Love this scam: “Don’t bother contacting the FBI about our illegal activities — we already have”

February 16, 2009

Ya gotta give them scammers points for creativity and sense of humor, no?

My spam filter picked this up, but it’s just too good not to share, exactly as displayed here:

Attn: Beneficiary..
Friday, February 13, 2009 6:40 PM
From:
“Mueller” <usafbiw@usafbioffice.digitalartsindia.com>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
undisclosed-recipients
Anti-Terrorist and Monitory Crimes Division.
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
J. Edgar. Hoover Building, Washington D.C.

Attn: Beneficiary,

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Danail Smith, none officials of Oceanic Bank, none
officials of Zenith Bank and some impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation agents. During our investigation, it came to our notice that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not
fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment.

Therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry of Finance on your behalf, and they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your payment in the total amount of $800.000.00 USD which will be deposited into an ATM CARD
which you will use to withdraw funds anywhere of the world. You now have the lawful right to claim your funds which have been deposited into the ATM CARD.

Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in this Transaction, you are now to be rest assured that this transaction is legitimate and completely risk-free as it is our duty to protect and Serve citizens of the United States of America.

All you have to do is immediately contact the ATM CARD CENTER via E-mail for instructions on how to procure your Approval Slip which contains details on how to receive and activate your ATM CARD for immediate use to withdraw funds being paid to you. We have confirmed that the amount required to procure the Approval Slip will cost you a total of $200 USD which will be paid directly to the ATM CARD CENTER agent via Western Union Money Transfer /Money Gram Money Transfer.
Below, you shall find contact details of the Agent whom will process your transaction from Federal Ministry of Finance:

CONTACT INFORMATION
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FINANCE.
ATM CARD CENTER
NAME: DR. PETER WATER
OFFICE LINE:  +2348061325890
EMAIL: water_fmfng@live.com

Immediately you contact Dr. Peter Water of the ATM Card Center with the following information:

Full Name:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Direct Phone Number:
Current Occupation:
Annual Income:

Once you have sent the required information to Dr. Peter Water he will contact you with instructions on how to make the payment of $200 USD for the Approval Slip after which he will proceed towards delivery of the ATM CARD without any further delay. You have hereby been authorized guaranteed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to commence towards completing this transaction, as there shall be NO delay once payment for the Approval Slip has been made to the authorized agent.

Once you have completed payment of $200 to the agent in charge of this transaction, immediately contact us back for more investigation for conformation of your ATM card.

Federal Bureau Investigation
Robert S. Mueller III Director, FBI
Contact us at: fbiwroberts4@live.com

Don’t you love it? “Dr. Peter Water.”  “fbiwroberts”  (probably formerly the Dread Pirate Roberts), at an e-mail address “live.com.”  How many punctuation errors, spelling errors, grammar errors?

Maybe these guys could be persuaded to take the next step, too:  Lock themselves up, and throw away the key.

If no one gets suckered in with these hoaxes, why do they continue?  And since it seems someone is getting suckered in, who?

(Yeah, I stripped out a lot of code; these guys are really smarmy.  I’ve left the e-mails as they were in the note.  If you wish to contact these guys, go ahead.)

And check out this post at Tangled Up In Blue Guy — he’s got a bunch of ’em.


Quote of the moment: Millard Fillmore on Peruvian guano

February 16, 2009

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you were Monty Python.

English: Millard Fillmore White House portrait

Millard Fillmore’s White House portrait, via Wikipedia

President Millard Fillmore, in the State of the Union Address, December 2, 1850

Peruvian guano has become so desirable an article to the agricultural interest of the United States that it is the duty of the Government to employ all the means properly in its power for the purpose of causing that article to be imported into the country at a reasonable price. Nothing will be omitted on my part toward accomplishing this desirable end. I am persuaded that in removing any restraints on this traffic the Peruvian Government will promote its own best interests, while it will afford a proof of a friendly disposition toward this country, which will be duly appreciated.

Update, May 22, 2013:  Phosphorus becomes even more critical, according to Mother Jones (phosphorus is a key component of bat and bird guano).


Fly your flag today – Presidents’ Day

February 16, 2009

A giant U.S. flag was draped from a building in Springfield, Illinois, at Barack Obamas announcement of candidacy for the U.S. presidency, February 24, 2007 -- photo from JeromeProphet

A giant U.S. flag was draped from a building in Springfield, Illinois, at Barack Obama’s announcement of candidacy for the U.S. presidency, February 24, 2007 — photo from JeromeProphet

Fly your flag today for Presidents’ Day, one of the score of dates designated by Congress to fly the flag.

Presidents’ Day consolidated two separate events, George Washington’s Birthday and Abraham Lincoln’s Birthday.  Lincoln and Washington were first and second in a C-SPAN poll of historians, the Second Historians Survey on Presidential Leadership.


Wits, not bombs: North Korea, U.S.S. Pueblo, continued

February 16, 2009

Is it time?  Is there any chance we could bring the Pueblo home?

Regular readers here probably know of my admiration for the resistance put up against North Korea (NPRK) by the captive crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo during their 11 months’ imprisonment in 1968.

In a recent comment to a post I did back in 2006, a reader named Bob Liskey offered an interesting, and rational way by which NPRK could demonstrate lasting good faith in negotiations with the U.S., especially over the state of their energy generation and nuclear weapons production:

We made every effort to avoid the catastrophe of a second Korean War and the use of nuclear weapons such a war. Much better and saner than a RAMBO approach.

At this point in time, I would like to see the OBAMA administration suggest to NK that if they really want to improve and normalize relations with the USA then they ought to return the USS PUEBLO as a clear intent to improve and normalize relations. I would like to see the USS PUEBLO returned to the USA and docked at SAN DIEGO as a memorial to the crew and DUAYNE HODGES and those who undertake secret and dangerous missions on behalf of the USA.

Mr. Liskey offered several other chunks of history of the incidents in 1968 you may want to read, including just how close we were to the brink of using nuclear weapons to retaliate against NPRK, an issue that is not much discussed elsewhere, I think.  Interesting reading.

What’s Bill Richardson doing this week?  Since he’s not on track to be Secretary of Commerce, maybe we could borrow him to establish a pillar of world peace in North Korea, instead?

Mr. President?  Sec. Clinton?  Do you ever drop down into the Bathtub?  What about Bob Liskey’s suggestion?


One more round for award-winning DDT poster – but where?

February 15, 2009

Helsingen Sanomat reports that a poster by Jukka Veistola which mobilized Finland to ban DDT back in the 1970s, has been included in a new book marking the most effective posters of the 20th century.

Juka Veistola, 1969

Jukka Veistola, Finland, 1969

Jukka Veistola, Finland, 1969

Jukka Veistola, Finland, 1969

It’s great news, really.

A book has been published in Mexico that portrays the world’s most important posters from the 20th and the early 21st century. The book contains 120 posters, the artists of which include Andy Warhol, Joan Miró, and Pablo Picasso among others.

Included among this worthy company is also Finnish illustrator Jukka Veistola’s ideological DDT poster from 1969.
Veistola’s startling red and blue work was a prizewinner at the Warsaw International Poster Biennale in 1970, and was subsequently acquired by the New York Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) into its collections.

In part, Veistola’s poster contributed to Finland’s becoming one of the first countries in the world to ban the use of the synthetic pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane).

I do have a couple of questions, though:  First, what’s the name of the book?  Second, who is the editor?  Third, who published the book?

It’s great to know that the poster is in a book somewhere; it would help those who would want to find or buy the book to know the name of the book, the editor or author, and the publisher.

(We should note, too, that a gas mask wouldn’t have protected songbirds.  They got the DDT by eating insects with the stuff in ’em.  A dozen worms would carry a dose high enough to kill a robin; robins might eat a dozen worms in an hour.)


Faith in evolution? Gallup, not so much

February 14, 2009

I worry about pollsters.  Gallup will tell you they carefully design their questions, as all the good pollsters do.  Sometimes, though, you gotta wonder.

Here’s the Gallup press release headline for February 12:  “On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.”

Excuse me?  I’m a Christian.  When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I reply that, as a Christian, I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus as my savior.  But I understand how evolution works, and I find it to be good science.  I usually add, “I find it to be true science.”  Then I point out their question assumes a faith response in science, while a faith response would be anti-science itself.

Gallup hasn’t figured that out yet?

The results are good — “belief” in evolution is rising slowly, over the years, comparing Gallup polls.  Most polls show just under 90% of Americans call themselves Christian — were the fundamentalists to have nearly so much sway as they wish, 40% rejection of their messages on evolution would not be possible.  After more than 100 years of preaching that Darwin is evil, only 6 in 10 Americans accept that message.  That’s not bad.

But what would the response be were Gallup to ask these questions:

  • “Faced with a diagnosis of cancer, would you rely solely on prayer, or would you take advantage of evolution-based medical treatments?”
  • “Because DNA demonstrates family relationships so accurately, we use it to establish paternity in court proceedings.  Do you think we should stop using evolution-based science like DNA analysis to establish paternity?”
  • “DNA evidence is based on evolution theory.  Do you think we should stop using DNA evidence in court, in rape and murder cases, or do you support such uses of evolution theory?”

What do you think the polls would show?


Texas legislators get the message: Creationism hurts science and jobs

February 14, 2009

On Darwin’s birthday, two Texas legislators wrote about the stakes in the tussle between creationists on the one side, and educators, scientists and economic development on the other, in the Houston Chronicle.

Somebody gets it!  Will Gov. Rick Perry and SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy get the message?  McLeroy was reappointed as chairman a week ago — but the appointment must be approved by the State Senate.  Is a fight possible?

State Board of Education must be held accountable

By STATE SEN. RODNEY ELLIS and STATE REP. PATRICK M. ROSE
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

[Can a newspaper copyright the words of public servants doing their jobs?]

Feb. 12, 2009, 12:14AM

As scientists and educators across Texas and the nation mark the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin with calls for a renewed commitment to science education, the State Board of Education continues to engage in narrow theological debate about the validity of evolution. If Texas schoolchildren are to succeed in the 21st Century economy, the SBOE must focus less on internal philosophical differences and more on improving science instruction.

Last month, the board once again got bogged down in a bitter dispute over this issue. Members tentatively approved new science curriculum standards that protect teaching of evolution in one area, while creationists succeeded in watering it down elsewhere. Sadly, it was just the latest battle in the “culture war” being fought by a board that decides what more than 4.7 million Texas children learn in their public schools.

Families should be the primary educators on matters of faith, not our public schools. Regardless of board members’ personal beliefs on creationism and evolution, science classrooms are not the place for resolving such disagreements about faith. Those classrooms should focus on science.

Despite one’s personal stance on evolution, its teaching is critical to the study of all the biological sciences.

Scientists from our state’s universities have expressed this to the board, and have warned that watering down science education would undermine biotechnology, medical and other industries that are crucial to our state’s future.

Last session, the Legislature committed to investing $3 billion over the next 10 years in making Texas the global leader in cancer research and finding cures. This historic investment is certain to bring economic and academic opportunities to our state.

Sadly, even as our state takes one step forward, the SBOE moves us two steps back by continuing to support a diminished standard for science education. Texas’ credibility and its investment in research and technology are placed at risk by these ongoing, unproductive debates.

This is a critical issue and a critical time. Study after study has demonstrated that states which do well in science education have the brightest long-term economic future. According to Gov. Rick Perry’s Select Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness, despite improved scores in math and reading, Texas’ students continue to lag alarmingly behind other states in science proficiency.

The National Assessment of Education Progress revealed that only 23 percent of Texas 8th graders achieved proficiency in science, compared with 41 percent of students in the top-performing states — the states with which we compete for jobs.

Yet the board continues to undermine high-quality science instruction, allowing our students to slip further behind.

To ensure that the SBOE works as it should, we have filed legislation to place the board under periodic review by the Sunset Advisory Commission and hold them accountable for their performance, just as we do the Texas Education Agency and other state agencies.

The decisions of the SBOE not only impact millions of young lives on a daily basis, but impact the economic progress of our state as well.

For these reasons and many others, the public has a right to full disclosure and oversight.

The board has escaped such scrutiny for far too long. The disregard for educators, instructional experts and scientists can’t continue. It’s time to take a closer look at the operations and policies of the State Board of Education.

Our state, and especially our kids, deserve better.

Ellis represents the Houston area and parts of Fort Bend County; Rose represents Blanco, Caldwell and Hays counties.

Thank you, Houston Chronicle.

Resources:


State goofs on state test

February 13, 2009

From the Wichita Eagle:

Geoffrey Stanford’s teachers always tell him to read tests carefully.

East High School junior Geoffrey Stanford discovered a word usage error on the state writing assessment last week. The state is sending out a corrected version of the test.  (Photo by Jaime Oppenheimer, Wichita Eagle)

Caption from the Wichita Eagle: East High School junior Geoffrey Stanford discovered a word usage error on the state writing assessment last week. The state is sending out a corrected version of the test. (Photo by Jaime Oppenheimer, Wichita Eagle)

Every sentence. Every word. Slow down. Make sure you understand what’s being asked, and then proceed.

So while taking his state writing test last week, the East High junior saw something that didn’t make sense: The word “emission” — as in “the emission of greenhouse gases” — was spelled “omission.”

“I thought, ‘Surely they’re not talking about leaving out carbon dioxide altogether.’ It just didn’t make sense,” said Stanford, 17. “It had to be a mistake.”

It was.

Stanford, a linebacker and International Baccalaureate student, alerted English teacher Jennifer Fry, who alerted the district test coordinator, who alerted state education officials, who were, as you might imagine, embarrassed.

Full story here.

I wonder how he scored on that section?


Watch your step

February 13, 2009

Another teacher pointed it out to me:  A condom wrapper, on the stairs.  It was a Trojan brand.

“So,” she wondered:  “Are we displeased that the students are having sex, ostensibly in the building since the wrapper is on the stairs; or are we happy that they’re using protection?”


Cecil Adams’ forum honors Darwin!

February 12, 2009

Interesting compilation:   In honor of Darwin’s 200th anniversary, take Steve Bratteng’s 13 questions evolution answers that intellligent design cannot; add to that some almost-recent polling data on creationism among Republicans, and kick off a discussion.

Someone posting at the Cecil Adams’ site, Straight Dope, did just that.  Go join the discussion.

Trying to flatter me, of course, they linked to this blog — but  it’s all Steve Bratteng’s work.

His questionnaire deserves a much broader audience.  So, Welcome Straight Dopers.

Update:  Goin’ viral now — A forum at Free Republic picked up on the quiz, too (from Straight Dope?).  Go check out the discussion there — lots of concern that the malaria question is answered by the existence of Rachel Carson, which means those who propose that don’t understand evolution and haven’t read Rachel Carson, either.  Welcome, Freepers.


Can’t fool the birds: Migratory birds in North America react to climatic warming

February 12, 2009

Generally it would be an insult to call someone a bird brain.  We may need to revise that thinking.  In contrast to climate change denialists, 177 species of migratory birds in North America have adjusted their migrations because of a warming climate.  The birds know something the denialists don’t.

The news comes from the National Audubon Society, after analysis of 40 years of bird count data.

Migrations has the story, along with the map that is appearing in U.S. newspapers this week.  Cornell University’s ornithology blog, Round Robin, provides history to the study and a couple more links to science reports.

How will denialists spin this?  It’s difficult for them to claim that the birds have been hornswoggled by inaccurate newspaper accounts, since these are not the birds whose cages are lined with newspapers.

Eastern Meadowlark, photo by FWS/John and Karen Hollingsworth

Eastern Meadowlark, photo by FWS/John and Karen Hollingsworth

We don’t have a canary in a mine warning us, this time.  It’s the meadowlark on the prairie. Will we listen, in time?

