EDUCATION: What if your child’s biology teacher is a creationist?

Image via Colin Purrington on Flickr

Via Max Fisher at The Atlantic Wire:

But what about when the roles are reversed and the one advocating creationism in the classroom is the teacher? Laden cites parenting blogger Dale McGowan, who responded to a creationist science teacher by writing a pointed letter asking for more conventional lectures. Laden sighs, “You can’t win that kind of discussion.” The teacher can “nitpick” their way out of it by insisting the student misunderstood or by saying they are simply explaining the controversy. Laden insists you get more aggressive, calling for “A decisive take-down of a creationist teacher who is in violation of the law.”

The teacher is doing something wrong, got caught, and it is perfectly reasonable for the parent, in a more or less irate manner but hopefully reasonably professionally, approaches the school administration (having first contacted, in person, someone at the National Center for Science Education) directly and issues a firm, clear, no-nonsense complaint.

Following up, Laden writes a “template” letter for his readers to use to demand that science teachers cease teaching creationism or intelligent design.


Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

EVOLUTION: “[A] significant proportion of the American people think that the ‘The Flintstones’ is a documentary”

According to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll, “Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals.” Furthermore, political affiliation is an important factor that illustrates whether or not—and how—an individual believes in evolution. From The Texas Tribune:

Democrats (28 percent) are less likely than Republicans (47 percent) to think that humans have always existed in their present form and more likely (21 percent to 7 percent) to think humans have developed over millions of years without God’s guidance. About the same percentages of Democrats and Republicans (40 and 36 percent, respectively) believe that evolution took place over time with God’s guidance. Democrat Bill White‘s voters were the most likely to believe in evolution without a divine hand (33 percent); on the Republican side, by comparison, only 6 percent of Rick Perry‘s supporters were in that category.

Has life on earth always existed in its present form? Republicans are more likely to agree (29 percent) than Democrats (16 percent). They’re less likely to believe that life evolved over time with no guidance from God (8 percent to 24 percent). Democrats are slightly less inclined to believe in evolution with a “guiding hand from God” (50 percent to 55 percent).

Republicans are less likely to believe that humans developed from earlier species of animals; 26 percent agree, while 60 percent disagree. Among Democrats in the survey, 46 percent agree that humans evolved from earlier species; 42 percent disagree. Perry’s voters were most hostile to this premise — 67 percent disagree.

About the same numbers of Democrats and Republicans — 43 percent — disagree with the idea that dinosaurs and humans lived on the planet at the same time. Republicans were slightly more likely to agree with the idea (31 percent to 27 percent). Perry had more voters in each group on the GOP side, but Kay Bailey Hutchison had the largest share of voters who believe in that coexistence.

Prindle says the results recall a line from comedian Lewis Black. “He did a standup routine a few years back in which he said that a significant proportion of the American people think that the ‘The Flintstones’ is a documentary,” Prindle says. “Turns out he was right. Thirty percent of Texans agree that humans and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time.”

More from The Guardian:

No matter how often they come up, the figures for creationism in the USA still boggle the mind. The latest poll noticed by the National Centre for Science Education, shows that among registered voters in Texas, 51% disagree that humans have evolved from earlier species of animal. Among Republicans, the figure rises to 60%. Low hanging fruit indeed.

The nearest comparable poll is a Gallup one, from 2008. This shows actually higher rates of creationism in the USA as a whole than in Texas, where the religious right is particularly powerful. But it is possible that the prominence of a “Don’t know” question in the Texas poll explains the discrepancy. I suspect myself that all these questions ought also to have a “Don’t care” axis and this suspicion is only confirmed by close study of the Gallup poll.

Two things jump out from that. The first is that creationists are less of a political force than their opponents. This at least was true in 2007, when Gallup asked whether a political candidate would attract more or less votes if they announced that they did not believe in evolution. The differences here between registered voters and all adults were trivial. I both case, more than half didn’t care; at least it would make no difference to their voting intentions (and in a follow-up question, 70% thought a candidate’s views on evolution quite irrelevant). But among those who did care, creationists were outnumbered two to one by evolutionists: 15% of the voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate who espoused creationism, and 29% less likely.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

ANTIEVOLUTIONISTS: Ironically, creationists choose to remain ignorant of their God’s creation

ArdipithecusThere’s no point in arguing with a creationist about the origins of life from an evolutionary perspective. It’s like arguing with someone that believes the Bush II Administration was an accomplished or virtuous Administration or arguing with someone that believes the impact of the Bush II administration terminated when Obama was elected. Clearly, these type of folks intentionally ignore the smorgasbord of facts before them.

Anyhow, creationists, travel the lazy road in interpreting the world and their surroundings. For example, they’ll conveniently consider and believe anything that doesn’t pertain to facts or rational thinking—certainly, that’s a sin. Creationists claim evolution is flawed. Consequently, they reject evolution.

Furthermore, since the truth isn’t always palatable, some anti-evolutionists have replaced evolution with intelligent design—a made up idea that isn’t backed by science. Not surprisingly, creationists reject the recent discovery of Ardi—”the earliest known skeleton of a potential human ancestor.” From ABC News:

“This is a meaningless discovery of another ape. As far as the creationist community is concerned, this is a big yawn. There is nothing about Ardi that has anything to do with the evolution of man,” said John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas.

That’s a tone significantly different than the one C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University in Ohio, struck in a recent interview with ABCNews.com, when he called Ardi perhaps “the most important specimen in the history of evolutionary biology.”

For Morris and other creationists, the approach to handling new discoveries like Ardi by evolutionary scientists is twofold: fight the science and promote the Bible.

“People are talking about Ardi. It’s all over the news, so we have to explain it and answer people’s questions. We’re not making a theological argument, but a scientific one. The science of evolution is so flawed we have to be opposed to it,” Morris said.

Image Found Here

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

QUOTE

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

- Stephen Jay Gould

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

EVOLUTION: Kirk Cameron irrationally links Charles Darwin to Hitler in altered version of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species

In addition to ignorance, Kirk Cameron is clearly guilty of misrepresentation. As an evangelical “Christian,” I guess that makes him a hypocrite.

And he’s called out for distorting or spinning the facts:

***

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

— Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin


Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook