“And all these kids are casualties.”

Yes they are and until we begin to demonstrate to those kids and those parents that ignorance of science isn’t cool, or rewarded in a capitalist system such as ours, then they’ll keep on pretending to live in the middle ages, because they can.

It’s pathetic that their faith is so fragile that a non-literal, half-assed interpretation of Genesis is all that stands between them and the outer darkness.

It’s pathetic that their faith is so fragile that a non-literal, half-assed interpretation of Genesis is all that stands between them and the outer darkness.

And clearly this is their interpretation of, “suffer the little children to come unto me.” In another words, cultish brainwashing and petulant, hysterically jackass attempts to commit *civil disobedience in the classroom and be attention-whores (*a bastard form of it anyway). Nothing screams “our <strike>cult</strike> movement is weakening and losing” like forcing children to do your bidding. I’m waiting for the fundangelicals to get their pets involved in their superstitious shenanigans.

Fundamentalists, that is, churches using “Biblical literalism” as the main means of interpretation, routinely school the parents and the children on how to challenge teaching evolution or other concepts or facts inimicable to their religious belief, including the fact that most of the Founders were Deists, unbelievers, or Christian by convention and not by deep belief.

Sunday school sessions and Vacation Bible Schools (for the uninitiated, almost all denominations have local week-long day camps or overnight camps for a mix of religious teaching, crafts, drama, etc with religious content, sports and games and bonfires with s’mores) are often used for teaching children how to resist secular schooling, and that secular teachers need not be respected. (NB - this doesn’t include mainstream SSs or VBSs, which stick to the Bible and tend to have service projects).

There is an industry of fundamentalist anti-evolution seminars for teachers and parents, anti-evolution curriculum materials for SSs/VBSs and home-schoolers, books for parents, pre-college residential courses for rising freshmen to learn how to resist sex, evolution, the demand to be polite and respectful to unbelievers, left-wingers, and gays, how to proselytize, how to disrupt class, how to refuse certain assignments, how to get liberal professors into trouble with the admin. , and so on. The residential courses are aimed at students with an activist mentality, and one of the best known and oldest has a few hundred students a year, many or most attending for free or for minimal fee covering food. These items are advertised and promoted extensively on conservative Christian syndicated radio stations.

Mainstream Christians consider these anti-evolution folks to have weak faith in addition to missing the whole point - and the anti-evolution people simply don’t believe that pro-evolution Christians are genuine Christians. They don’t believe that Roman and other Catholics, the different flavors of Orthodox, liberal Protestants such as Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, UCC, the liberal portions of the Methodist and major Presbyterian churches, and so on are “Real Christians”(Tm).

Whether god made you or you evolved from a single celled organism doesn’t change your ability to do your job, enjoy a summer day, fall in love, or read literature.

No, but it does make a difference in how you can make arguments about gender and power relations in the world, particularly those that go to questions of social justice, racial equality, reproductive freedom, free speech, etc. A world created by God can be readily subjected to those who claim to speak for him and that’s why they are so desperate that their children not be exposed to actual arguments for evolution. If they lose the next generation, how will they reproduce the unquestioning loyalty and blind faith required to run a good fundamentalist religious operation?

I worked with a young man who said he didn’t believe in evolution. He had a geophysics degree, so I’m sure he had to take basic geology…did he lie, or should he have flunked?

The teachers should teach the correct, scientific definition of the word “theory” before they get to evolution, so the kids know better than to say,  “It’s just a theory.”

Why do we bother trying to teach evolution to minors if not for inculcation purposes? There is no reason for anyone to know this stuff unless they want to be an anthropologist or the like. Since it is such a disputed topic to fundamentalist christians, simply leaving it for university studies seems to be the obviously practical route to go. (Besides which, the theory is almost certainly false, given the lack of evidence. Or has there finally been found the expected transitional fossils? No, and never will be I think.)

I am firmly convinced that creationism is quite literally the devil’s work.

Essentially, Creationism consists of Satan whispering in your ear, “If the Sun is older than the Moon, then there is no God!”  The very nonsensical nature of the “doctrine” ought to be proof enough that Satan is at work here, but consider also the fruits of it:

Either students of science reject God, or else religious students reject science and render themselves part of an isolated, out-of-touch “weird” minority, and doom themselves to low-level jobs with no influence.  Clearly, the only winner here is Satan, and as usual, the only way to win is to refuse to play his game.

One of Satan’s cleverest tricks is to ask the wrong question.  Creationism asks, “Do we exist as the result of the working out of natural forces, or by the will of God?”  The correct answer is “Yes”, just as it is if you ask the same question about where babies come from.

DPirate, that argument could made about nearly everything taught in secondary schools and a fair bit of the stuff taught in primary school.  If educators cave on one thing, they’ll be expected to cave on everything.  That would lead to no one getting an education, but I think that’s the fundementalists’ point.

As to why evolutionary theory is taught:  It absolutely helps build a basis for why biology is studied the way it is and it, along with all science education, helps build critical thinking skills.  Again, though, I think a society without critical thinking skills is on of the right’s goals.

*must not feed trolls must not…*

For the same reason we teach them history, math, foreign languages, other sciencey things, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Why should we pander to a tiny minority who wishes to force their beliefs on everyone else? Would you also agree that we should not teach students about the Holocaust, because it might offend Holocaust deniers, or that kids shouldn’t learn that racism is bad, because it’s a disputed topic with racists?

Besides which, the theory is almost certainly false, given the lack of evidence. Or has there finally been found the expected transitional fossils? No, and never will be I think.

Ah, a negative proof.  Those always work.

ice weasel: Actually, compared to modern fundamentalists, medieval European thinkers were actually a lot more tolerant (and certainly a lot less emotionally put out by) theories of nature that seemed to contradict official Church dogma or the literal sense of scripture.

Indeed by the late 13th century there were arts masters (professors of the basic undergraduate program of the seven liberal arts) who insisted that human reason might well take you to a conclusion at variance from divine revelation, and that’s just the way it goes. As a Christian you were to accept one thing as the truth, but as a thinking man, you might have to hold the opposite as scientifically valid until falsified. (Historians have called these men “Averroists.” Most of them taught their heterodox theories without serious interference.)

I will pray for you, DPirate, that your heart be opened and your mind cleansed of bigotry and the gnawing, all-pervading fear that has paralyzed you.

DPirate: what, so we can just repeat the same bullshit at the university level? there are plenty of “transitional” fossils out there. You are one yourself.

Lonespark: well, it’s geophysics. So, yeah. There isn’t really a “required class” in a lot of biology programs about evolution- you just kind of talk about it’s theoretical framework a little bit in genetics and developmental biology, talk about its current expression in ecology classes, but I never had a class called Evolution. It’s weird that a geophysicist wouldn’t believe in evolution, but not directly professionally relevant.  I mean, if he was a Geo-centric, young-earth creationist, yeah, that would be really weird, but there wouldn’t be any reason to flunk him.

As my molecular genetics proff. said, “why is it some people have so much trouble holding on to contradictory ideas”?

This is a direct endorsement of cognitive dissonance- unless, duh, like most people, God isn’t really relevant to your life on any meaningful level- sure you have two contradictory ideas in your head, but you don’t really care about one of them, so no problem.

I imagine this would be true of said geophysicist.

Shorter dp: “Let’s not teach how the world works.”

List of transitional fossils.

Better trolls and less obvious liars, please.

NancyP - How weird is that? Most parents teach their kids not to sass the teacher.

For crying out loud, if you are going to use your religion to hobble your child (instead of using it to inspire) please send your kid to a like-minded Christian school where you can all revel in ignorance in peace.

For crying out loud, if you are going to use your religion to hobble your child (instead of using it to inspire) please send your kid to a like-minded Christian school where you can all revel in ignorance in peace.

I’m sure their local FLDS Compound would be more than happy to oblige them.

List of transitional fossils.

Better trolls and less obvious liars, please.

I’m sure DPirate will have a convincing argument against this list. Something on the order of “Satan and his secular humanist minions planted ‘em to confuse us.”

DouchePirate: You fail at debate AND science.

Might I suggest you find a nice, big bag of cocks and chow down?

Or has there finally been found the expected transitional fossils? No, and never will be I think.

DPirate, you are a dumbshit.

DPirate,

WE have been finding the expected transitional fossils for more than a century now and find more almost evry week. Add to that the evolution we have observed in short generation life forms from bacteria to mosquitoes. It all adds up to evolution being one of the best supported of scientific theories.

I love this quote from Scott’s link to that list of transitional fossils:

“This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness.”

Gee, I can’t imagine whose standards they might mean.

Teach at the university level and they cry too. Seriously. I have a colleague who has had students burst into tears at the mere mention (by another student, not the instructor!) of a fundie hot button topic like evolution or same-sex marriage. They have ramped up the significance of a couple of elements so intensely that young people literally cannot learn about them because they are so emotionally freighted.

The problem is not the ideas (although they are crappy), but rather the process by which the ideas are rendered undebatable because they achieve this statis through psychologically manipulative efforts. If it was just intellectual issues, it would be much easier to teach students about the alternatives (what they accept, in the end, is up to them), because we can debate them. I feel more compassion than anything else for students coming from what strikes me as such an emotionally abusive environment that the acknowledgement of the debate induces hysteria, never mind the issues themselves.

(Damian, there’s plenty of good dismissive phrases in the English language so no need to use a homophobic one.)

The teachers should teach the correct, scientific definition of the word “theory” before they get to evolution, so the kids know better than to say, “It’s just a theory.”

They should hand out copies of The Onion’s article on “intelligent falling.”

There’s a scene in Bad Monkeys (which you should all run out and buy immediately) where the protagonist explains away a logical contradiction in one of her stories as a “Nod problem”. That was the term used by her religious little brother to handle questions like “So who did Cain marry?” - it’s something we don’t need to know in order to believe in the essential truth, just as we don’t need every transitional fossil ever or to have personally seen the Big Bang for these theories to have merit.

I’m thinking that shrugging off anti-evolutionists’ quack argument du jour with “That’s just a Nod problem” would drive them straight up a tree.