Eastern and Western Meadowlark: These popular robin-sized grassland birds form winter flocks and always feed on the ground. Neither species has been wintering farther north over the past 40 years, probably because the quality of northern grasslands is not sufficient to support these birds through the winter. The Eastern Meadowlark is one of Audubon’s Common Birds in Decline; its population has plummeted 72% in population over the last 40 years.

Also see this earlier post, “Plants refuse to listen to climate change skeptics.”


Lincoln and Darwin, both born 200 years ago today

February 12, 2009

Is it an unprecedented coincidence?  200 years ago today, just minutes apart according to some unconfirmed accounts, Abraham Lincoln was born in a rude log cabin on Nolin Creek, in Kentucky, and Charles Darwin was born into a wealthy family at the family home  in Shrewsbury, England.

Gutzon Borglums 1908 bust of Abraham Lincoln in the Crypt of the U.S. Capitol - AOC photo

Gutzon Borglum’s 1908 bust of Abraham Lincoln in the Crypt of the U.S. Capitol – Architect of the Capitol photo

Lincoln would become one of our most endeared presidents, though endearment would come after his assassination.  Lincoln’s bust rides the crest of Mt. Rushmore (next to two slaveholders), with George Washington, the Father of His Country, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and Theodore Roosevelt, the man who made the modern presidency, and the only man ever to have won both a Congressional Medal of Honor and a Nobel Prize, the only president to have won the Medal of Honor.  In his effort to keep the Union together, Lincoln freed the slaves of the states in rebellion during the civil war, becoming an icon to freedom and human rights for all history.  Upon his death the entire nation mourned; his funeral procession from Washington, D.C., to his tomb in Springfield, Illinois, stopped twelve times along the way for full funeral services.  Lying in state in the Illinois House of Representatives, beneath a two-times lifesize portrait of George Washington, a banner proclaimed, “Washington the Father, Lincoln the Savior.”

Charles Darwin statue, Natural History Museum, London - NHM photo

Charles Darwin statue, Natural History Museum, London – NHM photo

Darwin would become one of the greatest scientists of all time.  He would be credited with discovering the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection.  His meticulous footnoting and careful observations formed the data for ground-breaking papers in geology (the creation of coral atolls), zoology (barnacles, and the expression of emotions in animals and man), botany (climbing vines and insectivorous plants), ecology (worms and leaf mould), and travel (the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle).  At his death he was honored with a state funeral, attended by the great scientists and statesmen of London in his day.  Hymns were specially written for the occasion.  Darwin is interred in Westminster Abbey near Sir Isaac Newton, England’s other great scientist, who knocked God out of the heavens.

Lincoln would be known as the man who saved the Union of the United States and set the standard for civil and human rights, vindicating the religious beliefs of many and challenging the beliefs of many more.  Darwin’s theory would become one of the greatest ideas of western civilization, changing forever all the sciences, and especially agriculture, animal husbandry, and the rest of biology, while also provoking crises in religious sects.

Lincoln, the politician known for freeing the slaves, also was the first U.S. president to formally consult with scientists, calling on the National Science Foundation (whose creation he oversaw) to advise his administration.  Darwin, the scientist, advocated that his family put the weight of its fortune behind the effort to abolish slavery in the British Empire.  Each held an interest in the other’s disciplines.

Both men were catapulted to fame in 1858. Lincoln’s notoriety came from a series of debates on the nation’s dealing with slavery, in his losing campaign against Stephen A. Douglas to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate.  On the fame of that campaign, he won the nomination to the presidency of the fledgling Republican Party in 1860.  Darwin was spurred to publicly reveal his ideas about the power of natural and sexual selection as the force behind evolution, in a paper co-authored by Alfred Russel Wallace, presented to the Linnean Society in London on July 1, 1858.   On the strength of that paper, barely noticed at the time, Darwin published his most famous work, On the Origin of Species, in November 1859.

The two men might have got along well, but they never met.

