db

David Bradley’s last blog post..Nature’s Missing Crystal - Found It!

As a grad student I had the experience of leading a tutorial for a 4th year course on Evolutionary Ecology. One of the students had done his prior schooling at a baptist university. It was interesting to see how his attitude changed over the duration of the course. At one of the early tutorials he scoffed at the idea that humans and fish shared a common ancestor. He was a smart student though, and as the course progressed it was clear in the tutorials, his assignments, and his discussions with me that he was more and more conflicted about evolution. He could no longer dismiss evolution outright, even though it went against everything that he had learned prior to the course. There was just too much scientific evidence.

Claire’s last blog post..Tools Are Important (but they?re still just tools)

I didn’t get to “survey” all of our teachers, but had an enlightening conversation with our middle school (grades 7 & science teacher.

The New York State Core Curriculum
http://tinyurl.com/285kvy
required that in Intermediate Science (Gr. 5 - 8), students be taught Key Idea 3:

“Individual organisms and species change over time.” The introduction to Key Idea 3 specifically states that “Evolution is the change in a species over tiem…Generally this diversity of species developed through gradual processes of change occurring over many generations.”

Performance Indicator 3.2, Major Understanding 3.2c says:

“Many thousands of layers of sedimentary rock provide evidence for the long history of Earth and for the long history of changing lifeforms whose remains are found in the rocks.”

In the Living Environment Core Curriculum (high school), under the same Key Idea 3:

“Evolution is the change of species over time. This theory is the central unifying theme of biology. This change over time is well documented by extensive evidence from a wide variety of sources…”

The Elementary Science Core Curriculum (K-4) includes Key Idea 3 but emphasizes “change” rather than “evolution”.

My science colleague says that when she gets to this portion of the curriculum, she tells students that she means no disrespect to their religious beliefs, but the theory of evolution is in the required state curriculum and that is what will be taught in the class.

I’m not aware of any parents in our area challenging this curriculum.

diane

diane’s last blog post..Splitting the Atom

Political blog Crooks and Liars featured it in their weekly blog round-up, and pushed about 1,000 readers from there to here. They had much interesting stuff to say. Teachers, with one exception, didn’t say a word.

More evidence of fear and irrelevance in education. Anonymous comments at least would have been nice, pro or con. It’s the refusal to even discuss or reflect that is so disturbing.

My question, really, is this: are teachers blind to the relevance of religion (especially in the US) in their political and cultural futures? Don’t they see the connections between religion and war, religion and anti-environmentalism, religion and racism, anti-feminism, epistemology, ontology, and so many other things? Do they think it’s just some quaint little private matter we should just “humor” or “tolerate”? Don’t they see how it infects so much of our collective future with the worst of our deep past?

And wasn’t the island of Palau high on that happiness list too? Maybe there’s something about island living?

@Claire: I hope one day to write a fictional account of an experience teaching history I had. Modern history. We started with the transition from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, and Martin Luther’s Reformation. The students yawned through Luther’s earth-shaking challenge to the faith (”earth-shaking” for blighted Europe, anyway - we have to remember that Buddhist Asia has been immune from this problem for its entire history, Korea notwithstanding ).

I wasn’t going to let them get away with that. I returned to Luther at the end of the unit by introducing Bishop John Shelby Spong’s “Call for a New Reformation” (1990s), which argues that practically all the articles of faith in the Nicene Creed - the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the second coming, the Trinity, the reality of heaven and hell, the literal truth of any claims in the Bible - were tribal myths from Iron Age nomads - genocidal ones, at that -and that for Christianity to survive as a religion at all, it had to come to terms with the findings of modern science.

Bam. They felt the earth shake now. And what did they do when confronted with this argument from our contemporary Luther (remember, he’s an Episcopalian man of the cloth)? Some were fine with it, but one - whose family contained three generations of preachers whose livelihood depended on the perpetuation of these myths via the offering plate each Sunday - that one told mother. Mother tried to get me fired. My admin saw the historically powerful relevance of the Luther - Spong connection in my unit plan, and sided with me. I was very proud of them for that.

You’re right about both the fear and the ignorance of many science teachers in our schools. It’s one more reason I have little faith in the system improving, We’re little better than the Saudis or other fundamentalist Muslim states when it comes to defending science against unreason - or heck, even understanding what the word “true” means in science in the first place.

So it goes. Thanks for the input

The graph you posted showing the acceptance of evolutionary theory really is startling. (As a Canadian, I wish that Canada was included in the study.) I’ll be interested to hear the results of Diane’s informal survey of teachers. I’ve been surprised a number of times when I’ve discovered that some of my science teacher colleagues don’t ‘believe’ in evolution.

In the US, a person’s views on evolution appear to be linked to their politics; “The team found that individuals with anti-abortion, pro-life views associated with the conservative wing of the Republican Party were significantly more likely to reject evolution than people with pro-choice views.” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html)

This political aspect of evolution also has a profound effect on how it is taught. Some teachers, perhaps because they are afraid of a negative backlash from students or parents, just gloss over evolution. That’s akin to being a chemistry teacher and glossing over atomic theory!!! In British Columbia, where I teach, only recently has evolution become part of the curriculum for ALL students. As recently as two years ago, only students who chose to take Biology 11 (an elective) would have learned about evolution at school. Evolution is fundamental to the study of biology. It is important that all students have an understanding of evolution if we want to have scientifically literate citizens.

Claire’s last blog post..Tools Are Important (but they?re still just tools)