The parts of science that really do threaten religious fundamentalism aren’t the bits that don’t jibe with Bible stories.

Rather they’re the underlying ideas—that faith isn’t proof; that if what you’re saying is true, you should be able to back up it up; that truth doesn’t need propaganda or threats or guilt-trips or special sleep-away camps or attempts to shout down any alternate views.  Fundies tend to focus on the evolution v. creationism fight, but really, the whole concept of science can easily piss on the last smoldering ember of scriptural literalism. 

If fundamentalism was the backbone of my world view, I’d be scared of science too.

This is exactly why I don’t believe that parents should have the right to opt out of public education for their kids.  If the school is teaching something parents disagree with they can always counter the message in their homes.  I have done this on many occasions when the school has said something to to my child that is racist, sexist, homophobic etc.,
Children need to have a firm grounding in the basics which is best taught from a secular perspective.  Education and indoctrination are two very different things.  Kids learn best when they are exposed to a myriad of ideas and theories because it encourages them to think for themselves.  Children crying because they are being offered an alternative view of the world is proof that their parents are not interested in raising thinking adults they are only interested raising little auomatons.

This is exactly why I don’t believe that parents should have the right to opt out of public education for their kids.

I have to disagree with that. Public schools would be marginally better (and only marginally, because they don’t teach or even discourage critical thinking—see ks and Paris) if they didn’t have children of Xtian fantasists disrupting classes and making the lives of teachers difficult.

The message should be clear: if you disrupt this class with immature behaviour, you’re out of it; if you’re out of the class, you don’t get your HS diploma; if you don’t get your HS diploma, no college for you.

Kids in those situations who later wise up and decide on their own that they want to attend a real college (as opposed to Bob Jones U. or Liberty University) should have the opportunity to take a biology course to make up for the failings of whatever home or parochial schooling their parents left them to take. If a 17 year old or 18 year old can’t make that kind of basic choice, there’s not much more to be done for them.

Whether god made you or you evolved from a single celled organism doesn’t change your ability to do your job

Unless, of course, your job involves anything related to modern biology*, including medicine or agriculture.  That also includes sectors such as energy, like the Brazillian program to genetically engineer high-energy sugarcane to process into ethanol, and computers, where the next leap in computing technology might involve machines that use DNA to solve long problems.

* “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”—Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the greatest geneticists in human history.

Well, gosh, why bother to teach math in public schools?  Kids have calculators, and they probably won’t need to do more than basic addition and subtraction unless they major in mathematics in college.  Simply leaving it for university studies seems to be the obviously practical route to go.  Same with languages; it’s not like most kids are going to go to France.  Leave it for university.  I don’t get why they have to learn history, since they probably won’t be doing any time travel until after high school.  And chemistry is boring anyway.  I’m on the fence about the whole “reading” thing, but most books contain material someone could object to, so it should probably go.

What’s wrong with letting basic science education slide?  Well, for one thing, it can lead to people in positions of power undermining useful research because they don’t have even a vague grasp of what it’s about.  Like, say, <a >a politician mocking genetic research with fruit flies in a speech about the importance of developing treatments for learning-disabled children</a>, not realizing that this is exactly one of the things fruit-fly research does.  Since evolutionary theory is the basis of genetics, which is in turn massively important to modern medicine, which most people need at some point in their lives, I’d say it’s good for people to have at least a general understanding of how it works.

Thanks for being a good math teacher, ks.  I can’t tell you how valuable it’s been that I had an awesome math teacher.

I was adopted as an infant by a pair of Mormon convert parents (Dad used to be Catholic and Mom used to be a fundamentalist Protestant-type); at the age of four, Mom explained to me what adoption was with dolls in such a way that I would understand it. That worked very well, but at the age of seven, she chose to revisit the topic by telling me that my biological mother was “a 16-year-old slut who wanted you dead” and went on to explain the processes of multiple types of abortion, in many types drawing little lines on my body with her finger to illustrate it. According to her, the only reason I was alive was because of Indiana’s parental consent laws. (All this later turned out to be a lie.)

Until I was 17 -18 years old any time I even heard the word “abortion” I would start crying and would have a difficult time stopping within an hour. Needless to say, it wreaked havoc on my Forensics (speech and debate) classes in high school.

Rather they’re the underlying ideas—that faith isn’t proof; that if what you’re saying is true, you should be able to back up it up; that truth doesn’t need propaganda or threats or guilt-trips or special sleep-away camps or attempts to shout down any alternate views.  Fundies tend to focus on the evolution v. creationism fight, but really, the whole concept of science can easily piss on the last smoldering ember of scriptural literalism.

The thing is, that doesn’t have to be the case.  Many religious people not only accept that their beliefs aren’t scientifically verifiable, they prefer it that way.  Religion is supposed to be about faith; if you could physically prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed, you wouldn’t need faith.

In “Religulous,” there’s a great scene with the official Vatican astronomer, who cheerfully explains that Catholicism has no problem with evolution or any other scientific theory (what the hey, they’ve mellowed in 400 years).  He also points out that it makes no sense to try to analyze the Bible by scientific standards, the way many Christian fundamentalists do, because predates the development of the scientific method by thousands of years.  Whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired, it was written by people who had no mental framework for “science” as we understand it, so of course their way of explaining the world makes no sense scientifically.

You’re right, though, that the scientific method is bad news for fundamentalists.  Any form of asking questions spells trouble for a fundamentalist community.

“if you could physically prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God existed, you wouldn’t need faith.”

Well, shoot, it’s a good thing faith exists.  Otherwise how could people believe in something for no good reason whatsoever?

Damn, Notorious P.A.T. beat me to the Dobzhansky quote.

I’m just going to take this opportunity to bitch about how ridiculous it is that one of the great, unifying, biological theories doesn’t get even half the respect of something equally fundamental in other sciences (or any other field of study for that matter). The idea that you might put off discussing, say, gravity until college would be ludicrous. Yet people are seriously making the argument that evolution isn’t important enough to teach at a high school level.

I mean, there are warning stickers on biology textbooks! Warning stickers!! Could you imagine a warning sticker on a calculus textbook?

It’s like the fifth horseperson of the apocalypse is stupidity.

No surprise here, unfortunately! And they get upset when phrases like “clinging to religion” are used in reference to them.

They all should read this before voting: A Letter From God To American Voters.

There isn’t really a “required class” in a lot of biology programs about evolution- you just kind of talk about it’s theoretical framework a little bit in genetics and developmental biology, talk about its current expression in ecology classes, but I never had a class called Evolution

I majored in anthropology, where we did, in fact, have a semi-required course on primate evolution (you had a choice between evolution and, I think, “human genetic diversity” or something like that).  A significant proportion of my anthro courses dealt directly with human evolution.  I took high school biology at a Catholic school that refused to teach evolution (in direct conflict with current Catholic teachings, which agree that evolution is, in fact, legitimate), and had to do a fair bit of catchup work as an anthro major.  Luckily I’m a quick study and had a very secular and science revering upbringing, so it’s not like I really and truly had no idea about any of it.  But yeah, I’m not sure you can grow up as a fundamentalist Christian and go on to study something like anthropology or biology at the college level without a certain degree of extra work.

“Some students burst into tears when a high school biology told them they’d be studying evolution. Another teacher said some students repeatedly screamed “no” when he began talking about it.”

I’ve got this vision in my head of Jr. High schoolers yowling “noooooooo” when the math teacher tells them it’s time to do their time-and-distance problems or breaking into full-frontal blub when their German instructor lets them know it’s time to decline some verbs.  But somehow I don’t think that’ll ever happen; so my question is, if this is acceptable behavior, why won’t it?

My understanding is that math education is now moving toward “ethno-math” or “multi-cultural math”.
Apparently x^2+y^2=z^2 is oppressive, and must be taught with a respect to the mathematical contributions of historically under appreciated cultures.

“This unit is on evolution and biology.  You are expected to learn and understand the theory of evolution.  If you do not wish to do so, you can go play outside, or use the library or do whatever the hell you like during this perios outside this classroom, and I’ll mark yiu as “F” now.  That will save us all a lot of time.  Any questions?”

>>I’m sure DPirate will have a convincing argument against this list

Like I always say:

When scientists find a transitional fossil, they go “Woohoo! One less missing link!”

Creationists go “Woohoo! Two *more* missing links!”

Just for the heck of it:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution—The Scientific Case for Common Descent

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

bekabot - no it’s geometry that gets them. Apparently to some the bible clearly states that pi = 3. Other bibliolatrists have some involved reasons why the bible says 3.14, but the bible itself is actually rather unclear on the matter (shock!).

dpirate - our kids need less science? In what dimension? Evolution is the foundation of much of our study of biology as well as a ton of other fields. US students are frighteningly ignorant of the basic principles of science. Most people I start talking evolution with literally don’t even understand the basic science principles on which one would begin to build a scientific argument. Our kids need more science. A lot more science. I hit the basics of biology and evolution in middle school. By the time I graduated high school I had been through them three times at increasingly advanced levels. If I had to do it again, I’d take more science, not less, and I had probably double-to-triple the science teaching of most grade school kids. It’s immensely valuable in understanding the world at large, what scientists and their discoveries mean, how to think critically, how to avoid leaping to conclusions in the absence of evidence - for that matter, how to hold a cool idea (aka hypothesis) in your head in abeyance until it can be proved or disproved, something many people are very, very bad at.

ks - good for you. My parents and my algebra teacher both insisted that all math be done without calculators. I got into the habit, and never used them except on allowed tests (for speed). I blessed them with all my heart when my calculator batteries died ten minutes into my Regent’s Physics Exam. I finished the test on time and in good order (scored a 96, highest in the class), it simply took me about thirty minutes more than it would have with the calculator.

(Damian, there’s plenty of good dismissive phrases in the English language so no need to use a homophobic one.)

I’ve never found the phrase homophobic myself.

On calculators:

I’m in cooking school (pastry, to be specific).  A huge part of our early classwork was getting used to converting measurements when enlarging/decreasing recipes.  I was the only person in my class who didn’t use a calculator for this.  It didn’t occur to me that I would need one on the first test, and after that it became a point of pride.

“ZOMG, you want me to multiply by eight?!”

I weep for humanity.

“This is exactly why I don’t believe that parents should have the right to opt out of public education for their kids. “

There’s actually a rather large sub-group of homeschoolers who are liberal and secular. In fact, in my rather conservative town, they’re the most organized, visible, and largest group.

There are reasons to homeschool well beyond fundamentalism. Like my friend who’s aspie daughter wasn’t getting any special ed and had regular breakdowns in school. Or in my situation, where I’m so deeply disgusted with NCLB that I refuse to put my children through that, and thus they won’t be.

Oh, and the fact that I think they have a right to shit in private (not allowed in my district), and a bajillion other reasons that even a cursory glance around the internet will provide.

Amanda, I don’t think the indefensibility of the position is the issue for the weepers, although it is unquestionably the case for those who lay the foundations for the tears (which may be what you meant!).
As someone mentioned up thread, abortion can provoke the same reaction. I remember being 16 and reduced to tears while trying to argue against the morality of the death penalty. My tears were not due to the indefensibility of my arguements, but rather because the morality informing my position was so foundational to everything I understood to be right about the world that expressing support for the death penalty was the same as dismissing everything I thought was important. My experience was the result of growing up in a seriously Roman Catholic household. My parents hammered on social justice rather than the oppression of women (creationism isn’t really an R.C. thing; nothing will rationalize your stance on queers faster than a queer child), but I think the tears over evolution or same-sex marriage come from the same sort of experience.

Myself, I am a strong partisan of the queer arguement against same-sex marriage - a minority position, but eminently defensible!

A math anecdote:

I recently applied to a state health program, for which I had to fill out a bunch of forms, produce birth certificate/proof of residence/etc., including two recent pay stubs. I get the same amount every two weeks. At one point the woman who was helping me fill things out/verifying that I am indeed a state citizen wrote down that amount: ### x 2 = (well, it was the up & down format, but whatever), and I watched as the pen traced the numbers: 0 x 2 = 0. As she moved the pen up to the number in the 10s position, I told her what the total was. She took my word for it, explaining that she’d forgotten her calculator (now, we’ve all had those moments where we can’t quite figure out what 5x6 is unless we go through the motions of writing it down, but this wasn’t that).

The killer: the reason she needed to know my monthly income (represented by those two identical pay stubs right in front of her)—was to figure out what half of my monthly income is.

As some private Christian schools have found from a recent court ruling…..not teaching evolution or making false equivalences between evolution and “intelligent design” means their graduates won’t have the required science credits needed to gain admission to the UC schools. 

Moreover, considering most respectable colleges have a science requirement of some kind and most intro courses for science majors like intro to bio are weedout classes*.....all the fundamentalist parents are doing is setting their kids up to be shut out of many science majors and related careers…..like medicine…...

* A friend who was a bio major at Tufts recalled his intro to bio class had a 60% flunkout rate. 

The message should be clear: if you disrupt this class with immature behaviour, you’re out of it; if you’re out of the class, you don’t get your HS diploma; if you don’t get your HS diploma, no college for you.

Though I agree that students who attempt to obstruct the teaching of evolution in bio classes should be disciplined, the way you worded that sent a chill down my spine.

Considering the fact that insecure powertripping high school teachers cum petty tyrants do exist…do we want to risk the possibility of those types determining what constitutes “immature behavior” which could end up getting said student tossed from the class….and tossed from high school altogether for what could be disagreement? Seems quite reminiscent of tyrannical BS practiced by Fascist and Marxist-derived dictatorships.  Can an institution call itself an educational one if it demands unquestioning obedience with no questioning and dissent from its students???

FYI, it is not only fundamentalist kids who are labeled “immature” and “disruptive” by teachers.  Those who excel academically and who do not suffer fools gladly have also been labeled as such and punished accordingly for doing things such as pointing out the barely competent math teacher has messed up a demonstrated calculus problem…...or dissenting with a history teacher’s assertion that his/her interpretation of a given event is the only correct one.  This tendency and the level of severity of labeling/discipline is highly correlative with the “disruptive” student’s ability to support his/her point.   
The more s(he)‘s able to support his/her dissenting points….the more severely such a student will be punished. 

Witnessing this BS in junior high and even at my urban public magnet made me wonder at the irony of K-12 teachers* being able to act as petty tyrants if they so wished.  Oddly enough, the very “immature” and “disruptive” behaviors which got me and other high school classmates labeled and disciplined by school authorities were the very ones which caused us to excel in college from the moment we arrived on campus. 

Hell…..most of the college/grad school Profs I’ve had are usually most disappointed with students who are too quiet or “take the path of least resistance” by automatically agreeing with their take on the subject matter without much thought.

* This was one of the reasons why the vast majority of my high school classmates vowed with expressed disgust to never consider K-12 teaching as a career.

As for math….I was never allowed to use calculators for any math courses until I took calculus in my first year in college.  Sadly enough, there were many college first-years who had serious difficulties with basic math concepts such as multiplying and dividing fractions and who held on to calculators to do simple arithmetic(i.e. Doing 12 X 5 or 6 divided by 2) for dear life. 

After college, I decided to enroll in a summer stats course for econ majors at a certain Ivy-level school in the Boston area.  I was totally taken aback when one classmate who was also a working professional in the financial services industry along with some undergrads were surprised I was able to do long division on paper without skipping a beat.  Later, I found they had fallen victim to a habit common among most co-workers to use calculators to perform simple arithmetic.  Their amazement was weird as I was a horrid math student in high school (If one wants to be overly generous….W level grades).

you know, I understand the reasons why you want to re-teach the basics - because you don’t want students thinking the calculator is infallible and any answer they get must be right, no reason to re-check or consider whether it makes sense - however - I think this “We didn’t get to use no fancy-pant calculators in my day!” attitude is getting a little silly. Any job or higher level math class is going to let you use a calculator, it is stupid to sit there plotting out long division to the fifth decimal place when you have this magical device handy. I say this as a nurse, who was told to have a calculator for every exam and was provided one for my state boards, as well as having one nearby every time I turn around at work. I remember my stats class three years ago, “you could calculate these all out by hand, which would easily take up a large portion of class time, but since we have a computer program for that now we can move on to understanding how you’re going to gather data and use the results.” Besides which, not everyone is good at quick calculations. One of those new fangled concepts of intelligence, yeah, just because multiplication doesn’t make a lasting impression is hardly a cause to weep for humanity.

I was wondering through that, why didn’t the parents just homeschool instead of putting so much effort into indoctrinating their kids against evil biology? Just let them teach themselves. I was homeschooled in a crazy liberal household, so luckily did get taught evolution, but you know, a lot of people get to college without a great grounding in basics regardless of which school they went to. They take refresher courses, or they crash-course themselves through the basics to do well. It is hardly the worst fate in the world. Come to think of it, the highschool-level biology I took at community college didn’t cover evolution. Could’ve just done that, people.

Holy Spaghetti Monsters, Amanda, I was terrified to see that this article is from my hometown paper, and that I actually knew people who went to these high schools as a kid. Yes, my home county’s claim to fame is those stickers on the biology books—fortunately I graduated before those disgraceful wastes of tree pulp were put in the texts.

As I was growing up, I knew that plenty of my peers were very devout—but the region is really quite diverse, with many hyphenated-Americans and new immigrants, too. I never witnessed any of these products of ideological abuse, but then again I was generally enrolled in more accelerated courses—I wonder if there is a correspondence between the depth of the curriculum and the number of poor brainwashed children in them? Sigh, condemned not only to a profoundly anti-humanistic worldview, but a lack of useful scientific knowledge…

Hell, this hurt me. As someone who went to Christian school all her years, all I’ve known is evolution is not fact, has not been proven, has lots of problems, etc. And our school HAD a secular textbook, but the chapter on evolution was full of flimsy, easily-refuted-by-creationist-teacher support for it. I recently graduated and am not quite able to go to college just yet (long story).

So basically, I have little to no understanding of evolution and how it really works, and legit evidence for it, and its implications for the rest of biology, etc. I’ve long been taught to believe that evolution is not proven. I used to believe it; but like every other belief I’ve ever upheld—I’m questioning this too. I’m kinda pissed now, know what I’m sayin’? And I fail to see how believing in evolution is anti-God.

It’s not anti-god, or atheistic or anything like that. It just runs afoul of some verses in Genesis with a just-so story about how God created all the creatures of the Earth in a day, and let Adam name them.

Evolution doesn’t even explain how life, qua life, began. It just explains how it changes over time. So, yeah, there isn’t anything in evolution that is atheistic, per se, it just directly contradicts the Word of the Lord (thanks be to God) as expressed in Genesis. Evolution, like pretty much everything else in human logic and experience, contradicts a biblically fundamentalist view of the universe.

you know, I understand the reasons why you want to re-teach the basics - because you don’t want students thinking the calculator is infallible and any answer they get must be right, no reason to re-check or consider whether it makes sense - however - I think this “We didn’t get to use no fancy-pant calculators in my day!” attitude is getting a little silly.

If we’re talking astronomically large numbers, a long list of numbers to be arithmetically processed, or stats/calculus level or higher, I will agree with you. 

Unfortunately, what I have found among many co-workers, most lawyers, and some institutional bureaucrats/clerks is that their grasp of basic math is so poor they need a calculator to perform extremely simple arithmetic tasks such as 6 x 4…..and sadly enough…still getting it wrong. 

Worst manifestation of this was when the undergrad bursars office insisted I paid the full amount shown….even though there was ~$100 of overcharges due to a combination of tacking on services I never requested and what turned out to be simple arithmetic errors on the clerks’ part.  What was more aggravating was it took another 5-10 minutes to go over the bill three times because the bursar staffer had difficulty keeping up with my explanation of the arithmetic errors he made…...errors which no second grader I knew would have been caught dead making. 

Though I was finally able to get those overcharges taken off my college tuition bill, it was sad to see a supposed college graduate have so much trouble with simple arithmetic when his very job was to administer, calculate, and send out bills for college tuition, fees, and services. 

This is hardly a new observation, but what bothers religious fundamentalists about evolution isn’t that it challenges the omnipotence of God (Catholicism simply teaches that evolution is the process by which God creates life, as do many moderate Christian denominations), but that it disproves the supremacy and specialness of mankind.  Religious fundamentalism likes to push the message that its followers are so special that God will exempt them from the normal biological processes of life: rather than dying the usual way you’ll be taken up in the Rapture, you can have special sacred sex that’s better than the normal, dirty sex nonbelievers have, etc.  People like the idea that they’re angels rather than apes, that God has placed them above mere animals*, so evolution bugs them.  This whole debate isn’t about God; it’s about human ego.

*Until, of course, they need pseudo-scientific reasons to oppress women.  Then they’ll suddenly latch on to biology and believe any half-baked proof that sexist institutions have an evolutionary basis, as if being “natural” makes it okay.

St. Augustine can be blamed for a lot of awful ideas, but he did have one good one:

If the philosophers of nature say something that seems to contradict scripture, let it go. You can even feel free to learn it, if you wish. Nothing says you need to check your brain at the church door. Because the Bible is not a science textbook; it is about *salvation.*

Theories of nature are human accounts generated by thought as disciplined and lucid as human thought gets. As such they have no real bearing on one’s salvation, and so ultimately are extraneous to Christianity.

Fundies are poor excuses for Christians.

It just runs afoul of some verses in Genesis with a just-so story about how God created all the creatures of the Earth in a day, and let Adam name them.

Heck, GENESIS runs afoul of some verses in Genesis. Version I of the creation story has God making all the plants and animals and topping the whole thing off with Man. Version II has God making Man out of a barren Earth and then creating the plants and animals so he can name them.

You’d think somebody would pick up on this.

Glazius - Lots of people have picked up on the two creation stories in Genesis. It gets dealt with by the literalists mostly by never bringing it up and hoping others don’t notice. If they do notice, there follows much handwaving about how the two stories don’t really contradict each other; how one is an overview, while the other is a detail version; random mish-mashing of how the two actually fit together - LOOK! Evolutionsaysmanevolvedfromamonkey!!!

You’re missing the point here. The object of organized religion is not to offer anything practical or useful to its practitioners, but simply to act as a method of control. I admit it took me until 7th grade to figure that out, but once I did I embraced the knowledge fully. One of the best insights that’s ever come to me…

“doesn’t change your ability to
1. do your job
2. enjoy a summer day
3. fall in love
4. read literature”

1. It absolutely does, if your job has anything to do with biology.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo
3. OK, fair enough.
4. The best psychological models must come from an understanding of evolution by genetic selection and similar phenomena, IMO. Anyone can read literature, but it’s something else to appreciate it. Of course it’s lots of different things to different people, but surely all should strive for the best understanding of which they are capable?

Not understanding evolution is not like cutting off your pinkies. It’s like cutting off your index fingers, or at best your middle fingers.

Ashley - so what, now kids don’t get to go to the bathroom in private? Does someone stand there and watch them?

“My understanding is that math education is now moving toward “ethno-math” or “multi-cultural math”. “
Er. No. That’s a bullshit meme from the 80s.

Glazius—you’re assuming that fundies have read the Bible. They haven’t. They go to Bible Studies, where they are instructed to read very specific passages and then given a very specific interpretation. This is why they’re so quick to whip out John 3:16 or Leviticus 20:13, and they never talk about, say, Romans 2 or John 8—they don’t even know there are whole massive chapters of the Bible dedicated to humility, forgiveness, and tolerance.

I’m sure if anyone tried to read Matthew 5-7 they’d probably shout “No!” overtop of it.

I will pray for you, DPirate, that your heart be opened and your mind cleansed of bigotry and the gnawing, all-pervading fear that has paralyzed you.

As Ron White says, “You can’t fix stupid.”

Not even with prayer.

Margaret, have a look at these lectures for a summary of the basic concepts

http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

I’m fascinated by this.  And your comment at the end is what’s fascinating.

I will assume that was a rhetorical point “There’s no way to get education to a point where it’s completely depoliticized, but what bothers me so much about the creationists is that they waste so much time and energy defending something that has no real value.  “

People have been utterly warped by crazy nutjobs like James Dobson telling them that the bible is inerrant and literally true.  No mention of evolution in the Genesis stories (and note, there are TWO genesis stories included in the Bible.  I love that.), ergo, no evolution.

For biblical literalists, evolutionary theory is death, because if evolutionary theory is true, then the Bible is, by *their* definition, NOT true.  That’s why they fight so hard over the profound stupidity of creationism (the basic outlines of which are unchanged from the various immanent-god religions of ancient Egypt and Assyria).  Because if Genesis is not true, then everything else in the Bible is subject to doubt…or to interpretation, anyway.

Biblical literalists are disturbed people by definition, imho, and the fact that they enroll their children in their emotional disturbance is clinical psych 101:  ALL disturbed people work to draw those around them into their disturbance.  Delusions are so much more satisfying when they’re shared.

Add to that the evolution we have observed in short generation life forms from bacteria to mosquitoes.

Actually, last year or so we witnessed the first documented evolution of a higher life form (some sort of fish, don’t recall the details) to cross the species divide.

In DPirate’s defense, however, he referred to the the theory of evolution (descent of Man), whereas you referred to the fact of evolution (the process of genetic drift).

I don’t know, education has always been a battleground on which culture is destroyed. It’s kind of wierd to see progressive people take such a one sided view. If the world was run by creationists you would applaud these brave young people taking direct action and speaking truth to power by denouncing the lies of the patriarchal education authorities.

http://www.sbs.com.au/firstaustralians/index/index/epid/5

Watch the above link, and tell me about the truth of creation.

What I want to know is, have these people ever been to a zoo?

Because if you ever see a monkey at play, and then you see a human child on the playground, you can’t *doubt* that we are monkeys.

I am proud of my 2 year old. She swings from the bottom of the staircase banister at day care every day shouting, “I a monkey! Mommy, I a monkey!” There’s a little girl who will have no trouble growing up to be a scientist, doctor, or biotech professional.

Johno, why should we not teach the Egyptian creation myth? The Norse? There are not two sides here: there is a matter of demonstrated fact and myriad inadequate delusions and, latterly, deceptions. Truth is not a democracy.

The molecular biology(DNA) supports the theory of the descent of man, why else would human DNA be 94% identical to that of Pan troglodytes?

The genus Panis now considered to be part of the subfamily Homininae to which humans also belong. These two species are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans. Humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees five to eight million years ago.[43] Groundbreaking research by Mary-Claire King in 1973 found 99% identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees,[44] although research since has modified that finding to about 94%[45] commonality, with at least some of the difference occurring in ‘junk’ DNA. It has even been proposed that troglodytes and paniscus belong with sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. One argument for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees.

I’d have no problem with teaching Egyptian and Norse mythology. It’s just that Christians are the only(Western) cult that haven’t been destroyed by the patriarchal machine of enlightenment science. If you haven’t noticed, the west is working hard to destory the reputation of the current Egyptian religion.

Incidently, I posted the wrong link above, and it doesn’t make the point as well as the link I intended.

http://www.sbs.com.au/firstaustralians/index/index/epid/4

<quote>Catholicism simply teaches that evolution is the process by which God creates life, as do many moderate Christian denominations

there isn’t anything in evolution that is atheistic, per se, it just directly contradicts the Word of the Lord (thanks be to God) as expressed in Genesis</quote>

This is wrong for so many reasons.  As Bishop Berkeley wrote “it is wrong to think that God needs a mechanism to bring about his wishes, or that not needing one he will use it anyway” (paraphrasing from memory).

Also, when we’re tempted to think that evolution is a mechanism, remember that it is predicated on random changes over time.  That is, changes that are (by definition) unforeseeable.  If someone rolls a dice and gets 5, and says “I meant to do that”, we wouldn’t believe them.  By the same token there’s no way that a god could use evolution to create something because there is no way to know what evolution would lead to.

As for contradicting the word of the lord, as written in the Bible. . . well, if something contradicts the word of God, it contradicts the word of God.  The Bible clearly says that every word it contains comes from God and is not for private reinterpretation.  So if the Bible says “A” and reality says “not A” the Bible loses.

Finally, the origins of life itself are well within the bounds of evolution to describe.  Whether it’s a faster cheetah getting more prey or an amino acid with better properties of combining with other amino acids, evolution is the process of individual examples being selected for how well they can take advantage of their collective environment.  Scientists have done plenty of experiments to show how life-giving compounds can arise from basic chemicals, and how those compounds can recreate themselves until they lead to living organisms (see Stuart Kaufmann for instance).

the Bible is not a science textbook; it is about *salvation.*

True.  But the reason we need to be saved is because God created our ancestors in the garden of Eden and told them not to eat any apples, otherwise their descendants would be damned.  Otherwise there would be no need for salvation.

“I am proud of my 2 year old. She swings from the bottom of the staircase banister every day shouting, “I a monkey! Mommy, I a monkey!” “

Why is it cute when your child does that but not when I do it?  ; )

Notorious Pat, your arguments are incorrigable, and therefore, meaningless. You operate entirely within the world of the enligtenment, and therefore, you are irrelevant to any view of the world that is not based on white european power.

Notorious PAT, I think that your explaination fails for one specific reason. You are expecting a god to belong within the sphere of the natural. Those who believe in said god(s) put it(them) in the sphere of the supernatural. Therefore if said god rolled a dice and declared it would be a 5 and a 5 showed up, it wouldn’t be lucky chance, it would be the expected supernatural result.

Therefore (I have heard the religious state) given that god is supernatural, it is not outisde of the relm of possibility that god could use the mechanism of evolution to create life as it is today.

Sure, you don’t believe in a supernatural god, but if you are going to break down their argument you have to present it as they do, and break it down while positing (or totally disproving) a supernatural being.

Those of us not Down Under can’t see those videos.  I could use a proxy but don’t feel like it.

Johno, where would it stop? There are thousands, probably millions of gods and creation stories. Should we teach them all? When would there be time for real science?