What unusual coincidences.  Today is the first day of a year-long commemoration of the lives of both men.  Wise historians and history teachers, and probably wise science teachers, will watch for historical accounts in mass media, and save them.

Go celebrate human rights, good science, and the stories about these men.

Resources:

Charles Darwin:

Abraham Lincoln:


Denialism doesn’t work: Polar bears still in trouble

February 9, 2009

Is there a climate change denialist blog that hasn’t tried to claim that the rest of the world is crazy, and that polar bears are in no danger at all?

As a tactic to save polar bears, denial doesn’t work.  Arctic Economics reports on research showing polar bears often go without food, a bad tactic for long-term survival.

Polar bear in the open ocean, Los Angeles Times photo

Polar bear in the open ocean, Los Angeles Times photo

You want that in English?  Sure:  Polar bears are starving to death because of climate change.  Shifts in the ice have ruined their hunting.

And, as often these days, I mention that here because it is one more case where “falsified data” or “badly placed measuring stations” can’t affect the outcome.  Polar bears don’t read The Economist. Last I checked ticket sales, no polar bear had ever seen Al Gore’s movie, let alone been misled by it.  It cannot be the case that polar bears starve because they believe hyped and false claims about global warming.  Polar bears starve because it’s really warmer.

___________

Update, 3-5-2009 — One of the signs of insanity among warming disbelievers is their practice of censoring comments on their blogs, when the blog owner edits the comments of opponents to make them look silly and, importantly, to keep contrary views backed by reason from infecting the blog.


Republicans: ‘Sorry, we can’t afford to save America’

February 8, 2009

Krugman’s got his figures half-way done, and the numbers already show that the stimulus package Congress has before it is too small to do the job.

Obama had the right view:  Yes, there is a lot of spending, that’s what a stimulus package is all about.

But the Republicans refused to budge.  ‘Can’t use the ring-buoy to save the drowning nation — the rope might get wet.  If we pulled it in, we’d have to pull it into the boat, and the boat would get wet.  Why not leave it in the water a while longer — we can recover the body with a dredge, it will look pretty much like it looks now.  What’s the problem?’

At his blog at the New York Times site, Krugman lays it out concisely:

I’m still working on the numbers, but I’ve gotten a fair number of requests for comment on the Senate version of the stimulus.

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.

The real question now is whether Obama will be able to come back for more once it’s clear that the plan is way inadequate. My guess is no. This is really, really bad.

Is there any economist who thinks the situation is not so dire, or that this legislation spends enough money?

Politics triumphs over economics, common sense and national welfare, once again.

Call your Congressional representatives, let ’em know your thoughts.

Update: I regret I didn’t make the connection earlier — go read “The Pony Chokers” at Edge of the West. Don’t let stiff-necked Congressional representatives choke your pony.


If science facts won’t improve reasoning, don’t study science, creationists say

February 8, 2009

If you saw the notice on the original study, you knew this one was coming.

A team of researchers checked two things in college freshman:  First, how much science they knew, sort of a trivia catalog; and second, how well they could use their reasoning powers.

The study showed Chinese students way ahead of U.S. students on simple knowledge of science facts.  But the study showed little difference in powers of reasoning of the two groups.

Wait, don’t jump to conclusions.  That’s what the creationists did.  Check out Ed Yong’s post and analysis of the study, at Not Exactly Rocket Science (with ensuing good discussion).

If knowing a lot of science doesn’t improve logic, why bother to learn science? the creationists asked.  Especially, why not teach creationism in biology, since teaching evolution seems to them rather authoritarian.

Could you make this stuff up?

Here’s the EurekAlert summary, and here’s a clip from the description:

The research appears in the January 30, 2009 issue of the journal Science.

Lei Bao, associate professor of physics at Ohio State University and lead author of the study, said that the finding defies conventional wisdom, which holds that teaching science facts will improve students’ reasoning ability.

“Our study shows that, contrary to what many people would expect, even when students are rigorously taught the facts, they don’t necessarily develop the reasoning skills they need to succeed,” Bao said. “Because students need both knowledge and reasoning, we need to explore teaching methods that target both.”

