May 24, 2005

Creationists strike back ... in the classroom

I ran across this article in the Christian Science Monitor.

Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate

To sum up: Some biology teachers report that a challenge to evolution is coming ... from their students. This is exactly what I have seen happening for years. Proponents of creationism have been systematically getting smarter, coming up with arguments against evolution, and spreading their teachings in churches, books, videos, CDs, websites, you name it. All this time, evolutionists have either been blissfully unaware of the rising organized resistance, or have discounted its power.

Now, science teachers are reporting that students are coming in to class armed with specific ways to challenge the teacher and the curriculum. They're armed with "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher." And teachers are saying that their job is getting tougher and tougher.

Personally, I think it's great that students are challenging teachers. Although I am a hardcore evolutionist, I have no problem with creationism being discussed in schools. Creationist teachings are being promulgated in churches across the country. The majority of evolutionists I know seem to be opposed to any mention of creationism in school. But if creationism isn't critically discussed in schools -- where will it be discussed? Where will it be seriously challenged? Some of these kids are receiving a steady diet of crap science and bad logic, and they're being told that the secular world is their enemy. But if no one ever points out the problems with creationist teachings to them, then what? Then we have set up an us vs. them scenario, where good Christians learn everythign about evolution in the pulpit, and secular scientists are the enemy.

One of the greatest lessons I learned from the Jesuits at Georgetown was that ideas are nothing to fear. The way to the truth is to question and examine ideas critically. False ideas collapse under scrutiny. I don't find the idea of creationism a threat at all. In fact, if after carefully examining the evidence, someone concludes that the creatures of the earth were created as they are in seven days, more power to them. But I hope they get there after carefully examining the facts ... not Darwin's interpretation of the facts, or a teacher's interpretation, or a pastor's interpretation, or a creation scientist's interpretation. In my view, the facts lead inevitably to the conclusion that evolution happened. Whether you like that idea or not doesn't change its truth.

As for how science should be taught in school, I think it has to be based in evolutionary theory. There is no way around it. Evolution and natural selection provide the underlying logic for our modern understanding of biological processes. Of course, in Kansas, they are trying to redefine what science is, so any number of alternative theories can be taught in school as legitimate science. ReluctantCynic wrote an interesting reflection on this debate in his blog.

Tomorrow: How would you respond to the Ten Questions To Ask Your Biology Teacher? I'm going to give it a shot.

2 Comments:

At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Vermin answers the "10 Questions..."

Smartass Creationist Punk (SCP):
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Prof.Vermin (PV):
"probably" not like those used in the experiment? So you concede that they "might" be EXACTLY like they were in the experiment? Get out of my class. THe origin of life remains a mystery? A mystery to who? I thought you bible-thumpers had it all figgered out. Mr. Invisible waved his arms and everything popped into place, right? Nice to have 100% of an idea in place, I guess. As I expect I'm going to repeat several times here, just because an idea or theory isn't FULLY fleshed out, doesn't mean you can automatically discount it.

(SCP):
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

(PV):
I dunno, ask a textbook author. Maybe an explanation for the "explosion" is that something happened in that period that preserved an assload of animals all at once. Not every animal that ever existed turned into a fossil. It takes precise, rare conditions.

(SCP):
HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

(PV):
Are you arguing science or semantics here? Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

(SCP):
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

(PV):
Really? You're gonna have to show me some textbooks as examples. I don't believe there are too many books still in print with recognized faked pictures in 'em, you budding young conspiracy theorist, you.

(SCP):
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

(PV):
Again with the "probably"? Get out. The anscestors don't appear until millions of years later? See my "not every animal leaves a fossil" point. And evolution doesn't work on a strict timetable. How long have horseshoe crabs and cock-a-roaches been static evolutionarily?

(SCP):
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

(PV):
Staged pictures, eh? Whoa. Let's see, I've seen movies about WWII... made with actors, only *pretending* to be fighting soldiers. So I guess the war never actually happened, eh?

(SCP):
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

(PV):
Dude, the beaks changed becuase of changes in the environment, right? That's natural selection. The beaks changed back when the environmental changed back? Hey, guess what THAT is???

(SCP):
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

(PV):
What, you've never heard of the killer swarms of four-winged fruit flies that fly over Finland every fourth Friday in February?

Not every mutation gets passed on, genius.

(SCP):
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

(PV):
Materialistic? Are we talking psychology now? Ethics?
And what, not every fossil expert is in complete agreement? Hmmm. I guess evolutionary science has a long way to go before it reaches the 100% agreement and conformity that everyone who believes in creation has. You guys have all the exact same idea about God and how to worship him (or her), right?

(SCP):
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

(PV):
See the Kilbotron for long discussions and explanations on the semantics behind "fact" and "theory", both of which you're misusing in this context.

Now step up to the front of the class.

(to class): Now, see how SCP's face discolors and swells up when I punch it? This isn't technically evidence of natural selection, but it's definitely fun. Form a line to my left.

 
At 1:29 AM, Blogger Lucie said...

marking up with a red pen... mmm hmmm, not bad, got a couple messed up there. According to my grading system, you get a 65% on your answers. That's about as well as the average student did when I taught evolution at Cornell. Not too shabby. I suggest a few extra study sessions with your professor.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home