If you are pretending to believe something to prove a point, it’s not very effective. You probably haven’t really understood it. What do you actually think yourself? Are you trying to object to relativism? It’s not an inherent part of feminism, you know.

“My understanding is that math education is now moving toward “ethno-math” or “multi-cultural math”. “

“Er. No. That’s a bullshit meme from the 80s. “

“You operate entirely within the world of the enligtenment, and therefore, you are irrelevant to any view of the world that is not based on white european power.”

Apparently Johno didn’t get that memo.

Johno, I love it when the wild-eyed irrational spew their cant.  Keep it up: the next line is “running-dog imperialists”.

“True.  But the reason we need to be saved is because God created our ancestors in the garden of Eden and told them not to eat any apples, otherwise their descendants would be damned.  Otherwise there would be no need for salvation”
Well not really. Even given the literal interpretation, ultimately we need salvation because God says it should be so (since he created the garden, gave us the choice, etc). So you can eliminate the literal bit and just say “we need salvation because God says it should be so”. The fundies like to pretend this is not allowed, but if you look closely the underlying justification is just dogmatic adherence to literalism. It’s a circular argument.

Those who believe in said god(s) put it(them) in the sphere of the supernatural. Therefore if said god rolled a dice and declared it would be a 5 and a 5 showed up, it wouldn’t be lucky chance, it would be the expected supernatural result.

That is true.  However, we are talking about events known to have taken place here on Earth (fish evolving into amphibians, apes evolving into humans, etc).  There is no way to have known beforehand how evolution in our natural world would turn out. 

And anyway, recourse to miracles opens up a whole other Pandora’s box of problems for the religious view.

You operate entirely within the world of the enligtenment, and therefore, you are irrelevant to any view of the world that is not based on white european power.

Nothing says “oppositoin to white European power” like defending Christianity.

Those of us not Down Under can’t see those videos.  I could use a proxy but don’t feel like it.

Seriously? That’s wierd. It’s so worth it though. People think of Australia as such a laid back country, but they actually refined genocide to such an amazing degree it actually seems laid back as well.

When would there be time for real science?

That’s exactly the point! There is no “real science”, simply interpretation of the world to fit the political agenda of the patriarchy. For example, the theory of Darwin was used as justification for Imperialism and slavery, as it was obvious that whites were superior to blacks and Asians, and therefore should rule over them.

jb, just because you say it doesn’t make it so. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So you can eliminate the literal bit and just say “we need salvation because God says it should be so”.

No, you can’t.  It says in the Bible that every word of the Bible is from God, and profitable for study.  Don’t blame me, I didn’t write it.

Keep it up: the next line is “running-dog imperialists”.

Oooh, that’s a good one.

the next line is “running-dog imperialists”.

I’ve actually lurked here quite a bit before I posted, and couldn’t help noticing your ‘big man on campus’ behavior.

It’s kind of funny that you would inadvertantly out yourself with the “running-dog imperialist” line. The term itself is obviously too old to have relevance, but the meaning is apt. You pretend to be progressive, but your real agend is your own ego, and that’s why you pretend to be progressive, while actually dismissing any real criticism of the patriarchy as some kind of socialist farce. Let me guess, next you’ll be asking ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?’ Because that would really shut me up, right?

Notorious PAT, I hear what you’re saying, I just think that you are arguing parallel to the religious people and won’t ever actually convince them of your point since you don’t appear to be listening to theirs. You went right back to talking only in the natural sphere when my point was about the supernatural one. Yes, evolution happened in the natural sphere, but that doesn’t absolutely preclude a supernatural clockwork god who set it all in motion and still tinkers from time to time. So it’s back to square one with the religious folk who don’t have a problem with evolution but think that their god may have had a hand in it. You aren’t going to be able to convince them otherwise because they can and will resort back to “miracles” which you exclude from the equation.

I guess my point here is to say “ya, some people believe that, but it isn’t testable by science as it is neither provable nor disprovable, and is outside of the sphere that science looks at. So let’s not waste science class time on theology and move on.”

“No, you can’t.  It says in the Bible that every word of the Bible is from God, and profitable for study.  Don’t blame me, I didn’t write it. “
Shakespeare is profitable for study. Should we take it literally?
And why does that God inspired a text mean it must be taken literally? Do you have chapter and verse for “every word” and “profitable for study”? They don’t sound familiar to me. Perhaps you refer to this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&version=31

A long way from advocating literalism.

That the NT is a non-literal interpretation of the OT should be a big clue, too.

I don’t know, education has always been a battleground on which culture is destroyed. It’s kind of wierd to see progressive people take such a one sided view. If the world was run by creationists you would applaud these brave young people taking direct action and speaking truth to power by denouncing the lies of the patriarchal education authorities.

What part of “it’s a science class in America” don’t you get? I’m all for studying religion, mythology, magic, and fairy tales in other classroom settings (comparative religion, literature, anthorpology, history of science, scientific ethics, etc.), but do you really think the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ and other supernatural beings have a place in the American science classroom?

Or is it that you think science classrooms don’t have a place in American public schools? I would agree that in most cases science shouldn’t be forced on those without a cultural foundation that allows them to accept it. However, the U.S. was founded on the principles of European Enlightenment thought, so it shouldn’t be particularly controversial that its public schools teach science. Those same Enlightenment principles now ensure that people who object to bad ol’ science can opt out of public schools (although, to draw the comparison with Australia, it’s true that Native Americans were not always given that option).

Of course, these whingeing Xtian fantasists would make a more convincing case if, like the Amish, they eschewed the products of Enlightenment science. But I’m betting every one of the fundie twits in that classroom was carrying a cell phone.

It’s just that Christians are the only(Western) cult that haven’t been destroyed by the patriarchal machine of enlightenment science.

We’re working on it.

There is no “real science”, simply interpretation of the world to fit the political agenda of the patriarchy.

Damned gravity, always supporting the political agenda of the patriarchy. I do have to admit that it would be awesome if a matriarchy of Wiccan crones ruled the world—with Newtonian laws repealed, you get real-life Quiddich!

“I guess my point here is to say “ya, some people believe that, but it isn’t testable by science as it is neither provable nor disprovable, and is outside of the sphere that science looks at. So let’s not waste science class time on theology and move on.” “
Nailed it.

What part of “it’s a science class in America” don’t you get? I’m all for studying religion, mythology, magic, and fairy tales in other classroom settings (comparative religion, literature, anthorpology, history of science, scientific ethics, etc.), but do you really think the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ and other supernatural beings have a place in the American science classroom?

It’s not about what I don’t get, dude, it’s about what you don’t get. You talk about “American Science” and the belief’s of other cultures as though they are totally different things.

“American Science” is one way of looking at the world, but to pretend it is more important than other cultural beliefs is arrogant and frankly the basis of Imperialist activity. “We know the truth, everyone else simply believes in superstition.”

And yet here we are on the brink of world destruction thanks to Global Warming, and your “Truth” brought us here.

“That’s exactly the point! There is no “real science”, simply interpretation of the world to fit the political agenda of the patriarchy. For example, the theory of Darwin was used as justification for Imperialism and slavery, as it was obvious that whites were superior to blacks and Asians, and therefore should rule over them. “
Ah, post-modernism. The intellectual acid bath that has tragically consumed many a good brain.

It is valid to say that the issues that are examined by science are (to a great extent, though less so recently) selected by the patriarchy. The greater influence of women had a big effect on the direction of developmental psychology, I understand.

It is also valid to say that the ideas of science are taken and used by political ideology. But this is not the process of science. It is the use of the artifacts of science as a camouflage for ideology. Specifically “social darwinism” has nothing to do with Darwinism, and certainly not contemporary neo-Darwinism. It’s a fancy name for the application of selective breeding to human beings, known of centuries before Darwin was born.

Also, we can examine the institutions that conduct science, and how they make gender related selections. But this is mostly to do with the presence of exceptional ability within populations. Let us put aside for a moment the mechanisms by which minds are trained, since these are not part of the apparatus of the scientific establishment, but of the mass educational establishments. The exceptional type of mind required for physics or mathematics as it is presently conducted is only found in a small fraction of the human population, i.e. those with exceptional spatial ability. That ability is found in a smaller fraction of the female population than the male population. This does not mean that (straight, otherwise ordinary) females with exceptional spatial ability do not exist. It just means that they are rarer than males with that ability. I accept that the presence of males and thus male culture makes life harder, and that’s why mentoring and other social programs are a necessity. But there is no female oriented physics or mathematics, and probably never will be by the nature of the subject.

The reverse seems to be true for biology, though I’m less clear on the social and ability filters working there. I get the impression it’s cultural due to a combination of (in aggregate) female empathy for animals and a subsequent critical mass of female biologists, but I’m very much prepared to accept that I’m completely wrong about that given sufficient evidence.

That’s exactly the point! There is no “real science”, simply interpretation of the world to fit the political agenda of the patriarchy

I would PAY, good money, to watch you spout this nonsense while you refuse lifesaving chemotherapy someday. Oh wait, you don’t WANT to die horribly of curable diseases? Too bad. No science for you, jackass.

p.s. “American science classroom” refers to the LOCATION of the classroom, not the “ethnicity” of the science. Quit being so goddamn stupid.

And yet here we are on the brink of world destruction thanks to Global Warming, and your “Truth” brought us here.

It’s not the *scientists* who brought us to global warming, douchenozzle. It’s idiots like YOU with your “science doesn’t count” garbage. Science is what’s going to save your sorry Aussie ass from starvation and death…if you STFU long enough to let it.

For example, the theory of Darwin was used as justification for Imperialism and slavery, as it was obvious that whites were superior to blacks and Asians, and therefore should rule over them.

Except that there’s NOTHING in the theory of evolution that says that Europeans/whites are superior to Africans/blacks or Asians.  Not one thing.  And everyone who honestly tested their theories about white superiority discovered that there was no such thing.

Arguing that science is bad because some people dishonestly manipulated science to get the results they wanted even if they weren’t scientifically valid is blaming the victim, don’t you think?

You may want to read The Mismeasure of Man and inform yourself about the difference between actual science vs. pseudoscience.

““American Science” is one way of looking at the world, but to pretend it is more important than other cultural beliefs is arrogant and frankly the basis of Imperialist activity. “We know the truth, everyone else simply believes in superstition.”

And yet here we are on the brink of world destruction thanks to Global Warming, and your “Truth” brought us here.”
Johnno, you confuse science with technology with industry.

Do you really think that the belief of a tribal group in the Amazon that the moon is 300 meters away is as able to get them there as the scientific view? A view which has its roots in the societies of and continues to be practiced in China, India, Japan, the old Islamic political regions, etc, none of which can be sensibly described as western, though perhaps as imperial (why the capitalization, BTW?). Could you explain how the origin of an assertion makes it any more or less testable or more or less truthful?

There is a grain of truth in what you say. We can overlook, for instance, the efficacy of traditional remedies. But the way to establish this is by conducting scientific experiments to test it, not to swallow literally and wholesale any kind of mythology that comes along.

The exceptional type of mind required for physics or mathematics as it is presently conducted is only found in a small fraction of the human population, i.e. those with exceptional spatial ability. That ability is found in a smaller fraction of the female population than the male population. This does not mean that (straight, otherwise ordinary) females with exceptional spatial ability do not exist. It just means that they are rarer than males with that ability.

Oh really? How do you know that? Has anyone ever found a way to measure that accurately without cultural influence? Or even tried?

The same argument could be made about any field of human endeavor. Why are there less female politicans, CEOs, etc. Why, because the qualities that create exceptionl performance are rarer in females than males!

It’s not about what I don’t get, dude, it’s about what you don’t get. You talk about “American Science” and the belief’s of other cultures as though they are totally different things.

Well first, be clear, I’m not talking about “American science,” I’m talking about Western science in American classrooms. That “American science” stuff went out the door with the Cold War.

Second, you’re accusing me (quite accurately) of treating science and religious beliefs as two different categories, and then following up by accusing me of comparing the two within the one category that you seem to lump them in. Since those contentions are at odds, I’m not sure what’s got you in such a lather, especially in the context of what goes on in a high school biology class in the U.S. ca. 2008.

My questions are aimed at drawing out your position. Do you want discussions of supernatural entities discussed in science classrooms in American public schools? Do you object to science classes in American public schools in general? Are you just trying to show your cultural sensitivity? (if you are, have a cookie) Or is it something else?

And yet here we are on the brink of world destruction thanks to Global Warming, and your “Truth” brought us here.

I don’t have much control over Newtonian or quantum physics, but if you have a working alternative that will allow non-polluting perpetual motion both I and that other evil proponent of Enlightenment and reason, Al Gore, would be interested in hearing it.

Yes, science is so hostile to those who aren’t white men.  Just look at poor Marie Curie, who had to be happy with a mere 2 Nobel Prizes (one each in chemistry and physics).  Nobels have been awarded for just over 100 years, and 13 of them have been awarded to women.  Compare that to the 2,000 year history of Christianity, with zero women popes, bishops, cardinals, etc.

2 Timothy 3 is exactly the kind of verse I was referring to.  So, how can one believe that “all scripture” is necessary for salvation yet skip over the parts that don’t mesh with our modern understanding of the world?  Maybe the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor.  Alright, a metaphor for what?  As for Shakespeare, as far as I know he never claimed to be writing anything but fiction.

“There is no ‘real science’” said the man, typing on a machine built of microchips and powered by electricity and made of plastic, that used satellite communications to transmit his words around the world, after which he ate food grown by chemical fertilizer and transported to his town with combustion engines by people whose survival into adulthood would be impossible without doctors and hospitals.

In the shower I remembered another reason why evolution isn’t a method to create human beings:  it never stops.  Humans may very well keep evolving.  For instance, if we pollute our world so bad we can’t clean it up, people may very well evolve mechanisms to survive such drastic conditions.  Or, some day people might go to live on another planet that is so far away interbreeding with people on Earth would be impossible; given enough time, this would lead to speciation.

Arguing that science is bad because some people dishonestly manipulated science to get the results they wanted even if they weren’t scientifically valid is blaming the victim, don’t you think?

All these arguments about how “isolated dishonest manipulation” and “Putting aside for a moment” and “etc” misses the whole point. The very fact that you fall back to these weak arguments so readily proves the fundamental flaws of “Western Scientific Truth.” It’s a sham which pretends to be true, until it’s proven untrue, and then you White Knights of the truth come up with your excuses, and reasons why it’s still true after all, despite the fact that it’s been shown untrue on multiple occasions.

You are warriors of Faith, just like the Christian Crusaders in Jerusalem, but you’ll probably kill more people before your lies are made publiuc.

the theory of Darwin was used as justification for Imperialism and slavery

Everyone knows there was no imperialism or slavery before Darwin published his ideas.  /sarcasm

You know, Johno - science is sort of like Churchill’s view on democracy. It’s a lousy way to discern truth from the piles of random facts, events, conflations and wishful thinking out there. It’s just better than anything else we’ve found. The scientific method is undeniably prone to the manipulations of the people doing the science, the political environment in which they are found, the preconceptions they bring to the table. What the scientific method does is allow some hope that we can gradually sort out better and more accurate views of the world from the chaff, given time and honest investigation.

The scientific method itself is not inextricably white and European any more than woven cloth, paper, or irrigation are. Sure those things have all been important to European civilization, but other peoples in other places can and have made use of the same principles and gotten some of the same results. The Europeans were just the first ones to codify the method and make it widespread.

“Oh really? How do you know that? Has anyone ever found a way to measure that accurately without cultural influence? Or even tried?”
Yes. One can measure the size of brain regions that determine spatial ability.

WRT CEOs, etc. Did you read the second past of my post? I accept there are social factors.

But consider also that the filters are against the abilities that women tend to have: perhaps businesses would work better if they drew on those talents. We don’t know as it’s not really been tried. However, maths and physics demonstrably require people with high spatial ability, just as being a racing driver requires someone with quick reactions and being a weight lifter requires strength.

None of this is to pass a value judgment on statistically sexed abilities, and I certainly accept that society does exactly that.

I love how in the middle of slamming “Western Science” Johno admits that he believes global warming to be fact.  Gee Johno, how did we know so much about global warming?

Everyone knows there was no imperialism or slavery before Darwin published his ideas.  /sarcasm

The unprecedented Imperialist expansion of the 19th century, while driven by economics and technology, was given an unquestionable moral foundation by scientific theories based on Darwins work. To ignore this is like saying that Hitler wasn’t a bad guy, because it’s not like no-one ever killed a Jew before Hitler came along. Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if you did say that, it’s generally believed that Germans received the most formal education out of any population in the lead up to WW2. They believed in Science too. They called it Eugenics, and it was “True.”

“Maybe the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor.  Alright, a metaphor for what?”
The authorial intent was almost certainly not that it be a metaphor. They probably believed it, having received it by oral tradition. But they were a primitive expressing God’s word as best as they knew how. We now know better, and so should understand it as if it were a metaphor. “A legend that tells us something of the nature of God and his act of creation” is possibly more accurate, but directs one to the belief that the story has nothing at all to do with reality—which is not necessarily the case.

This really isn’t a new idea. I’m surprised you find it so unusual.

Johnno on 10/27
Well done. You identified and correctly responded to a weak argument.

Could you respond to some of mine, please?

“Tapetum on 10/27 at 01:25 PM”
Science is better than you make out. It includes the notion of repeatability: it is not enough for one person or institution to do a few experiments and make pronouncements. The experiment must be repeatable. Anyone should be able to carry it out, and do so as many times as they choose. If they find they cannot, and they can repeatedly demonstrate that inability, something new has been discovered, and opinions must change to account for it. Failure to do so is a failure to conduct science.

There is a question of availability resources for many experiments. But vast swathes of the underpinnings of scientific theory really can be tested by anyone with moderate effort.

The unprecedented Imperialist expansion of the 19th century, while driven by economics and technology, was given an unquestionable moral foundation by scientific theories based on Darwins work.

No, the moral foundation was rooted in Christianity. The scientific foundation (bogus as it was) was based in Darwin’s work.

Culture can influence science negatively, both in terms of initial questions and premises (e.g. trying to prove that “chicks don’t do math”) and interpretation of outcomes (e.g. social Darwinism and The Bell Curve). That’s not a strong enough reason to eliminate biology classes from public schools, or to introduce discussions of magic and the moral dictates of supernatural beings into them. Those complex issues should be discussed, but that’s what History of Science and Scientific Ethics classes are for.

2 Timothy 3 is exactly the kind of verse I was referring to. 

“So, how can one believe that “all scripture” is necessary for salvation”
Huh? 2Tim3:14-17 make no such assertion. Are there verses in 2Tim3 that do?

“yet skip over the parts that don’t mesh with our modern understanding of the world? “
show me the scripture! [bounces basketball]

“As for Shakespeare, as far as I know he never claimed to be writing anything but fiction. “
You miss the point. I’ll try again: supposing them to be so worthy, how does worthiness of study of a set of multiplication tables or a telephone directory indicate that they are inspired by God?

“The scientific foundation (bogus as it was) was based in Darwin’s work. “
Really, it wasn’t. It was all about brand, not product.

Those complex issues should be discussed, but that’s what History of Science and Scientific Ethics classes are for.

See, this is the problem, putting Science on a pedestal as “Truth”, and relegating any discussion of the validity of that truth to a lesser status of “History of Science”, leaving the essential “Truth” of science safely isolated. Really, if questioning of science is going to be left to these secondary subjects it seems a verdict has already been reached.

“e.g. trying to prove that “chicks don’t do math”“

http://xkcd.com/385/

Just to be clear, you understand the difference between assertions about the modal features of a population and assertions about all members of a population, right?

“Really, if questioning of science is going to be left to these secondary subjects it seems a verdict has already been reached. “
What do you mean by the questioning of science? The questioning of the process, the social mechanisms surrounding it, the conclusions or its applications?
And don’t just say “all of them”. They are different things and to be convincing you need to explain why each is at fault, not just talk in broad, near-meaningless terms about “Science”. That would just be a failure of understanding on your part.

Culture can influence science negatively

This statement demonstrates absolute naivety of the real status of science and culture. They are the same thing, science is culture, culture science. Until you remove this divide from your perception of the world you have no hope of appreciating the nature of science/culture.

me - to be clear on what I was saying (or intending to say). Science when well practiced (or as you would probably say “real science”) is a good deal better than one would assume based on my statement. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of pseudo-science out there, dressed up as real science and given the same authority. Being the subjective beings, full of preconceptions that we are, it’s all too often years if not generations before some false assumptions and resultant false hypotheses are even questioned, let alone falsified.

See, this is the problem, putting Science on a pedestal as “Truth”, and relegating any discussion of the validity of that truth to a lesser status of “History of Science”, leaving the essential “Truth” of science safely isolated. Really, if questioning of science is going to be left to these secondary subjects it seems a verdict has already been reached.

Who’s saying “History of Science” or “Ethics of Science” are “lesser” disciplines? Studying those issues does depend first on a practical understanding of the topic at hand (the scientific method and basic Newtonian laws at a minimum). Gaining the basic footing in Western science necessary to critique it is something that American public schools are barely able to accomplish without Xtian fantasists moaning “noooooo” every time you examine how a particular theory was arrived at.

Now really, Johnno, between some pretty severe confusion over categories

Just to be clear, you understand the difference between assertions about the modal features of a population and assertions about all members of a population, right?

Absolutely. My point was that perfectly legitimate scientific enquiry is often driven or even initiated by cultural ideological motives, not all of which are positive. Like you, I’m trying to focus in on Johnno’s real objection to science in the classroom, and that requires his separating out neutral things like Newtonian laws and the scientific method from cultural and ideological influences. However, statements like this…

This statement demonstrates absolute naivety of the real status of science and culture. They are the same thing, science is culture, culture science. Until you remove this divide from your perception of the world you have no hope of appreciating the nature of science/culture.

... and his unwillingness to test his rather extreme holistic vision against the issue at hand by giving us his views on some basic questions indicates that we’ll get as far arguing with him as we would with the Xtian fantasists or “Turtles all the way down” guy.

Hey, Johnno just invoked Godwin’s Law! He loses.

Johnno, science—what is testable, quantifiable, and falsifiable—works for everyone on earth, not just those nasty western imperialists he likes to prattle about.

Tapetum. Not sure I quite agree with you. Psuedoscience exists outside the scientific establishment. There are mechanisms within it that are pretty effective at rejecting anything like that, though I think that sometimes excessively blunt instruments are used.

I should point out, too, that contrary to johnno’s claims, science does not claim to provide Truth, even though other institutions present it that way. A scientist who claims access to Truth betrays science, though it’s not that this never happens. It’s just not how science works. Science is a process. It is conducted by individuals within institutions influenced by the culture within themselves, those around them and the artifacts they encounter. And so it is conducted imperfectly.

Why do you think science, a process, is a culture, johnno? Do you think arithmetic is a culture? You are making a category error.

Scientists do overestimate their abilities. The guy who helped the corporations like GE claim that nuclear reactors like that on three mile island were safe thought he and his colleagues had access to solutions to all problems, they just hadn’t quite found the one they needed. He later came to regret the lies he told because of this. This is not a product of the scientific process, but of personal hubris and commercial pressures.

“Genesis isn’t oral tradition at all.  It was written by Jewish scholars”
Hm. I’m highly dubious. Will investigate further. What source do you draw this idea from?

So the Chinese use different mathematics from Americans to send a satellite into space, which then behaves according to a different understanding of physics?  Interesting…

They use (or used to use) different mathematical symbols for calculations, which indicates that Johnno is falling into the novice post-modernist’s trap of too quickly conflating the symbol with that it symbolises. In that, he’s not too far off from the Xtian fantasists.

All these arguments about how “isolated dishonest manipulation” and “Putting aside for a moment” and “etc” misses the whole point. The very fact that you fall back to these weak arguments so readily proves the fundamental flaws of “Western Scientific Truth.” It’s a sham which pretends to be true, until it’s proven untrue, and then you White Knights of the truth come up with your excuses, and reasons why it’s still true after all, despite the fact that it’s been shown untrue on multiple occasions.

Wow.  So there is no such thing as a “fact” and everything is culturally constructed?

Tell you what, Johnno.  Since “science” doesn’t exist, you should be able to go to the top of a 40-story building, fling yourself off the roof, and land safely unhurt at the bottom, correct?  After all, the “law” of gravity is just culturally constructed “science.”  Or is pointing out that the law of gravity means that you will die after jumping off a 40-story building just a “weak argument”?

“betrays science”
i.e. betrays the principles of science.

Studying those issues does depend first on a practical understanding of the topic at hand (the scientific method and basic Newtonian laws at a minimum).

See, that phrase “practical understanding” is really quite telling. The term “understanding” would have been sufficient, the sentence would still have made perfect sense, but you found it necessary to add that word “practical.” That’s the age-old vanity of Science and it’s devotees, the belief that it is practical, and everything else is impractical, and therefore of less value. That’s what makes it impossible to communicate with people like you, you’re so bound up in your faith in science that you are incapable of perceiving anything else as having value.

Tell you what, Johnno.  Since “science” doesn’t exist, you should be able to go to the top of a 40-story building, fling yourself off the roof, and land safely unhurt at the bottom, correct?  After all, the “law” of gravity is just culturally constructed “science.” Or is pointing out that the law of gravity means that you will die after jumping off a 40-story building just a “weak argument”?

No, sadly Johno’s white male Westernness means that he can’t help but fall victim to gravity’s horrible ethnocentric pull.

The Chinese, however, can totally fly unaided.

That’s what makes it impossible to communicate with people like you, you’re so bound up in your faith in science that you are incapable of perceiving anything else as having value.

Um…literature major over here. Clearly, I value only science…that is why I spent four years reading that bastard physicist, Shakespeare.

Does that indicate that our society values things besides science?  It would seem so…

It would, indeed, seem so, but deep down we all know it’s not the case. We pretend to be broadminded by studying safe old texts like Shakespeare, but Shakespeare is a safe text precisely because it is culture that doesn’t question the assumptions of science. It doesn’t challenge the view of the world offered in a biology or physics class. Shakespeare is safely contained in it’s own package, away from the “practical” classes that teach the “truth” of science.

That’s why I’m homeschooling my children, because even in supposedly non-scientific classes their is never any challenge to the assumptions of science, just indirect support, or at best, disconnection.

It’s a sham which pretends to be true, until it’s proven untrue, and then you White Knights of the truth come up with your excuses, and reasons why it’s still true after all, despite the fact that it’s been shown untrue on multiple occasions.

Projection, much?

One notes that the scam of religion prospers by postponing its biggest payoffs until after one is dead; that is, until it’s no longer possible to denounce the fraud when the promised result doesn’t happen. Quasi-religions such as communism that make the mistake of offering an illusory payout in this life don’t do so well.

That’s why I’m homeschooling my children,

Given what you’ve demonstrated of your abilities here, I think that might constitute child abuse.

Shakespeare is a safe text

Also, if you think this, you have GRAVELY misunderstood Shakespeare. (Shock!)

So the Chinese use different mathematics from Americans to send a satellite into space, which then behaves according to a different understanding of physics?  Interesting…

The Ancient Chinese, with an utterly different cultural background, came to the same conclusions about genuine scientific regularities such as Pythagoras’s theorem as the Ancient Greeks did. The two cultures differed in many other things, but the interesting point is, in such cases both sides were usually wrong (Four Elements vs. Five Forces, anyone?). Science is affected by culture, but science isn’t just culture. That claim is nothing but a nihilistic masturbation fantasy, “Ooooh! I can prove that science is IMPOSSIBLE!!”

what “assumptions of science” do you think need to be challenged?…

All of them, obviously, that’s the point. It’s kind of funny(also sad) that you don’t get that, after all this.

All of them, obviously, that’s the point.

It should be very easy for you to begin to get specific, then. But you aren’t. And that’s the point.

It doesn’t challenge the view of the world offered in a biology or physics class.

I’m getting the feeling that Johnno is upset that they don’t still teach the Four Humours in biology classes.  Why did they stop teaching something as science just because it’s been proven false?

He probably doesn’t have his kids vaccinated, either, since that’s completely unproven and probably fake, what with being science and all.  And, hey, it’s not like not getting vaccinated can harm children in any way, right?

All of them, obviously, that’s the point. It’s kind of funny(also sad) that you don’t get that, after all this.

Didn’t you know, Mike?  “Proof” and “facts” are inherently fascist!

All of them, obviously, that’s the point.

I would like to see you name ONE scientific assumption. You know, a *real* one, used by *actual* scientists…not one you pulled out of your antipodean ass.

See, that phrase “practical understanding” is really quite telling. The term “understanding” would have been sufficient, the sentence would still have made perfect sense, but you found it necessary to add that word “practical.”

No, outside your category- and distinction-free fantasy world, adjectives are important. The the sentence would not have conveyed my point without the word “practical.” That you misinterpreted the term as a value judgement rather than a simple distinction is your own problem—one not shared by most of us here in what your neoConservative counterparts dismissively call “the reality-based community.”

That’s what makes it impossible to communicate with people like you, you’re so bound up in your faith in science that you are incapable of perceiving anything else as having value.

“People like me”? That’s a whole lot of people (not nearly enough, but still…), so it must make your life generally impossible. But hey, you’re an iconoclast, a lonely voice in the wilderness. How’s that working for you?

As to your specific accusations, like many others here, I’m not a scientist, although I’ve been told by real scientists over the years that I’d be cut out for the general field. If I had the sort of blind faith you attribute to me, I would’ve gone into one of the disciplines that interests me.

In any case, faith has nothing to do with my support of public school science curricula. This would make perfect sense if you were capable of understanding what I meant by practical science.

That’s why I’m homeschooling my children, because even in supposedly non-scientific classes their is never any challenge to the assumptions of science, just indirect support, or at best, disconnection.

Which curriculum are you using? Jeebus is Magic? Foucault for Tots? Timecube?

All of them, obviously, that’s the point. It’s kind of funny(also sad) that you don’t get that, after all this.

I’m guessing his spouse used to bathe the babies.

“Challenge All Of Them”...which means what to you?  If you mean that our understand evolves as we learn, sure.  If you mean that religion must replace science…bullshit…

He’s spent the whole thread dodging that question, so I doubt you’ll get an answer.

“The unprecedented Imperialist expansion of the 19th century, while driven by economics and technology, was given an unquestionable moral foundation by scientific theories based on Darwins work.”

Except that it had to utterly misrepresent the meaning of Darwin’s work in order to do so.

“And yet here we are on the brink of world destruction thanks to Global Warming, and your “Truth” brought us here. “
Actually, our current situation is the result of thousands of years of habitat destruction/alteration beginning when we invented agriculture…

It’s true that science is only one way of looking at the world, and various world religions, philosophies and mythos are also valid ways of looking at the world. It’s also true that science is very poor at understanding certain categories of knowledge, such as, for example, handling phenomena that may or may not be repeatable, or dealing with emotion, and science cannot inherently speak to morality.

However, science is the *only* means we have ever found of practically manipulating the world around us to make *it* do what we want it to. Other means of thought are good at manipulating other people, or ourselves; that’s not what science is ideal for, and science is at its weakest when it is used to manipulate human behavior. If you want to find the meaning of life, experience transcendental emotional states, discover true love, or answer the question “Why is murder wrong”, well, science can’t help you there. But scientists have not claimed in the past 50 years that it *could* (it’s true that when science was young and feeling its oats, it tended to get too big for its britches.)

However, if you want to answer the question “I feel weak and tired and I’m peeing all the time and my vision is blurry and I feel a lot worse after I eat donuts, what’s wrong with me?” science tells us the answer is “probably diabetes, and if you want to feel better, shoot yourself up with some hormones we isolated and grew in bacteria in petri dishes, after first figuring out how to extract it from the blood of pigs. Also, stop eating donuts.”

If you want to answer the question, “How can I go faster than a horse?”, the answer science gives us is, “Build an engine that burns a compact fuel at sufficiently high levels of heat that the power generated drives pistons to cycle, thus causing an axle to turn, and you can then put two axles on a device and go really really fast.”

A lot of people were very interested in the question “How do I keep my babies from dying of fever?” Science answered the question. Now the death of a baby is *rare*. Go out to an old cemetary sometime, do some math on the tombstones, and count the dead babies. No other way of looking at the world—no religion, no philosophy, no mythos—had answered the dead baby problem until science came along. (Wait, that’s not true—religion answered the problem by saying “Don’t worry about it! As long as we performed our special ritual on your baby when it was born, then it’s happy in heaven with God!” Or, “Don’t worry about it—that was your baby’s karma. The suffering it endured in this life will allow it to be born into a better life next time!” Again, religion is good at modifying what you *think* about reality, but it cannot modify reality. Only science can do that.)

Being anti-science is, objectively, being pro-dead babies. Also, pro-dead diabetics, pro-dead women with difficult pregnancies (initially science screwed the pooch on this one, and for a short time, doctors actually *killed* more women in childbirth, but you know what fixed it? More and better science, that’s what. Now death in childbirth is much more rare in the developed world than in the places that don’t rely on science.) Pro-really bad teeth, pro-blind people having to beg because there’s no other work they’re able to do, pro-people living in tiny villages their whole lives and never getting to leave them or hear much about what happens in other villages except through wildly distorted orally transmitted stories. Pro-dysentery (science didn’t invent the city, but it did discover why we need sewers.) Pro-bubonic plague. (The Black Plague killed a third of Europe. Now it is treatable with antibiotics.)

This doesn’t make science better than religion. It makes science better than religion *at answering the questions about reality.* If you have no interest in making reality a better place for humans to live, you don’t need science.

Science in general doesn’t teach you to hate people who are different than you, or force partriarchy on you. In that way I do think it’s better. I can’t think of one, but I’ll allow there may be a religion somewhere that preaches neither hate nor oppression.

So basically, I have little to no understanding of evolution and how it really works, and legit evidence for it, and its implications for the rest of biology, etc. I’ve long been taught to believe that evolution is not proven. I used to believe it; but like every other belief I’ve ever upheld—I’m questioning this too. I’m kinda pissed now, know what I’m sayin’? And I fail to see how believing in evolution is anti-God.
I’m going to direct you to this book if you want to learn more about the theory:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225145037&sr=8-1

you know, I understand the reasons why you want to re-teach the basics - because you don’t want students thinking the calculator is infallible and any answer they get must be right, no reason to re-check or consider whether it makes sense - however - I think this “We didn’t get to use no fancy-pant calculators in my day!” attitude is getting a little silly.

No. Not at all.

Specialized situation here, I’ll grant you.

My husband recently received the opportunity to go back to school at 37 to plan for a career change. Based on the aptitude test, they put him into a mid-ability algebra class, because even through algebra is not required for an accounting career, just about every school has minimum “core classes” that are required.

He went through most of his school years with teachers allowing kids to use calculators relatively early. As a result of this “punch button” teaching, he has had to re-learn *several* mathematical principles, because teaching kids to press [2] and the little “squared” button does NOT prepare them for understanding that x^2 means x*x. The purpose of learning to do math by hand until advanced high school level math is to learn the principles of doing math, so that when you’re faced with stuff you can’t just punch into a calculator, you’re not left feeling stupid for not understanding WHY you’re doing all of this stuff.

You know, it’s kind of like trying to learn anything science related without being introduced to the scientific method.

Margaret, you may also enjoy Larry Gonick’s Cartoon History of the Universe.  It gives a concise (and entertaining) overview of everything from the Big Bang to basic evolution and covers some interesting stuff about early human civilizations up to about (I think) the Egyptians.

The term “understanding” would have been sufficient, the sentence would still have made perfect sense, but you found it necessary to add that word “practical.” That’s the age-old vanity of Science and it’s devotees, the belief that it is practical, and everything else is impractical, and therefore of less value.

Empirically, that’s borne out. I mean, how well did your Bible-based moon landing work out? Did you remember to install the drill at the top of your rocket, to penetrate the solid firmament described in Deuteronomy?

Science is absolutely unique in its ability to bring a useful (that is - not wrong) understanding of the world around us. There’s really no other epistemological method that even comes close. All the others produce results that cannot be distinguished from make-believe.

Falsifiability is the key to understanding science, IMHO:

In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. For example, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of everyday situations, but were falsified by Galileo’s experiments, and were themselves replaced by Newtonian mechanics, which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian mechanics’ reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. Or at least most of them; the size of the precession of the orbit of Mercury was not predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but was by Einstein’s general relativity. The Youngian wave theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous aether) replaced Newton’s (and many of the Classical Greeks’) particles of light but in its turn was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment, whose results were eventually understood as incompatible with an ether and which was superseded by Maxwell’s electrodynamics and Einstein’s special relativity, which did account for the new phenomena. Furthermore, Newtonian mechanics applied to the atomic scale was replaced with Quantum Mechanics, when the old theory couldn’t provide an answer to the Ultraviolet catastrophe, the Gibbs paradox, or how electron orbits could exist without the particles radiating away their energy and spiraling towards the centre. Thus the new theory had to posit the existence of unintuitive concepts such as Energy levels, Quanta and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

At each stage, experimental observation made a theory untenable (i.e., falsified it) and a new theory was found that had greater explanatory power (i.e., could account for the previously unexplained phenomena), and as a result, provided greater opportunity for its own falsification.

to the subject at hand:

Similarly, the evolution of the great apes and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor of apes and humans. This assertion could have been disproven with the invention of DNA analysis. Molecular biology identifies DNA as the mechanism for inherited traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis has shown that humans and the great apes share a large percentage of their DNA, and hence human evolution has passed a falsifiable test.

Popper himself drew a distinction between common descent and the process of natural selection. While he agreed common descent was falsifiable (he used the even more drastic example of the remains of a car in cambrian sediments),[15] Popper said that natural selection “is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme”.[16] However, Popper later said “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation.”[17] He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that “Darwin’s own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test.” However, “[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as ‘industrial melanism’, we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.”[17]

I may be speaking too soon, but did you notice how after johnno presented his/her climactic remark about homeschooling his/her children s/he vanished?  Sad sad trollery.

To Alara Rogers on 10/27 at 03:56 PM: That is a really interesting way of explaining things and I’m glad you posted it.

I grew up in a household with a decided fundamentalist lean and while I didn’t have nearly as bad as other kids, there was still lots of propaganda. There were lots of Bible studies that discussed strategies to deal with temptations of the world in education. We also got to pass around the tiny plastic fetuses a lot.

My high school did not have a Bible club and freshman year, my church friends (who also went to the school) and I were upset about that because people were trying to start an LGBT club and you know, those sexual deviants shouldn’t have a school-sponsored clue! Second semester I took an elective class and one of the guys I sat next to just so happened to be the one who was working on starting the LGBT group. It turned out we didn’t have a Bible club because no one wanted to do the paperwork, not because Satan was out to get us.

That’s kind of when it all started crumbling for me. (I’m really glad I met that guy, by the way.)

Also, the “This Is Evil!!” sermons decrying Halloween, Disney, and many, many other seemingly innocent tools of Satan were so patronizing that even my Biblebot fourteen year old self was like, “Dude, this is so bullshit.” I mean, call Harry Potter evil if you want – yeah, sure, whatevs, I didn’t find them all that interesting anyway – but to go after The Chronicles of Narnia?! Apparently obviously Christian allegory is evil, too.

Johno: “All of them!”
Palin:  “All of them!”

Is this some new meme of stupidity?

(And, I really, really, feel for Johno’s ‘children’, if they exist.)

+++++
Just went back and reread his smug dodgings.  It’s like a bad “Kung-Fu” script. Maybe he’s gone ‘cuz the RNC check bounced.

Sadly, it’s folks like Johno who make legitimate analysis of science in its social and historical context harder to do.