Evolution, scientific methods, and reason are losing in America's classrooms

[camanintx]

For example, there is a prevailing mindset that we represent man's pinnacle of evolution right now and that man has never exhibited a higher level of understanding and achievement in this planet's history. Those who endeavor to establish lines of investigation to question this because they believe man has had high civilization and technology in the past are mercilessly ridiculed as if they are questioning facts.

Did it ever occur to you that they were being ridiculed because their arguments are deserving of ridicule?

No one is being prevented from investigating alternatives to the Theory of Evolution, otherwise you wouldn't have the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis. But until they can produce a working theory which explains ALL of the evidence as well as or better than the TOE, they deserve to be laughed at when they hold themselves up as equals.

 

[kylixguru]

Except science isn't based on opinions.

Sound opinions are the lifeblood of the scientific process.

It's based on verifiable facts.

Science is the pursuit of verifiable facts.

It's no use ruminating on a position in science if it doesn't have any factual basis.

If there is integrity in the scientific process its conclusions shall lead to factual conclusions.

You could be of the opinion that the world is flat, and hold true to that position until you are presented with sufficient evidence that you are wrong, but once that evidence exists and has been widely understood what is the point of continuing to ruminate on the idea of the world being flat?

To teach young children how the scientific process works and how we are capable of holding ideas that are false until the evidence stares us in the face.

Evolution is such a widely accepted and evidenced theory that teaching it is no different to teaching that 1+1=2. It is just a fact, and it doesn't help students to confuse the issue by presenting them with unverified, non-scientific explanations without any facts to support them.

I guess it depends upon whether you view the science classroom as a place to cram the current view of things down children's head or whether or not you want to actually help them become scientifically minded so that they can use those skills in their lives to advance the ideals of scientific pursuit.

Do you or do you not teach your children about the occult or alchemy? If you do not, then it is for the same reasons we do not teach children about creationism.

Actually, I do recall on a few occassions talking at length about Sir Isaac Newton. Who, as I imagine you are aware, spent far more time involved in the study of the occult, Bible and alchemy than he did on the development of his mathematical and scientific endeavors. I believe, Sir Isaac Newton is still held in high regard among those in the scientific fields of endeavor. We talked about alchemy and I purchased a 6 CD set of a very detailed archive of alchemical diagrams and reference materials, etc. They are available to my children if they so desire.

That's not where my comparison lay, and you know it didn't. My comparison lay in your assertion that we should encourage critical thinking by presenting creationism in science class rooms.

I view the science classroom as having a greater importance to produce scientifically minded students than unthinking drones who have had their head crammed full of stuff in a boring way.

Now you're just being rude. Either respond to the point maturely or don't bother.

Yes, I was being rude. I apologize.

Again, you're showing a great deal of immaturity here. I hope such immaturity with regards to these extremely important issues is not communicated when you teach your children.

I teach my children that when people try to cram their ideas upon them instead of fostering an opportunity to make discoveries for themselves to be wary. Thus, I recognize and confess my own faltering in this dialog with you. I have tried to cram my ideas upon you and for that I apologize.

Don't get on a moral high horde just because you can't think of a reasoned response to the arguments that I have made. Like it or not, science is not philosophy. It is not about imagination. It is about facts, and science classrooms are for presenting those facts. Suggesting that only facts be taught in a science classroom is no more limiting to a child's imagination than suggesting that 1+1=2.

As I recall my science class when I was in school there was a fair amount of effort that went into what the scientific process was. Its foundation is a philosophy. The heart of any good scientist is his imagination as well as his ability to isolate and identify concrete facts. You seem to be trying to take the soul out of the process.

It may not be my place to judge, but if the way you're behaving with regards to this issue is any indication of what and how you teach your children, I seriously doubt they are being well served.

You are welcome to those doubts. I am confident my children will be scientists in the true sense. There is value in having children who are mere encyclopedias too, so to each their own.

 

[camanintx]

Actually, I do recall on a few occassions talking at length about Sir Isaac Newton. Who, as I imagine you are aware, spent far more time involved in the study of the occult, Bible and alchemy than he did on the development of his mathematical and scientific endeavors. I believe, Sir Isaac Newton is still held in high regard among those in the scientific fields of endeavor.

Thus proving that a scientist can be held in high esteem despite holding questionable beliefs, just as long as their scientific work is deserving.

 

[Skwim]

I am going to finish up existing conversations before I duck out. So, I'll be answering you eventually. My time is a bit constrained but I'll do my best to answer you. Unless you would rather I don't bother. I don't mind giving you the last word.

No need to bother, but take care where ever you go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess it depends upon whether you view the science classroom as a place to cram the current view of things down children's head or whether or not you want to actually help them become scientifically minded so that they can use those skills in their lives to advance the ideals of scientific pursuit.

I think this is a false characterization of the choices available.

You can honour the scientific method by teaching kids about what science has previously discovered and then have them engage in some exercises to question and then verify that what they've learned is indeed true.

There's simply not enough time to get the kids to derive every scientific theory in the curriculum. Not only that, but it'd be a pretty useless endeavour.

Kids need to know about the scientific method, yes. But they also need to know the current state of science. If you limit kids to learning only about what can be demonstrated as true in the course of a 1-hour class with the materials a school would have on hand, then the kids will miss out on a huge volume of stuff that they need to know.

 

[kylixguru]

Did it ever occur to you that they were being ridiculed because their arguments are deserving of ridicule?

No one is being prevented from investigating alternatives to the Theory of Evolution, otherwise you wouldn't have the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis. But until they can produce a working theory which explains ALL of the evidence as well as or better than the TOE, they deserve to be laughed at when they hold themselves up as equals.

You totally missed my point.

The theory of evolution does not explain why it is that most all of our advanced scientific discoveries have been sitting in the Vedic body of literature for over 5,000 years. And, as we are finding out, much of what we have today is because of early scientists getting English translations of the Vedic literature in order to extract their ideas.

The theory of evolution does not explain the massive monolithic stones at Baalbek, Easter Island, Stonehenge, etc. or the placement of megalithic constructions in precise geometric patterns upon planetary points.

The theory of evolution does not explain hard evidence of ancient maps that showed most of the entire globe at a time in history when the ocean level was about 400ft lower than it is today.

People have a right to examine these anomolies without having their intellectual integrity ridiculed and maligned. Yet, this is what a vast majority of "orthodox" scientists feel the need to do.

Now, as for the tremendous amount of efforts orthodox religious people are going to in order to try and prove their interpretation of the Torah creation account is correct, again, ridicule is unnecessary. They will reach the correct conclusion eventually. The more they are ridiculed, the longer it will take them to reach the correct conclusion.

The kind of dialog I advocate is for scientists to say, we won't say anything about the Bible because I have not read it myself or tried to decipher it. But, what I do know is the interpretation you have of the Bible is at odds with what we have demonstrated to be scientific fact.

Only a sloppy scientist would say "the Bible is a total piece of fiction".

 

[kylixguru]

I think this is a false characterization of the choices available.

Huh?

You can honour the scientific method by teaching kids about what science has previously discovered and then have them engage in some exercises to question and then verify that what they've learned is indeed true.

Right.

There's simply not enough time to get the kids to derive every scientific theory in the curriculum. Not only that, but it'd be a pretty useless endeavour.

I agree a "discovery" approach would take longer than a "cram" approach. But, I hardly think you can say there is no appreciable difference such that endeavoring to provide it would be useless. Learning by discovery is far superior to learning by wrote.

Now, in the context of having 25 or more children stuffed in a classroom for an hour at a time with one teacher on a very low budget, there are some natural constraints there. Also, since the goal of public education is to stamp out generally capable "workers", the level of quality of the education process can be compromised.

Kids need to know about the scientific method, yes. But they also need to know the current state of science. If you limit kids to learning only about what can be demonstrated as true in the course of a 1-hour class with the materials a school would have on hand, then the kids will miss out on a huge volume of stuff that they need to know.

That is why my children are not held within the constraints of a 1-hour class and the measly budget extracted off our property taxes.

You advocate raising drones.
I advocate raising children.

 

[kylixguru]

No need to bother, but take care where ever you go.

Thanks! You too!

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

The theory of evolution does not explain ...

Evolution is a fact.
There is also a theory to explain those facts.

Sadly, you just don't grasp the basics.


Iasion

 

[kylixguru]

Evolution is a fact.

Where did I say otherwise?

There is also a theory to explain those facts.

There are also a boat load of presumptions people prop up by those facts.

Sadly, you just don't grasp the basics.

Sadly, you are demonstrating the hubris I am referring to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree a "discovery" approach would take longer than a "cram" approach. But, I hardly think you can say there is no appreciable difference such that endeavoring to provide it would be useless. Learning by discovery is far superior to learning by wrote.

But there's a third option: teach the kids the facts, and then give them the tools of the scientific method and critical thinking to examine them and see for themselves that they're correct.

Now, in the context of having 25 or more children stuffed in a classroom for an hour at a time with one teacher on a very low budget, there are some natural constraints there. Also, since the goal of public education is to stamp out generally capable "workers", the level of quality of the education process can be compromised.

That is why my children are not held within the constraints of a 1-hour class and the measly budget extracted off our property taxes.

So you have direct access to fossil digs in the Gobi desert? To particle accelerators that can reveal the structure of the atomic nucleus? You can take a few hundred years out of your children's schedule to have them watch a species change in response to environmental pressures?

There is a huge range of important material that can't be taught to a child directly. You're going to have to rely on the words of others in some way. If you don't, then the material just doesn't get taught.

The trick is to balance teaching (not cramming, but actually teaching) the material with also teaching the tools that allow the children to critically examine what they're being taught.

You advocate raising drones.
I advocate raising children.

Baloney.

In fact, I spend a considerable amount of my time coaching and facilitating kids as they engage in the sort of discovery you describe. I see great value in teaching kids to test their ideas and their understanding of the world whenever they can.

However, I don't think that useful, important things shouldn't be taught to children just because the children don't have the means to test them directly themselves.

 

[David M]

You totally missed my point.

The theory of evolution does not explain why it is that most all of our advanced scientific discoveries have been sitting in the Vedic body of literature for over 5,000 years. And, as we are finding out, much of what we have today is because of early scientists getting English translations of the Vedic literature in order to extract their ideas.

Even if this were true the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not need to explain this because the ToE is about Biology and not history.

Your agument is akin to saying "ToE does not explain Gravity, and that is a big problem".

The theory of evolution does not explain the massive monolithic stones at Baalbek, Easter Island, Stonehenge, etc. or the placement of megalithic constructions in precise geometric patterns upon planetary points.

Even if this were true the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not need to explain this because the ToE is about Biology and not history.

The theory of evolution does not explain hard evidence of ancient maps that showed most of the entire globe at a time in history when the ocean level was about 400ft lower than it is today.

Even if this were true the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not need to explain this because the ToE is about Biology and not history.

People have a right to examine these anomolies without having their intellectual integrity ridiculed and maligned. Yet, this is what a vast majority of "orthodox" scientists feel the need to do.

That ridicule is because the evidence does not support the claims. And either way this has nothing to do with ToE as these things have nothing to do with Biology and how species diversify and change.

 

[kylixguru]

Even if this were true the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not need to explain this because the ToE is about Biology and not history.

My oh my... I'm talking about scientists who use the Theory of Evolution as a basis to disparge those who make reference to very evolved and advanced knowledge being in our ancient past.

Your agument is akin to saying "ToE does not explain Gravity, and that is a big problem".

Sigh...

Even if this were true the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not need to explain this because the ToE is about Biology and not history.

Can't you see this is the point I was trying to make?

Why ridicule and disparge individuals who try to explain things that are anomolous to the assumptions people are making with the Theory of Evolution as its basis? The people being disparged are not questioning the facts of evolution. They are merely trying to understand factual evidence that exists suggesting we have had very high civilization and technology in our planet's distant past.

Even if this were true the Theory of Evolution (ToE) does not need to explain this because the ToE is about Biology and not history.

Exactly, my point again.

That ridicule is because the evidence does not support the claims. And either way this has nothing to do with ToE as these things have nothing to do with Biology and how species diversify and change.

There is a lot of ridicule that crosses boundaries that should not be crossed. Agreed?

 

[kylixguru]

But there's a third option: teach the kids the facts, and then give them the tools of the scientific method and critical thinking to examine them and see for themselves that they're correct.

That is the option I've been advocating, which of necessity includes some material for context for purposes of comparison. Such as "people used to believe the earth was flat". I am also saying "some people believe in Creationism which is..." And, I'm saying it would be fair to point out the fact that they have no hard evidence to support it. But, at the same time, I am saying if this is done it should be done in an objective manner without ridicule and without going beyond any boundaries. They should stop short at addressing how Creationists interpret the Bible and not in any way disparge the Bible itself.

So you have direct access to fossil digs in the Gobi desert? To particle accelerators that can reveal the structure of the atomic nucleus? You can take a few hundred years out of your children's schedule to have them watch a species change in response to environmental pressures?

I'll do with them all that I can. Obviously we all have practical restraints.

There is a huge range of important material that can't be taught to a child directly. You're going to have to rely on the words of others in some way. If you don't, then the material just doesn't get taught.

Of course. But, there is still a lot that can be done to enhance a child's learning experience in many meaningful ways. And, the worst thing you can do is ridicule.

The trick is to balance teaching (not cramming, but actually teaching) the material with also teaching the tools that allow the children to critically examine what they're being taught.

Have I said anything contrary to that? It's not a trick, to me it's just common sense and respect to the student.

In fact, I spend a considerable amount of my time coaching and facilitating kids as they engage in the sort of discovery you describe. I see great value in teaching kids to test their ideas and their understanding of the world whenever they can.

Well, what's your beef with my points then?

However, I don't think that useful, important things shouldn't be taught to children just because the children don't have the means to test them directly themselves.

For Pete's sake, why stuff such absurdity in my mouth? I didn't advocate that children should be deprived of anything. I am merely advocating a context that doesn't cause them shame (for themselves or anyone else) and that as much as possible allows them to approach learning in the spirit of discovery rather than dry boring wrote in the spirit of "we have done your thinking for you and this is what you are supposed to think".

 

[kylixguru]

Thus proving that a scientist can be held in high esteem despite holding questionable beliefs, just as long as their scientific work is deserving.

Despite? The whole of his scientific work was a product of his other pursuits. And, you have the audacity to say 'despite' the very thrust of his whole line of inquiry? His invention of the Calculus was to better facilitate his efforts to understand light, chemistry, etc. for the purpose of understanding holy writ. You can 'question' those pursuits all you want, but you cannot separate them using the word 'despite'.

His great contributions to math and science were 'because of' not 'despite' those things you hold questionable.

 

[Gunfingers]

Alright, Jbug, i want you to examine your chain of logic and see if you can figure out where it breaks down.

"Because children should be taught critical thinking and to question all assumptions, thoroughly discredited pseudoscience should be included in science curriculums."

Now you've got a good premise there. Everyone wants smarter, more intellectual kids*. Your conclusion, however, in addition to being infeasible (how will we fit every "commonly held belief" in the already overtaxed science curriculum?), is a complete nonsequiter. Learning pseudoscience does nothing to encourage critical thinking, nor does it encourage the questioning of assumptions.


*Everyone except THE MAN.

 

[Skwim]

Alright, Jbug, i want you to examine your chain of logic and see if you can figure out where it breaks down.

"Because children should be taught critical thinking and to question all assumptions, thoroughly discredited pseudoscience should be included in science curriculums."

Now you've got a good premise there. Everyone wants smarter, more intellectual kids*. Your conclusion, however, in addition to being infeasible (how will we fit every "commonly held belief" in the already overtaxed science curriculum?), is a complete nonsequiter. Learning pseudoscience does nothing to encourage critical thinking, nor does it encourage the questioning of assumptions.


*Everyone except THE MAN.

Jbug's specious and wheedling reasoning here has but one aim: to get creationism into public school classrooms. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is smoke and mirrors.

 

[outhouse]

Jbug's specious and wheedling reasoning here has but one aim: to get creationism into public school classrooms. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is smoke and mirrors.

thankfully creation is outlawed from public schools and it wont ever get reversed.

 

[Skwim]

thankfully creation is outlawed from public schools and it wont ever get reversed.

If only.

From my OP:

"In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.'"
​

 

[outhouse]

If only.

From my OP:

"In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light." Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.'"
​

I undrstand the fight isnt over

teachers in the bible belt are a joke

theres plenty of youtube vids that show teachers and students complete ignorance