Comments on: Evolution Education in Texas

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:33:43 +0000

That words have precise meaning (even though many of us are very sloppy in our use of them). That precise and often subtle meaning can have powerful consequences is not lost on those who have been undermining science standards.

By: Kirsten Sanford

Kirsten Sanford — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:23:34 +0000

@alloycowboy

Yes, we must hit the panic button.

There are many responsible parents in the world who help to teach their children to think critically, and to always look for additional sources of information. However, there are many who do not.

For the children of the latter grouping of parents, the information they get from the school books is essential to their education. It might be all they ever get.

Should we accept sub-standard textbooks that promote inaccurate interpretations of science in our schools because we expect students to get their information elsewhere?

Science is a tool for gathering knowledge about the world. It is a framework for asking and answering questions. Theological discussions of such questions are not appropriate for the science classroom, and theology’s influence should not be felt in science textbooks.

Science is precise. The language that is used to teach it should be just as precise. Otherwise, we aren’t teaching science, we are teaching ideology.

By: alloycowboy

alloycowboy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:09:39 +0000

Must we always hit the panic button for the issue of Evolution in the science books. I think most students looking at the material for the theory of evolution are more then capable of a making a decision for themselves. Also most students will more then likely pull material from other sources to get a deeper understanding of the subject material. So to haggle over the precise wording in a science book is really a waste of time.

To answer your question statement Kirsten, “How does Science know that human beings came to be?” It doesn’t the essence of being and of existence is a philosophy question and way beyond the scope of the scientific method. Science is fundamentally a knowledge of things through their proper causes. In other words science measures things. Science can prove we are a live by measuring are blood pressure and our heart beat. Science can also point out that the human body is a product of a series of chemical reactions and the constraints surrounding those chemical reactions. But Science can not answer the question what it means to “be”, that is a question for philosophy.

Here is a better example. Take Love for example. Science can’t tell us what love is. It can measure the level of different hormones in the human body, perhaps measure a change in body temperature or blood pressure but science can not define what love is. That is an another question for Philosophy.

So when the question comes up in high school biology class, where did we come from? To answer the question properly involves issues that touch on science, philosophy, and for some theology as well.

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:58:22 +0000

@Jeffrey Lemkin:

Stephen Gould did attract criticism from horrible people like me who called him an apologist for religion. Gould either refused to acknowledge dogmatic belief as anathema to science and progress or else he was trying to make peace between science and religion - either way he was wrong in doing so. Reason remains the greatest enemy of any religion; religious institutions have lamented over the past centuries that education, and specifically the encouragement to think and reason correctly, was to blame for their decline. Does the pope ever make a speech about how science and reason have been responsible for feeding an ever-growing population? No, but the pope (pick any of them) loves to give a speech on how reason is to blame for all the evils of the world because it causes people to forget about their gods. You can hear the same nonsense from any cult of unreason.

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:23:05 +0000

The alternative to scientific uncertainty is religious certitude which of course is a euphemism for stupendous ignorance. I know because my fairy book told me so.

By: Chuck Appelquist

Chuck Appelquist — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:54:38 +0000

Kirsten,
Just let me say that you really Excel at communicating your ideas both in your writing AND on This Week In Science. I love the conversational tone and ease with which you bring a Science/fact based point of view to the topics you communicate about.
Keep up the great work!

By: James Webster

James Webster — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:40:10 +0000

Thoughts are things. It takes the same amount of energy to think about science as it does creationism. They both burn the same calories at the same pace. The difference is that science doesn’t deliberately think the same thought all the time. So I would suggest that we tax same though people at a higher rate than people that are open to new thoughts. Now for the challenge for science it to develop a new thought and thoughtless tax structure. I sure the creationists would never think of that.

By: DataJack

DataJack — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:38:17 +0000

This is crazy. How can this happen in America?

By: Jeffrey Lemkin

Jeffrey Lemkin — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:16:37 +0000

The 20 year old language in Texas law requiring teachers to teach strength as doubt and serving as a lever for the promulgation of specific religious beliefs in the classroom - was struck down today (yesterday?). The late Stephen Jay Gould in (I believe) his book Rock of Ages, made a compelling and entertaining argument that this controversy didn’t need to exist at all. If we viewed religion and science as what he called “non-overlapping magisterium”, it would be simple to teach religion (not in the schools!) as religion w/out its silly intrusion on science. Conversely, it would be simple to teach science in the schools (where, aside from everywhere, is where it belongs) without intruding on religious beliefs.
Despite this modest victory for rationality (in the areas where rationality belongs, thank you SJG), it’s still interesting to learn that regular Gallup polls place the number of Americans who believe that man emerged in the, oh, past 10,000 years or so when the “earth was created” at close to 50%. I wonder how many people believe that Man sprang full blown from the forehead of. . . .naahhh! We’ve just substituted an “on the face of it silly by today’s standards” creation myth with a more acceptable one.

Love your blog. Keep up the good work!!

Cheers

-Jeff