Bao directs Ohio State’s Physics Education Research Group, which is developing new strategies for teaching science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. For this study, he and his colleagues across the United States and in China decided to compare students from both countries, because the educational systems are so different.

In the United States, only one-third of students take a year-long physics course before they graduate from high school. The rest only study physics within general science courses. Curricula vary widely from school to school, and students can choose among elective courses.

In China, however, every student in every school follows exactly the same curriculum, which includes five years of continuous physics classes from grades 8 through 12. All students must perform well on a national exam if they hope to enter college, and the exam contains advanced physics problems.

“Each system has its strengths and weaknesses,” Bao said. “In China, schools emphasize a very extensive learning of STEM content knowledge, while in the United States, science courses are more flexible, with simpler content but with a high emphasis on scientific methods. We need to think of a new strategy, perhaps one that blends the best of both worlds.”

The students who participated in the study were all incoming freshmen who had just enrolled in a calculus-based introductory physics course. They took three multiple-choice tests: two which tested knowledge of physics concepts, and one which tested scientific reasoning.

Did you see anything there that suggested that NOT learning science facts is a good idea?

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian used the study as a springboard to rail at evolution in biology curricula, and at the National Center for Science Education, calling the study (somewhat tongue in cheek, I think) “terribly dangerous.”  No, that doesn’t make sense, but it gets stranger as he explains in comments that he’s not advocating creationism or intelligent design, either.

But nothing in the study suggests any serious problem with the teaching of evolution theory.  Where did Tom get that idea?

Bao explained that STEM students need to excel at scientific reasoning in order to handle open-ended real-world tasks in their future careers in science and engineering.

Ohio State graduate student and study co-author Jing Han echoed that sentiment. “To do my own research, I need to be able to plan what I’m going to investigate and how to do it. I can’t just ask my professor or look up the answer in a book,” she said.

“These skills are especially important today, when we are determined to build a society with a sustainable edge in science and technology in a fast-evolving global environment,” Bao said.

He quickly added that reasoning is a good skill for everyone to possess — not just scientists and engineers.

“The general public also needs good reasoning skills in order to correctly interpret scientific findings and think rationally,” he said.

Telic Thoughts seized on it , too.

It’s a springboard to a new creationist meme, and here’s how it will come out of the mouths of creationists, speaking to school boards and writing letters to editorial pages: “Learning a lot of science doesn’t improve critical thinking skills, so let’s teach something other than evolution.”

That’s not what the study says.

First, the study says Chinese students know more science than U.S. students. This is worrisome for the U.S.  While the study shows that entering freshmen are no better at critical thinking than U.S. students, the fact remains that more Chinese students graduate with science degrees.  Then a lot of them come to the U.S. to get advanced degrees.  Even the radical right wing National Center for Policy Analysis worries about the number of Chinese engineers and scientists U.S. colleges and universities graduate.  We’re behind in this race for brains and skills.

Second, researchers showed that freshman science students need to improve their reasoning skills, in both China and the U.S. Look hard at any creationist claim — they won’t argue for more education to improve reasoning.  We need to note what this finding is not:  It’s not an indictment of science education.  It’s not a call to stop or slow down science education.  It defies “conventional wisdom,” but it’s not an endorsement of knocking down science education as a result.

Third, the study only identifies what might be a problem. High school graduates in their first year of studying science in Chinese and American universities are not very sophisticated in their science reasoning.  Is this a problem?  Is this a skill that should be learned in high school?  Or, is it a skill that is better taught after the freshman year, at college?  This study was a snapshot, not a longitudinal study.  It did not purport to show when or how to best instruct on the reasoning processes necessary for a successful career in science.

In particular, this is not an indictment of biology education in the U.S., nor especially an indictment of education in evolution theory.  It’s possible to suggest that Chinese students know more evolution than U.S. students.  That’s a far sight from saying education in evolution theory doesn’t work.

Resources:

Updates: