logic (6-8), and rhetoric (9-12). It is in use in some private schools. Debate begins, obviously, in the school of logic.
Both you and “Zarquon” (there are Adams fans in your opposing camp too, BTW), are resorting here to argument by authority, which is exactly what I’m talking about. Coming up with pithy derogatory names for that which you argue against really does not diminish them in anyone’s eyes but your own. I am intentionally NOT arguing with you about whether evolution is true or not because, frankly, that is not my point, and it would be a waste of time. I AM arguing against the elitism which underlies Z’s response and the “call-to-arms” web page PZM pointed to.
You’ll never win an argument by telling someone they’re dumber than you, or just ignorant, and that they must simply believe what you say. You can’t even begin to argue with that attitude. You’re basically saying, Z, “If you don’t understand the basic truism that I am right and you are wrong, how can your arguments be valid?” Really? You’d make a good medieval priest.
Ariel,
“You completely disregard the value of expertise.”
What is the value of expertise in a high school science course? Are you proposing the students memorize the sayings of experts rather learning what the evidence is for various theories?
I don’t know what high school physics class you had, but mine did cover newtonian mechanics and gravitation, and the evidence that lead Einstein to propose special and general relativity, and the measurements that confirmed relativity. We didn’t perform any relativistic calculations, but there was no fear of the evidence.
The changes that are proposed to the Texas standards should be no problem for any qualified science teacher.
You’ll never win an argument by telling someone they’re dumber than you
and yet…
here we are.
You’re dumber than we are.
sorry, but that’s the facts. It might not win an argument, but sometimes there simply isn’t a need to.
whee, another chance to quote Jefferson:
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”
so here I am, ridiculing you for being moronic enough to use the “elitism” non-argument to begin with.
yes, I AM laughing at you, Mikesbo.
bye.
Mikesbo: So you don’t think that scientists should have a say in what gets taught in science classes? Who, then, should make that decision? Members of the Board of Education who have no scientific training beyond high school? I don’t think it’s elitist to let scientists have their say in science curricula. If I were a School Board Member, I would welcome expertise from historians, scientists, literary critics, etc., as well as pedagogical experts. And yes, we need to be teaching students critical thinking skills, but opening a window to creationist babble will not accomplish that.
As for your “appeal to authority” claims–in this case, the authorities on the subject can back up their claims with evidence. Yes, sometimes this evidence is too complex to be easily taught in a high school classroom, so it is left out (though those students who take further biology classes will learn these things later). So you don’t just have to blindly believe the experts–you can learn about the subject yourself if you are so inclined. Your analogy to medieval priests who didn’t allow the laity to study the bible for themselves fails.
Ariel,
I disregard the claim to authority based on someone’s own authority.
And you wonder why you’re at such an impasse on all of this? I’m here, deliberately not to argue about a topic you guys keep bringing up, and all I’m hearing is, “We’re experts because we say so, so you should believe what we tell you.”
Well, this is fun, but it’s late. If you’re not going to see my point, you’re not going to see it. I would like to see opposing “experts” argue this topic (why no transitional species in the fossil record, what about C-14 dating accuracy as used to date multi-million year-old objects, DNA’s impact on “the tree of life”, blah blah blah…), but it will ever get to that point the way you’re going about it: bafflingly, by dismissing anyone who does not agree with you.
The “scientist” may very well think himself superior in knowledge, intellect, and wisdom to “the common man”, but it is that very common man you must convince (you don’t get to choose to dismiss that battle), and you’ll not do it the way you’re going about it here.
Ichthyic,
You prove my point. Let me know how that approach works for you.
cactusren,
“So you don’t think that scientists should have a say in what gets taught in science classes? Who, then, should make that decision?”
Possible candidates for who should make the decision: those paying for the classes (the public as represented by the board?), the teachers offering the classses?, the students, perhaps based upon their questions. The scientists should have a say if those paying for the classes are interested in what they have to say, if the teachers wish to consult them, if the textbooks where they have their say are selected, and/or if the students ask them for their say.
Ichthyic,
“You’re dumber than we are.”
You throw around “we” rather cavalierly. Are you sure you are one of us. If all you do is ridicule rather than address substance, how will we know, especially if your ridicule doesn’t quite hit the mark?
Itchy,
I had forgotten this one:
“He who knows best knows how little he knows”
Question for you, Mikesbo: In your opinion, should your “teach the controversy, let the kids decide” notion apply to all the subjects which are taught in school… or should it, instead, only apply to science (evolutionary biology in specific)?
If you think “teach the controversy” should apply to all subjects: Would you object to sex education classes teaching about condom use and abstinence, and letting the children decide for themselves which strategy to use? Would you object to history classes teaching Holocaust denial and the mainstream view of the Nazi Final Solution?
If you think “teach the controversy” should only apply to (one field of) science in particular, and no other subejcts: Please justify this inconsistent stance.
Mikesbo
I completely agree. We could also get a flat-earther against a spherical-earth theorist in geography. Perhaps a geocentrist against a helio-centrist in a class on astronomy, an “intelligent falling” advocate against a Newton / Einsteinist in physics. Perhaps an illiterate hick and an English teacher in English class – the options really are limitless!
Hey, your real name isn’t Reiss by any chance, is it?
Mikesbo #5:
Mikesbo #18:
Mikesbo…you specifically said in your first post that you didn’t want to argue about the evidence for evolution. Then you turn around and say it’s not a productive conversation because we’re not talking about the evidence. You are either a two-faced liar or an idiot.
You want to talk about evidence now? Fine. Mind you, you won’t find experts arguing these points because they aren’t controversial at all. But since you seem malinformed, let’s address the “no transitional forms” argument that creationists seem so fond of bringing up. This is simply false: a lie perpetrated through creationist propoganda. And you don’t even have to take my word for it–you can look up the names of any of these taxa and find out more about them. For fish to tetrapods (land-dwelling vertebrates) there’s Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and Icthyostega, among others. For dinosaurs to birds there’s Archeopterix, Sinosauropterix, Confuscisornis, Microraptor, etc. For saurians to mammals, there’s a whole group of animals popularly known as mammal-like reptiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsids). Go look these things up and read about them before coming back here and trying to claim there aren’t transitional fossils.
“why no transitional species in the fossil record, what about C-14 dating accuracy as used to date multi-million year-old objects”
WTF? Just google Tiktaalik.
And carbon dating is not used anymore, it’s potassium-argon dating these days. I thought everybody knows these by now…
Or was that sarcastic? I’m getting confused here.
Mikesbo,
The authority to teach evolution does not come from individual scientists, but from a very large body of evidence existing in numerous scientific fields that supports evolutionary theory. There is nothing wrong with listening to experts when they are obviously right and can prove it.
Africangenesis @20: My point was simply that those whose expertise is not science (which applies to most school board members) should not be the only ones making the decisions. Obviously teacher and students have a say in what is taught in a classroom. But teachers have to work within guidelines set forth by the school board. I’m simply suggesting that scientists should be consulted when the school board changes it’s science standards. In this case, they are blatantly ignoring the advice of the scientific community.
AG:
We know because no regulars dispute that. Ichthyic is known.
Rodial
Carbon dating is used nowadays, but not for anything over about 60,000 years, since that is the limit of its sensitivity (the half-life of 14C is about 5100 years). 14C dating has never been used for multi-million year stuff. K-Ar dating is used for multi-million year stuff, along with others (such as uranium-lead, or lead-lead).
Your mighty overlord#24,
“We could also get a flat-earther against a spherical-earth theorist in geography.”
Why get any “experts”, just discuss the evidence. Present the the flat earth hypothesis for the useful approximation that it is. After all most construction and engineering does not use equations for the curvature of the earth. Discuss the limits of the flat earth approximation and when it starts to break down, early attempts to calcuate the curvature of the earth and our best current information on its shape. No reason for ridicule. The first human who constructed a flat earth hypothesis, was probably a thoughtful person, as were the first persons to think about observations which called it into question.
Ok, I’ve just been talking to my friend in Texas (whose sisters are teachers there). The insidious thing about this change in language is that when students have to “analyze and evaluate” a topic, rather than “identify, recognize, and describe” it, that means it won’t be covered in TEKS tests. Which means teachers will tend to spend more time on those topics that will be covered on the exams, and it will be more unlikely that evolution will be taught at all. Amazing what changing a few words in the standards can do…
To Africangenesis #15:
“The changes that are proposed to the Texas standards should be no problem for any qualified science teacher.”
Many, perhaps most, Texas public school science teachers don’t have enough background in evolution to frame it competently or recognize and respond to flawed arguments. Another large proportion of them have the agenda of challenging evolution on religious grounds, and the proposed new standards would free them to do so without counterargument.
The general public, the teachers, and the students aren’t qualified to choose their own curriculum just on the basis of their interest, any more than they’re qualified to build their own airplanes or perform their own surgeries. They’re in the position of choosing consultants with expertise in the relevant fields to collaborate on a project. The communities are poorly served by the dissemination of misinformation in schools, whether based on religion, profit motives, or political agendas.
As members of the scientific community, we have a duty to speak out against the abandonment of a topic essential to the understanding of biology. Not just because its disregard is insulting, though it is; but because we would like to live in a society which can make rational decisions about life sciences and ensure their continued progress.
AG:
Might it be that it requires expertise to seek what the evidence is and determine its significance?
Africangenesis
First, you got my name wrong. Don’t worry, everyone does.
Second, the thing about the flat earth hypothesis is that it is wrong. We could teach every flawed hypothesis that was ever advanced, but not in 3-4 hours a week.
Flat earth hypothesis and spherical earth hypothesis are equally good at dealing with the curvature of the earth on the building level basis – both allow us the assumption that on scale of a building the ground approximates being flat, since differences in topography are far more important than the curvature of the earth. Another, perhaps better example, would be that Newtonian physics allows us to go to the moon, but is incorrect – Professor Einstein improved it somewhat. I WOULD include Newtonian physics in a physics class, but NOT flat-earth hypothesis in a geography class – the former has value, the latter does not.
ID is fundamentally wrong and teaches us absolutely nothing useful about biology (it does teach us how dishonest and disingenuous people can be, however). ID has no value whatsoever.
True, but modern ones, who deny the evidence are clearly NOT thoughtful people.
Happy Birthday PZ!
PZ
Indeed, congratulations are in order. Well done on existing another year!
Cactus post 25,
I described an argument I would like to see. “Transitional” is, I think, the work creationists use for it, a species that could itself breed with multiple species as the link between them.
Mentioning it to say it is not my point, in response to the multiple times it’s been brought it up in response, makes me a two-faced liar?
YMO 24, see all above, esp. Itchy. Who have you convinced with that reasoning and approach? Sarcasm, that is.
All,
You’re way too emotional about this. There’s nothing I’ve written here to warrant insults and name calling. I’m an EE in Texas, with children in public middle and high school, and frankly you’re all wearing your bitterness at even being questioned (the very heart of science?) on your collective sleeve. I’m the guy you need to convince, and I’m a lot more rational, methodical, and as difficult as it may be to believe, intelligent, than the majority you’re likely to encounter.
Mikesbo
I have no issues with religious ideas being taught in a religion class, for example a comparative religion class – that’s all well and good.
However, I do not think that a science class is a place to be teaching non-scientific ideas or ways of thinking. My point, with my sarcastic post, was to point out that ID is on the same level as flat-earth hypothesis, or intelligent falling. ID simply isn’t science. It is “science lite” (or perhaps “creationism lite”)- in this case, light on the science. Its not that it could never be taught – it could be taught within a comparative religion class, for example, but it has no right to be in a science class, just as fortune telling has no place in a math class. ID isn’t an alternative to evolution in the same way that cheese isn’t an alternative to gravity.
If you want to debate the evidence for evolution, that’s another matter – and I can certainly do that with you. If you want to debate the evidence for and against ID, likewise, I can do that too.
Mikesbo @5, you say
I direct you to my response to Africangenesis @35.
John Morales,
What I object to is the cult of the expert. For the basic science courses at the high school level, the experts won’t be saying much different today than they were saying 5 or 10 years ago. Their thoughts have probably been published and may be on the internet. Those bothering to try to influence the board may have their own agenda that may not be reflective of the board members constituency. The text book publishers will have had input from various experts. The school board members will have had high school educations and most will have been to college. Other than cactusren’s TEKS testing point, I don’t see the language as worth arguing about.
Pteryxx worries that HS teachers won’t be able to respond to sophisticated evolution objections and that some biology teachers even have anti-evolution agendas. Unless they waste a lot of time actually teaching something other than evolution I don’t see how they can do much damage. If they teach biology they can’t avoid the relatedness of all systems. What are they going to do, deny that humans have opposable thumbs and mammary glands? Is each rodent species going to be distinct and not in related phylogenies. Are they going to claim the humans don’t have livers, intestines or mitochondria? Even a creationist teaching biology, is going to have to teach so much substance that college prep is not going to be damaged. I suspect there will be enough concerned parents around to keep the focus on substance and not hours of arguing. Any student really going on in science will not have been satisfied with what they learn in class anyway. My real concern about the Texas standards, is that they are requiring 4 years of science and 4 years of math for anyone college track. I fear this influx of students not interested in science will result in a dumbing and slowing down of the course for all.
Science as a subject doesn’t care about the views of the constituency – only on evidence. The truth is not a popularity contest.
AG, 16% of science teachers in the US think creationism is a better explanation of the organismal diversity in the natural world than evolution. This is hardly “a few”. Science is a way of thinking – something that everyone, even those who don’t go to college, need to be exposed to. Likewise, I think you underestimate the damage that a poor education can have to a young, impressionable mind. Finally, bad teachers can lead to students becoming bored with a subject, so keeping some form of science standards doesn’t seem a bad idea.
I wonder if you would have the same opinion if we were talking about maths or English.
Mikesbo #18
But there are ‘transitional forms’ in the fossil record. C14 dating isn’t used to date ‘multi-million year old objects’.
Don’t you get the problem? You are arguing for students to examine controversies that don’t exist just because a bunch of cranks who were either too ignorant, stupid, or dishonest to understand the subject made them up.
Do you also think it’s a productive use of students time to examine the legitimacy of 9-11 truther claims? Or the Apollo landings being filmed in a studio at Area 51? How about who was standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas? Maybe a history on the Bavarian Illuminati and its secret control of the world? I’m sure this will all make for a quality education.
Or, perhaps, we can defer to the experts in particular areas that we ourselves aren’t experts in, until we build the necessary technique and background to be experts ourselves.
‘Appeal to authority’ isn’t always a fallacy, you know…
AG,
Nice response, but the issue was the requirement for expertise (gaining the knowledge about a subject) before the subject can be understood.
I’d say the concept of forces, say, is necessary to construction and engineering – and an understanding of that concept constitutes expertise.
Huh?
I don’t follow you.
John Morales#45,
I think that courses that have to target a broader and more disinterested audience will likely have to be less rigorous, much like college survey courses targeted to non-majors who are only taking them because they are requirements.
AG @46, ah. Fair enough.
But, if those are sufficient requirements, and students have qualified in them, that in itself speaks of a pragmatic interest by those students. Four years is not insignificant.
I still don’t see a reason to worry.
Mikesbo @ 39:
This just after he wrote:
I’d say that’s worthy of a few insults, you fucking moron.
@Mikesbo:
So, you are saying that unless you are personally disabused of each and every mistaken notion and recycled canard that you have been mistaught (ironically the very thing that good standards would prevent), you will take on the role of obstructionist, thereby perpetuating your own miseducation of other people’s children into the future?
Fuck you. Go read a book.
Mikembo,
“”Transitional” is…a species that could itself breed with multiple species as the link between them.”
If this were the case then wolves, coyotes and dogs would be “transitional” forms and there would be many others living today. There are transitional forms in the fossil record, but fossilization is a rare event only a very small percentage die in environments and under conditions that will result in fossilization. Living things are biodegradable.
The fossil arguments are a red herring anyway. Most of the evidence for evolution is living. All living things are genetically related, and the extent of genetic relatedness follows the phylogenies, which only a small percentage of classifications needing to be changed in response to feedback from the genetic results.
of = onto
but it is that very common man you must convince
sorry, but as much as you might like to think so, that is not even theoretically the case.
I’m sure if you had just a smidge more brains, you would figure out why this argument fails, just by attempting to apply it in your daily life.
seriously, try living a day in your life with the assumption that the entire world must bow to your whim, must convince YOU personally on every issue because you feel yourself part of a majority.
see how far it gets you.
If you aren’t convinced you’ve no idea wtf you’re talking about already, I’m sure that little exercise will contribute to your education.
On top of some practical homework for you, you might want to read John Stuart Mills’ Essay on Liberty before you start confusing mob rule with an actual democracy.
AG / Mikesbo
Every species is a transitional form.
I think, what Mikesbo may be referring to are things like the 7 species of land mammal / whale intermediate, the 18 or so different proto-human species, or the various proto-horse species.
Still, AG is exactly right, the genetic evidence is just as clear.
Still, AG is exactly right, the genetic evidence is just as clear.
so is the biogeographical evidence.
just ask Darwin, and MacArthur (Robert) and Wilson (EO).
…and everyone else who has ever looked at even just island biogeography.
For lazy readers: Transitional fossils.
John Morales,
“I’d say the concept of forces, say, is necessary to construction and engineering – and an understanding of that concept constitutes expertise.”
My point is not that expertise doesn’t exist, but that if an expert opinion is valid, the evidence and reasoning itself should be available. The current issue is not about science, but about education which is hardly a science and as Sarewitz and Nelson argue in Nature, is not amenable to a technological fix.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7224/full/456871a.html
They were commenting on the teaching of reading, but their argument probably applies even more strongly to an even broader and more amorphous task such as establishing standards for teaching science.
“The problem is that decades of effort have not led to such a method. Different approaches to improved teaching remain strongly context dependent, and no particular approach confers an obvious advantage over others in all circumstances. Adherents of every approach have citable evidence to back their position, reinforcing their sense that ‘the system’ is the problem.”
“The situation stands in stark contrast to the teaching of reading, for which no particular method or theory has been able to achieve long-term or widespread dominance and for which compelling evidence of improved efficacy even over timescales of a century is lacking.”
“When knowledge is not largely embodied in an effective technology, but must instead be applied to practice through, say, training, institutional incentives, organizational structures or public policies, the difficulty of improving outcomes is greatly amplified. Now the task involves moulding, coordinating and governing the activities of practitioners, who themselves must acquire judgement and skill that may not be easily translatable from one context to another. Interpreting the results of management or policy innovations is difficult because of the many variables involved, few of which are directly related to the actual technology deployment. When the results of applying knowledge to practice are uncertain, the value of the new knowledge itself becomes subject to controversy.”
Rather than trying to micromanage the details of science education, the emphasis should not be on mandating learning upon those who aren’t interested risking turning them off, but on enabling those who want to learn. Unlike building planes or performing a surgery, education is something political boards have had years of exposure to, and plenty of time to think about during those years, and having campaigned for the offices presumably have thought even further. Knowing particular scientific fields in more depth doesn’t provide expertise in the teaching of the basics to new students, even assuming such expertise rather than craft exists.
This davem would like to point out that the davem on Greg Laden’s comments is definitely not this davem. Thanks for listening.
Mikesbo:
Yup. You are dumber than us. You want kids to be taught lies.
Ichthyic,
“On top of some practical homework for you, you might want to read John Stuart Mills’ Essay on Liberty before you start confusing mob rule with an actual democracy.”
Thanx, I was trying to remember the name of that essay, when I was thinking about how ininformed todays young conservatives are. “On Liberty” along with Bastiat’s “The Law” and Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” used to be “required” reading, to be a properly grounded conservative. Today, unfortunately the standards are lower.
here’s a convenient text copy of the entire essay:
http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.txt
from the introduction (different source; emphasis mine):
— On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.
AG,
Ideally, yes. I’m not going to argue against that sentiment.
Mikesbo> You would do well to consider the message instead of the manner in which it is delivered. Your initial response to the NCSE page is telling… Saying that high school students lack the background knowledge to determine what evidence is valid and what is not is simply that… not “We’ll do your thinking for you”, more along the lines of “We’re going to present this, and you can examine for vailidty when you are better able”. You act/speak as if there is actually a controversy here. Let me lay out the central argument of evolutionary theory in regards to ID/creationism: We have mountains of empirical evidence (which is readily available.. go google it, have a look at talkorigins.com , but I’m not doing the grunt work for you) that support our idea… it is much more than a hypothesis. By contrast proponents of ID/creation have no evidence what so ever for their claims. They do use a few tricks of rhetoric (irreducible conmplexity is a logical argument stemming from Darwin’s comment that if a part of his theory stumbled at a hurdle, the whole would fall.), but produce nothing to advance their own point of view. Rather, they make the same tired, refuted attacks on ET, often without bothering to remove their fingers from their own ears to hear the response.
You’re upset with how you were treated when you queried here? We get 5 of you a day, plus or minus a modicum of intelligence, along with 10 more who are far below the fold in that measure… It becomes tiresome to explain the same thing time and again when it is easily available to someone who honestly wants to know. Are you seriously telling us that you lack the ability to google your topics? Are you unfamiliar with Wikipedia? Your questions and posts, especially the nonsense about wanting to see experts debate things which have no place in a debate, mark you as a troll, rather than someone seeking to be educated. The mere fact that you spew DI/AiG’s propaganda as something that needs to be consider indicates that noone need bother treating you civilly. Civil discourse is reserved for people with a legitimate point…and around here not necessarily even them (look at how regulars talk to regulars with whom they disagree). There are no points for politeness… you can quit whining about that.
Mikesbo is the typical troll. He starts a valid discussion, saying he won’t debate the truth of evolution, then he drops a lot of lies and disproved nonsense and runs away.
His arguments about what PZ did is even wrong. PZ is asking valid scientists to put in their opinion, not just calling people dumber.
His characterization of the US education system is also simplistic and wrong.
Any fellow Texans want to help me battle a couple of creotards on the Texas Freedom Network blog? If so, here’s the page:
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/and-now-terri-leo-chimes-in-on-science/#comments
NewEnglandBob,
“His characterization of the US education system is also simplistic and wrong.”
But it seemed to be accepted and defended by others in later posts. The general tenor of many other posts was that high schools students aren’t ready to critically evaluate the evidence, they should just be fed what experts consider the “facts”. That seems to concede and accomodate to Mikesbo’s opinion that the US public school system has the “inability to teach children how to think.”
Your opinion of his characterization is quite clear “simplistic and wrong”, but what are you referring to and what makes you think so?
I have no problem with the teaching of any SCIENTIFIC theory in science class. “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific theory and can never be made into a scientific theory. You can actually show this using information theory–the information content of ID is zero, because each and every “design decision” by the designer is an adjustable parameter in the theory. The result is that, while ID can explain everything by saying “GODDIDIT”, it cannot predict anything. No predictions, no science, no class time in science class. Next!
AG,
There are layers of complexity here. I don’t think that anyone denies that schools can teach children how to think, but rather that the requisite knowledge and experience required to genuinely critique evolutionary theory in an informed and concise manner is well beyond what is teachable to a 14 / 15 year old in 4 hours a week. It takes years of dedicated study to reach that level – which is pretty much the level at which one earns a PhD, not a high school diploma.
We have to teach the existence and the simple facts of things to students at a low level, then we can teach the advanced stuff, then, once the individual is furnished with the requisite knowledge, critiquing may begin. In the same way that you cannot honestly critique a play or a movie you didn’t watch, then children cannot be expected to honestly critique a theory that they don’t understand.
AG> There’s a difference between unable to think and not ready to critically evaluate evidence on a topic that requires as much background as evo… I teach HS science, some bio, some Physical Sci (chem and physics dumbed down and rolled into one course. My bio students haven’t had any chem that isn’t in the bio curriculum, and little or no physics at all. That, and if they’re the appropriate age for the course, they’re 14 or 15 (granted, some aren’t). Education research (Piaget and Vygotsky, among others) demonstrates that critical reasoning skills aren’t fully developed at that age, in most cases. There’s nothing wrong with teaching them to think, but simply plunking ID crapola down next to actual science and letting them evaluate both is going to end up with a bunch of highly confused students (if they’re anything like mine, who tend to accept whatever’s written in a book as automatically true). That’s probably not a fair assessment of what you intended to do with the information, but it’s how my lazier colleagues would treat it.
Short version: the school system doesn’t have the inability to teach children how to think; There are teachers who certainly don’t bother attempting it, and learners have to be ready to really grasp that.
Africangenesis said
Yet if you read PZ and other college educators you will see them posting about the numbers of students who don’t understand the basics in biology for that very reason. Many needing a remedial class just to get them up to speed. So yes, wasting time on issues which are not scientific in a science class is damaging. If they must be discussed, do so in the proper venue, i.e. comparative religion or similar.
It seems to me that there’s a significant distinction between the way various disciples would be taught in the ideal, v. how they must be taught in the real world today.
Consider math education. A couple centuries ago, Calculus was an advanced topic that was only learned by the best students at the undergraduate level, or even later. Over the years, it was presented earlier and earlier, so that today it’s often a high-school level course, or (at worst) first-year college level.
Why the difference? I would say it’s mainly improved math education at lower grade levels, such that the groundwork for Calculus has been laid by grade 12.
Perhaps the same would be true in the biological sciences (and in “critical thinking” generally) if similar improvements could be made earlier in the education process. If that were to happen, perhaps high school students would understand the basics well enough to be introduced to some of the open questions of current research.
Now, why do you suppose it is that the basic concepts of Evolution are not familiar to the typical 15-year-old in the United States? I would venture to say that it’s not due to any great barrier in their ability to comprehend the concepts — which are certainly no more challenging than, say, Euclidean Geometry.
I leave that puzzle as an exercise for the reader.
Donnie B
While the basic concepts of evolution are not beyond even fairly young children, the knowledge required to understand the questions currently being asked is certainly far harder than Euclidean geometry.
For example, to do anything beyond introducing the concept of endosymbiotic theory, kids must learn about bacteria (and their genetics), about phagocytosis, about organelles, about biochemistry, about probability, about paleobiology (and paleoclimatology), and a range of other stuff.
And that’s only one small corner! Evolutionary biology is a science which covers everything which has ever lived on the planet for 4 billion years – it is a huge remit, especially for 4 hours a week.
Evolution is probably the biggest, most complicated theory out there currently. Whole degrees are written on it.
Almost right. Mikesbo is a creationist fundie with the usual lack of education, morals, and interest in thinking and the truth. A boring Liar for jesus.
And oh yeah. He used to be an atheist and then he found jesus. After all the heathens in his neighborhood went on an axe murdering spree and were struck down by lightening on a clear blue sky day.
The surveyors who come before them certainly do.
“Oh, but I didn’t bring up surveyors.” Of course not, because it would show what a mindless crock such an objection is.
We don’t, lackwit, and it takes a dishonest person to suggest that we do.
We just are in favor of teaching appropriate matter at the appropriate level, which rarely includes the honest controversies. When they do, it’s generally just a mention.
Indeed, schools teach “wrong” ideas constantly, from Rutherford’s “planetary model” of the atom, to Newton’s laws of motion and of gravity. Not only is the “controversy” not taught, the full story is not taught at the high school level. Because “wrong” models of the atom, and classical physics, get across important “truths,” we go with those, and cut out “controversies” that bring in important truths that would confuse more than enlighten.
Instead of “false” simplifications, IDiots like Mikesbo want false complications, bringing in “controversy” that has nothing to do with science as such. While I am not opposed to dealing with these matters when misled students bring them up, I am definitely opposed to the schools deliberately teaching complications which are aimed solely at casting doubt about science.
Trolls.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Africangenesis,
I know several teachers and they all try to teach their students how to think. Mikesbo’s opinion that the US public school system has the “inability to teach children how to think.” is absurd, simplistic and wrong.
Bob, it was 2:30am in my time zone. I work during the day.
“We don’t, lackwit, and it takes a dishonest person to suggest that we do.”
In whose opinion? Yours, or the people you’re trying to convince? If both sides come out of a “discussion” with the same positions they entered it with, have you won?
Go back, all of you, and re-read what you have just written. This is your idea of apologetics? Do you honestly think all of this venom and name-calling is at all intimidating, or a convincing method of argument?
Now. In your collective opinion, if I argue every point, every name the dozen of you call me, I’m a troll. If I stop because there is really no point to this, I’m “running away.”
I’ll check back here again this evening to see if anyone has said anything useful, but you’re seriously wasting my time now (and yours, for that matter).
Mike, if you want someone to listen to you, don’t come in with summary judgments on issues that you don’t understand.
You’re an appallingly ignorant and arrogant being, who apes the anti-science faction and demands that we treat stupidity with respect. As such, I have only contempt for you.
And no, this is not apologetics, for we need none of your special pleading in order to support science. Quit lying, IOW.
You actually are the usual worthless troll that we so often encounter, for you are the one who simply dismisses considered responses, you ignore the fact that you’re in depths that you don’t understand, and you whine pitiably that you’re called on your lack of decency, knowledge, and respect.
If you can’t answer what we’ve written, then STFU. I actually explained these things to you, and I don’t in the slightest apologize for calling you the IDiot you’ve demonstrated yourself to be, at least here. Those with knowledge do not submit to the lying ignoramuses who demand respect for ignorance and dishonesty.
Have some respect, show some decency, and open your closed mind. Only an honest regard for others will be respected here, while lying accusations get what they deserve.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
#73
Mikesbo,
To begin with, I can’t imagine anyone here would call an explanation of science “apologetics.” Speaking for myself, I don’t go the route of mockery for the rank and file reader wishing to learn something.
The facts are these. ID/creationism relies on supernatural causation and provides no mechanism, no testable explanation, for the diversity of life on Earth. It is not based on evidence, and often contradicts evidence. Not surprisingly, not a single piece of data supporting ID/creationism has been published in peer-reviewed scientific research papers.
Unless you invoke a decades-long global conspiracy (or complete incompetence on the part of ID/creationism proponents), it should be clear that ID/creationism is not science. To present it in a science class as if it were a scientific theory is not just irresponsible, it is fraud. Furthermore, to water down our children’s science education with pseudoscience damages American competitiveness in the global scientific arena.
I sincerely hope I’ve given you some food for thought.
No. Apologetics is what theologians use to defend their faith.
Science isn’t a religion and doesn’t use distortions, lies, and antilogic to prove that 2+2=pi which proves that…GODDIDIT.
Mostly you get the usual contempt and derision because you are boring. We’ve seen fundie creationist trolls a zillion times and you don’t even have enough imagination to come across as homicidal or crazy like many of them.
BTW, there is a good reason why creationism shouldn’t be taught to kids in science classes. It is illegal and has been for decades. It is illegal to teach cultist xian mythology that even the majority of xians don’t agree with as facts to kids. Way it goes, deal with it.
Cactus and rodiel, thank you for the info on transitional species. I’m not sure the wolf/coyote/dog example is exactly what I meant, but it’s not worth going into at this point.
Thanks, YMO for the info on fossil dating.
Cactus again, you are absolutely correct, I should have never even mentioned your core topic, even to say it was not my point. From that point on, S/N fell through the floor.
Africangensis, RamziD, and even Ariel and Pteryxx for your insights and opinions on education, who should determine curriculum, etc. I’m sorry for getting side-tracked by the hate mail, you guys were really closest to being on topic.
Even YMO, later on (39), on the point about having ID/Creationism in some comparitive class.
Jason, a good list of topics. You wouldn’t believe (maybe you would) how many people are out there taking the opposing view on every item you listed, not to mention big-foot and host of others.
Bob again, I confess to distraction, see note to Cactus above.
IST, it’s not the students you need to convince, but the school boards and the parents. I thought you understood what I meant.
Glen, you do have a very good point about me being sidetracked and not really getting back to you.
I apologize to those who actually replied, for focusing on the flames instead. It was late.
-M
The general tenor of many other posts was that high schools students aren’t ready to critically evaluate the evidence, they should just be fed what experts consider the “facts”. That seems to concede and accomodate to Mikesbo’s opinion that the US public school system has the “inability to teach children how to think.”
dead wrong, and a fucking complete strawman of what was being argued by everyone BUT you.
one does not lead to the other at all.
critical thinking skills do not relate to the total amount of information available to one. One can apply critical thinking with whatever information one has on hand.
one can be entirely ignorant of a vast range of topics, from science to education to any given theory, just like Mikesbo, and still apply critical thinking.
you’ll just be wrong, every time, without basic information at hand to actually evaluate.
you keep failing to make this distinction.
We don’t teach calculus without algebra first. We don’t teach trigonometry without geometry first.
you need basic information to build on before more complex information is added on.
someone previously gave you the example:
We don’t start primary school reading classes by tossing a copy of “War and Peace” at the students.
It is exactly the same with science as it is with any other piece of educational curricula.
we teach basic biology before we teach ecology. we teach ecology typically before we teach evolution.
it’s entirely necessary to have a grounding in basic information before one moves on to a SYNTHESIS of that basic information; puts meaningful pattern on to it.
that i even have to sit here and explain this to you, AGAIN, is quite puzzling.
you are either too fucking dense to comprehend, or too willfully ignorant to want to.
Ichthyic,
“we teach basic biology before we teach ecology. we teach ecology typically before we teach evolution”
In the US ecology is usually taught first. Whenever the environment is touched upon, usually the food web from primary producers to the top predators is covered along with toxins concentrating as you move up the web and the impact of aggressive alien species without natural predators, and evolution is usually taught along with the phylogeny in biology.
Comparing it to teaching reading with War and Peace is a strawman. Many of the biology students might actually be at the level where they are reading War and Peace or Les Miserables in their literature courses. Maybe biology should be taught after chemistry rather than before both chemistry and physics as it is in the US.
It is also a strawman for some to suggest that HS School students aren’t ready for the actual evolution controversies that are currently being researched. No one is proposing that these be taught, they aren’t the kind of things that would overturn the theory of evolution anyway.
Now I hadn’t really considered a class like IST’s Physical Science, I was mainly considering the college track courses. I doubt evolution needs to be touched much at all in such a course. Basic phylogeny, organ systems and the food web would seem to be ambitious enough. I don’t believe in teaching the controversy, because there isn’t one, but I don’t believe in running from it either.
I also think the lack of preparation of biology teachers to deal with sophisticated attacks on evolution is a strawman. If the students are as lacking in cognitive ability as suggested here, they won’t understand the sophisticated attacks any way. Just call them up to the board and have them explain the attacks, be fair, give them a day or two to prepare, but ask them to be sure they understand the attack and aren’t just repeating someone else’s ideas.
What is most important is that the students learn how to think critically and how to learn, since they will need these skills the rest of their lives. Unfortunately most science curricula I see are just a laundry list of things the students need to know before they get to college. Things as specific as torque and ohm’s law. I think there doesn’t need to be fearmongering about what they might have missed, they can fill any gaps on their own very quickly, if they have the basic ability and skills.
Sigh. Did you forget your brain this morning? The kids have been learning to read for 10 years at that point, but they have been learning biology for only a year or two, and are absolute beginners at concepts like evolution, atomic theory, molar constants, Newton’s laws (although some are undoubtedly familiar, like germ theory (although they may not really know what a germ or a virus is – many adults don’t know the difference) and understanding how science works in general. Just because they can understand sentences and (a limited number of) big words, doesn’t mean that they can understand the subtleties of a complex theory like evolution.
Your Mighty Overload#80,
I doubt any 9th graders interested in science are unfamiliar with the concepts you just mentioned, except “molar constants”. Particle physics, cosmology and physical anthropology were routine lunchtime topics during the 9th grade at my ordinary public school near a military base. There were at least half a dozen of us and we were more than a fifth of the biology class. As a military brat, I had 4 different high schools, at each there were such groups of interested students.
I think our difference is that I am talking about educating those interested in science. Trying to educate people who aren’t interested probably has a higher failure rate. But dumbing things down and insulting their intelligence is unlikely to inspire them either.
AG> umm… despite what the curricula say, they are basically a laundry list of topics to be covered. The actual pacing of a Biology course is tpyically from small concepts to large, ie biochem->cells/DNA->genetics->phylogeny/evo->eco. Students tend to grasp the large concepts better if the smaller are taught first. For the absolute lowest level students (the ones that get a year for Bio instead of a semester), the order is sometimes reversed. We experimented with that last year to disastrous results. Mind you, results in these parts are as measured by standardised test scores…not the best measure of comprehension.
Particle physics, cosmology, and physical anthropology may have been topics at your schools lunch.. I have to monitor ours one a week, and it’s more along the lines of who sells better drugs, who stabbed/shot who and why, etc… Teaching science only to the interested sounds spectacular, but we have an obligation to educate everyone.
PS… your doubt is unfounded… look at curricula for grades earlier than 9th, and then consider that science gets half the time it should (or less) in many places because it isn’t a tested subject until high school. Bush really screwed us on that one. Elementarty educators are often afraid of science, and therefore don’t teach it… the problem goes back further yet. You have good intentions, but the issue with your argument is that you’re letting your personal incredulity overtake your reason…
IST,
They type of age segregated factory model schools and peer culture you describe is one of the reasons I unschooled my children. I agree that Bush’s getting the federal government involved in education was a bad idea. The traditional conservatives have always favored local control of the schools, but the Democrats won the day on that issue, so Bush ran as “the education president”.
AG, factory model yes… we’re actually running something called a PLC model (google it, it’s ridiculous), which is a version of a business model for schools. Not only does the research on it not demonstrate any actual effectiveness, but it places the entire burden of the child’s education on the classroom teacher. At the urging of former professors and colleagues, I’m leaving after this year… too much red tape, too much nonsense directed at the teacher and no building of accountability in the students themselves. I don’t blame you for teaching your children at home… mine certainly wouldn’t be in a public school around here if I in fact had any (Montessori or Waldorf, that’s a different story).
IST#84,
Yuck! From what little I’ve read, I bet if you could beam your PLC experiences to Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert), he would have a field day.