Next up for Republicans... teaching non-evolution? « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics

Next up for Republicans... teaching non-evolution?

[97 posts] [26 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by myliftkk
Latest reply from sirlancelot

Tags:

12…5 Next »

myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Hmmm... now that we've passed the ability to fire whatever teacher we want, perhaps this is the next step for Republican governors?

Florida GOP State Senator Stephen Wise is drawing fire with a legislative proposal that would require schools in the Sunshine State to dramatically change the way evolution is addressed in the classroom, primarily by requiring the teaching of an alternative he calls "non-evolution."

According to his legislation, public school teachers would have to "teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution" to students.

"Why would you not teach both theories at the same time?" Wise, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said, according to the Tampa Tribune. "You have critical thinking in school," he continued, telling the outlet that he simply called his alternative "non-evolution."

Wise, who recently championed a successful push to end Florida teacher tenure in favor of a merit-pay system, has quickly received knocks for his bill.

Florida Lawmakers embarass the state again.

I'll give them credit, social conservatives have become experts at re-branding Creationism, but where do you go rhetorically when non-evolution fails? It's not Pepsi, it's Non-Coke...

Posted 2 years ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

Posted 2 years ago #
JonMyers
HCMC, Vietnam ✈
Login to Send PM

Infuriating.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
The Bacon District
Login to Send PM

it's like my great gramma from Sarasota used to say: "all the nuts roll downhill to Florida"

Posted 2 years ago #
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote >>
it's like my great gramma from Sarasota used to say: "all the nuts roll downhill to Florida"

Clearly she didn't study Florida's theory of "non-gravity"

Posted 2 years ago #
artbomb112
The Heights
Login to Send PM

Core_Models wrote

Clearly she didn't study Florida's theory of "non-gravity"

I mean really, I feel like I'm being pushed more than pulled.

Posted 2 years ago #
Tigertree
771 N. High St.
Login to Send PM

I don't know, evolution involves a lot of changes in only 10,000 years...

Posted 2 years ago #
howatzer

Login to Send PM

myliftkk wrote >>

According to his legislation, public school teachers would have to "teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution" to students.

While I don't think it's the intent of the distinguished gentleman from florida, this "presentation" done by a competent science teacher would actually help reinforce A) what the scientific method is, B) what a scientific theory is, C) why biological evolution is a theory and how it's been tested and D) why creationism is not science. I know a lot of highly educated people that subscribe to evolution and reject creationism, but cannot articulate why. I know those that reject evolution as "just a theory", so such a presentation would educate both groups.

As a scientist myself, while I don't support efforts to force creationism into the science classroom, I've never been afraid of those attempts. Assuming competent science teachers (too much of an assumption?), evolution/ creationism provides a perfect "case study" example of the difference between science and religion.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

@howatzer - Except that you know when little Timmy comes home and tells ma and pa about how he learned from his science teacher that creationism isn't science, they'll be all up arms...

Don't get me wrong, could well-intentioned science teachers do exactly what you suggest, yes. Is that anywhere close to the intention of the people drawing up this law, fuck no.

Now, what I don't get is why do they even care? They've pretty much said everyone can go to charter schools in FL, or are nearly about to with their governor's future plans, so why do they care what other kids learn. They can put their kids in Creation U. for all any one else cares, can't they? In fact, they could do that before, in private religious school at least. But, it always comes down to telling other people what their kids should learn, or in this case shouldn't...

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

howatzer wrote >>
As a scientist myself, while I don't support efforts to force creationism into the science classroom, I've never been afraid of those attempts. Assuming competent science teachers (too much of an assumption?), evolution/ creationism provides a perfect "case study" example of the difference between science and religion.

On that same basis, would you support spending taxpayers' dollars teaching students Lysenko's theories about biological inheritance, so that those could be disproven? Seems to me they'd be preferable to creationism for this purpose, actually, in that they give rise to better-specficied hypotheses.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

howatzer wrote >>
As a scientist myself, while I don't support efforts to force creationism into the science classroom, I've never been afraid of those attempts. Assuming competent science teachers (too much of an assumption?), evolution/ creationism provides a perfect "case study" example of the difference between science and religion.

On that same basis, would you support spending taxpayers' dollars teaching students Lysenko's theories about biological inheritance, so that those could be disproven? Seems to me they'd be preferable to creationism for this purpose, actually, in that they give rise to better-specficied hypotheses.

Can't say it's definitely right for a science class ( seems more like history ), but a study of Lysenkoism in context would make for lively discussions in and out of the classroom.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
Can't say it's definitely right for a science class ( seems more like history ), but a study of Lysenkoism in context would make for lively discussions in and out of the classroom.

Not quite sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that creationism is more appropriate for a science class than Lysenkoism? (If so, why?) Or that it'd produce less lively discussions?

Posted 2 years ago #
alexs
Limestone bluffs of the Scioto
Login to Send PM

Why do we still have apes if we came from them?

coffee spew

Posted 2 years ago #
bman
New Albany
Login to Send PM

We could teach about salvation in the public classroom as well and how trickle down is the ultimate economic theory. Oh ... and we could make a class on Ronald Reagan's legacy a mandatory class for graduation as well.

Posted 2 years ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

OK, but then Florida Republicans can't complain about Slovenia and Thailand beating the US at science test scores anymore.

Posted 2 years ago #
howatzer

Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

howatzer wrote >>
As a scientist myself, while I don't support efforts to force creationism into the science classroom, I've never been afraid of those attempts. Assuming competent science teachers (too much of an assumption?), evolution/ creationism provides a perfect "case study" example of the difference between science and religion.

On that same basis, would you support spending taxpayers' dollars teaching students Lysenko's theories about biological inheritance, so that those could be disproven? Seems to me they'd be preferable to creationism for this purpose, actually, in that they give rise to better-specficied hypotheses.

I think that would go over most college freshman, let alone high schoolers', heads. The point is that contrast between evolution and creationism provides a clear delineation of what is, and is not, science. Pick what other contrasts you want - one of my professors used the much less controversial contrast of ancient peoples's (including Pat Robertson's) belief that volcanos were the due to the wrath of gods versus the theory of plate tectonics as an example.

My pont is, rather than shrugging off someone that wants creationism taught as an alternative theory with the typical -"no, evolution is reality, deal with it!" , we say, "OK, but first we have to start with a definition of the scientific method". Once confronted with creationism, students will then clearly be able to define why this is not science, and be better off for the exercise. As one of my all time favorite science teachers said, "faith belongs in church, not in the lab."

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

rus wrote >>
Can't say it's definitely right for a science class ( seems more like history ), but a study of Lysenkoism in context would make for lively discussions in and out of the classroom.

Not quite sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that creationism is more appropriate for a science class than Lysenkoism? (If so, why?) Or that it'd produce less lively discussions?

Oh no... more a side note about the political culture which enabled Lysenkoism.

Posted 2 years ago #
jeff_r

Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Bear wrote >>

rus wrote >>
Can't say it's definitely right for a science class ( seems more like history ), but a study of Lysenkoism in context would make for lively discussions in and out of the classroom.

Not quite sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that creationism is more appropriate for a science class than Lysenkoism? (If so, why?) Or that it'd produce less lively discussions?

Oh no... more a side note about the political culture which enabled Lysenkoism.

I guess I'm not really following this reference either. Are you using Lysenkoism in the colloquial sense (as shorthand for the danger that comes from linking science to ideology) or the specific case of Trofim Lysenko's rise and fall in Soviet Russia?

In either case I'm not sure what you're getting at it. Are you suggesting that Senator Wise is engaged in some modern day form of Lysenkoism (in the colloquial sense) by pushing a creationist agenda, or are you bringing up Lysenkoism to point out that other ideologues (Marxists for instance) have also fallen victim to the marriage of bad science and politics?

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
The Bacon District
Login to Send PM

howatzer wrote >>
I think that would go over most college freshman, let alone high schoolers', heads. The point is that contrast between evolution and creationism provides a clear delineation of what is, and is not, science. Pick what other contrasts you want - one of my professors used the much less controversial contrast of ancient peoples's (including Pat Robertson's) belief that volcanos were the due to the wrath of gods versus the theory of plate tectonics as an example.
My pont is, rather than shrugging off someone that wants creationism taught as an alternative theory with the typical -"no, evolution is reality, deal with it!" , we say, "OK, but first we have to start with a definition of the scientific method". Once confronted with creationism, students will then clearly be able to define why this is not science, and be better off for the exercise. As one of my all time favorite science teachers said, "faith belongs in church, not in the lab."

I see your (excellent) point, that a good solid class lecture about the difference between actual science and "junk science" is badly needed, for sure. I just saw two TV commercials that anyone who knows the difference would never fall for.

But it might be a better idea to present this early in the class semester, with a somewhat less charged topic. Homeopathy, for one, makes a VERY good, CLEAR and (more importantly) non-idiologically (usually) charged example for junk science. Students will grasp the material better if it's not mixed up in a lot of ideological "who shot john".

THEN, once students have a solid grasp of the criteria for junk science it would avoid wasting time "refuting" I.D. if a student brings up the topic or if the teacher feels it important enough to address. With a solid grounding in the criteria for telling junk science from real science that only takes but a minute or two (discounting those who have a heavy ideological "wall" built around the subject) to apply the criteria and say "yep, it's crap".

But really, chemistry teachers don't feel the need to address the theory of the periodic table vs Aristotle's elemental theory...Astronomy classes spend very little if any valuable class time debunking astrology... Christian Bible classes don't waste time 'debunking' the Hindu creation mythology... you get where I'm going.

Posted 2 years ago #
JonMyers
HCMC, Vietnam ✈
Login to Send PM

Reading the rest of the article it's clear Wise's intention is to create a vehicle for inserting a Christian agenda into the public school system, not to provide a "contrast".

Posted 2 years ago #