Teach evolution at your peril

July 27, 2008

Untamed Teacher carries one more story about the dangers of trying to teach evolution to students who are not particularly interested, in a school where administrators don’t know much about science. Cynics will write it off as an inexperienced teacher in a difficult school — but that’s precisely where we need to be teaching the most serious material most often. (Tip of the old scrub brush to Education Notes Online.)

The Balloon Man notes a story in the Los Angeles Times about a much more experienced, and patient, teacher, whose lesson biology is heckled by religious students bent on disrupting the instruction.

How would Jesus heckle a teacher? Which parable covers being obnoxious?

Update: Open Parachute ponders whether the behaviors exhibited by the churchy adults in the news report below, constitute child abuse:

Can you imagine the reaction were a group of scientists to arrive at Ken Ham’s creation museum and lead a “science tour” of the place? Dollars to doughnuts Ham would come out looking a lot like Joe Stalin on the issue of allowing free discussion in his place.

Resource:  Why study evolution?  Read the benefits of such study in one of the permanent posts of this blog.


Real dope on human evolution

July 24, 2008

Subtitle this one, “DBQs in prehistory, paleontology, and anthropology.”

Younger son James complained yesterday about . . . well, about stuff he wasn’t taught. His questions to me were about what was available in the history textbooks on the great advances in science in the 20th century.

Very little is available, really. What had set him off was his summer reading where he’s been introduced, for the first time, to particle physics of the past 30 years. History texts may mention Einstein’s letter to FDR which started the Manhattan project. An outstanding history and science student in a U.S. high school can pass through the experience without ever learning what Einstein’s equation, E=mc², actually means, or how it pertains to his letter to Roosevelt, or when and how Einstein came up with it, how Einstein’s papers changed physics, how Einstein’s ideas were tested, how Einstein’s pacifism and Jewish heritage drove him to the U.S., and so on. Great advances in particle physics, or even in practical applications like CAT scans and PET scans, have fallen out of the books and out of the curriculum. 21st century medicine, but 20th century science texts and 19th century history texts. It’s the David-Bartonization of American education.

The stuff wasn’t covered in his AP physics or AP chemistry classes (what’s up with that?!), nor were most of the great discoveries even mentioned in any of the AP history courses.

No wonder the head of the Texas State Board of Education knows so little about science. Cue the country/western version of the story, “Been dumb as a stump so long it looks like genius to me.”** Plus, this makes it clear why the versions of curricula the SBOE head favors must be resisted.

Texas standards and national standards in history ask that students be familiar with American inventions and innovation. In reality that translates to Eli Whitney and the cotton engine, because it’s a key factor in the rise of plantation economics in the South prior to the Civil War; maybe some mention of water-powered looms; Edison and the light bulb; Ford and the assembly line; and maybe a mention of radio or television, usually with regard to the effects on culture. I know a teacher who has a great unit for Texas history on barbed wire and the Colt .45. World history mentions James Watt and the steam engine.* The Wright brothers and the airplane get a couple of sentences. Humans going to the Moon gets a few sentences, but not as much as Sputnik, because, well because Sputnik scared the bejeebers out of some of the people who yelled loudest at Texas and Florida textbook meetings, I imagine.

I’m not going to fix all of that, not right now. It’s a subject that deserves more time in the cooker, I think.

But I’m also working on plans for this next year. Pre-history human migrations, geological development of the planet — and last night I discovered a group hitting the Bathtub for information about humans and evolution. Sheesh! Another place where the history and science texts short the glorious science, where a student is more likely to be struck by lightning waiting for the bus than to get decent coverage of human evolution in the classroom. (Hey. Do you know a teacher who covers human evolution well in any subject? Put it in comments, below — I want to congratulate her, or him. I also want to steal the lesson plans.)

Here’s a quick fix, using some seminal documents that are perfectly classroom usable: Go to the Nature magazine website, and specifically look for the section, “focus on human origins.” If your administrators aren’t fully versed on No Child Left Behind, you can claim these as “research-based” (they are purely research-based; the law asks that our pedagogical methods be research-based, though, not the content, and that’s impossible; most of what we do in the classroom is tradition-based unsupported by any significant research, and federal laws and state regulations generally require the opposite of what the research says . . . don’t get me started). But I digress.

Nature is one of the premier science journals, a peer-reviewed or juried journal that is the prime place for key research findings to be published (along with Science, the other science journal giant). Most of their material is hidden away on the internet, held in proprietary sites available to scientists whose research institutions spring for expensive subscriptions (no, these journals are generally NOT available through the databases most high schools and non-research colleges purchase). Much of the best research of the last century is unavailable to high school teachers or students. This is true of chemistry, physics, biology and geology. The textbooks tend to obfuscate and cover the stuff up — or in the case of particle physics, ignore the field.

Several years ago Nature pulled about a dozen of the seminal papers in human evolution studies out of their vaults, making them available for free. These papers include some of the real classics:

Frankly, I wouldn’t expect to see these in a real DBQ in anything except, perhaps, human geography — but I can dream, can’t I? You can certainly create outstanding DBQ exercises with exerpts from these and a few other sources. Or you can simply use these complete papers in your classes. Except for a select few debate students at the upper echelons of competitiveness, real research papers fall out of the curriculum, and it’s a shame.

There is drama in these papers. Some of them shake the Earth, but in coolly scientific words. Ironically, the papers are not written so technically that they are beyond the ken of most high school readers. These papers are real history, real science, and our students deserve to read them.

Nature deserves our thanks for making these papers available. I wish other seminal papers were available, from Nature, and from other science and history research journals. Students would benefit from reading real history about the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the development of public health to fight tuberculosis. Students could mightily use to read about physics, biology, meteorology, geology, and other sciences upon which we rely to save the human race.

_____________________

* James Rowland of Woodlands High School in the Conroe Independent School District led a group of us teachers in an exercise last week at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, asking the question about who invented the steam engine and when. With six different AP or advanced world history texts, we came up with eight different answers, including two different years given for Watt’s work.

** Yes, from Richard Fariña’s 1966 novel, Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me (finished two days before his fatal motorcycle accident), and the song (pay no attention to the Lee Hazelwood-Nancy Sinatra song, but remember the Doors’s version is probably unsuitable for classroom use).

Resources:


Thank God, and the Courts, for Charles Darwin

July 6, 2008

Rev. Michael Dowd has a book out, ThankGod for Evolution, and he wrote an op-ed in the Dallas Morning News on July 1 (as I understand it — wasn’t in Dallas that day).

I don’t vouch for the book — yet, at least. I’ve not read it. I find the study of science, and especially of evolution, offers no barrier to my faith, nor does my faith offer any barrier to my study of science. My faith, which requires an ethical life, offers barriers to creationism — a subject of other posts. But thank God for Charles Darwin? Sure. 

“Thank God for Charles Darwin.” T-shirt design from Redbubble

 

We also need to thank the federal courts, where the First Amendment is enforced, keeping unreasonable fables from diluting science education in public schools.

Which gets us to this: Chris Comer, the former science curriculum expert for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) who was fired for sending out an e-mail seen as supportive of evolution, is suing TEA, to get her job back (it’s illegal to fire public employees for bad religious reasons).

Watch that suit.

Rev. Dowd’s essay, courtesy of Sam Hodges and the Dallas Morning News Religion Blog, below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »


“Louisiana’s exorcist governor”

June 30, 2008

I love the headline: “Anti-science law signed by Louisiana’s exorcist governor.”

Tony Whitson’s quick analysis is good, too.

One might begin to think Louisiana really is cursed. Katrina, Rita, other political troubles — and then they elect the bright, young reformer as governor, and he turns out to be a voodoo history and voodoo science practitioner — heck, maybe he practices just plain old voodoo.

All this comes at a time when it may have saved John McCain from making a mistake that would make George McGovern’s selection of Tom Eagleton look like wisdom of the ages (when news came out that Eagleton had undergone convulsive shock therapy for depression, he was replaced on the ticket by Sargent Shriver, but not after much damage had been done to the credibility and viability of the McGovern campaign — why Nixon thought it necessary to sponsor burglary to defeat this ticket is one of the mysteries of the ages of Shakespearian tragedy come to life in in American politics).

Mind you, I like and respect McGovern, and I found working with Tom Eagleton on the Senate Labor Committee a great joy.


Louisiana creationists gear up campaign to deceive students

June 20, 2008

My earlier post urging readers to contact Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to urge him to veto the latest creationist eruption the Louisiana Lege gave him, produced an interesting comment. A fellow named Wayne provided links to a presentation by some guy named Perry Marshall, in which Marshall flails vainly against evolution theory.  The video is billed as one the Louisiana Coalition for Science “fears.”  Wayne wants to know, should we keep children from seeing it?

Marshall apparently isn’t even an engineer, but instead designs ads for internet placement — at least one step removed from the usual joke about engineers as creationists. Of course, that doesn’t help any of his arguments.

Wayne linked to three YouTube presentations, about half of the presentation Marshall made at an unidentified church (there are five segments total, I gather). What you see is bad PowerPoint slides, with audio. Marshall suggests that evolution couldn’t get from the American pronghorn antelope to the African giraffe, but in classic creationist form, he doesn’t address the unique signs of evolution we find in giraffes (neck, vagus nerve, for example) nor in pronghorns (bred for speed to beat the American cheetah, which is now extinct, and thereby hangs a great tale of sleuthing by evolution).

Marshall’s presentation is insulting. To me as a historian, it’s astounding how he can’t accurately list sequences of events well known to history. The science errors he makes are errors any 7th-grade student might make — but he’s passing them off as valid criticism of evolution theory.

Here’s the first YouTube presentation, and below the fold, my response to Wayne.

These presentations are an omen. They are sent to us as a warning for what the Discovery Institute will try to sneak into classrooms if Jindal signs that bill into law — heck, they’ll try anyway, but we don’t have to drill holes in our kids’ heads to make it easier for con men and snake oil salesmen to get their fingers in there.

My response below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »


Teach evolution in Christian schools

June 18, 2008

Here’s a viewpoint you don’t see often: An engineer urges Christian schools to be sure they teach evolution, and he makes a pretty good case.

It’s a twist on the usual position, where religious fanatics argue that science should be watered down in public schools, or that some form of creationism should be taught to cast doubt on the science.

The essay was published at a blog called An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. An engineer named Gordon Glover argues that evolution should be taught, first, because it’s good science. Second, he says teaching evolution “enhances” critical thinking — a point I agree with; in my experience, students get more creative when they study and understand the real creative work of real scientists, and students become much more discerning about what is good science and a good argument.

Third, for private Christian schools, Glover argues that teaching evolution opens another opportunity to discuss Biblical inspiration.

The first reason is the most powerful. Sticking to good science also presents an opportunity to stand up for good ethics.

Take a look at Glover’s arguments. Is he right? What do you think? Should scientists argue for including evolution in religious schools where it is avoided now? As always, comments are open.


Mosquitoes eat DDT, and here’s how

June 18, 2008

University of Illinois researchers found the protein that allows mosquitoes to metabolize DDT.

It’s good news in mosquito research, and may someday provide some insight into how to kill mosquitoes that seem to be resistant to DDT.

But, for all those DDT advocates out there, isn’t this rather embarrassing? Here these researchers have discovered the molecular level mechanisms for a process that the DDT apologists claim doesn’t happen. Oops. Rachel Carson proven right, once again.

There they are, caught red- and bumpy-handed.

Press release text from the University of Illinois below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »


McLeroy declares war on science in Texas classrooms?

June 15, 2008

Considering recent history and the Texas State Board of Education, how can any reasonable voter or parent read this, except as a declaration of war on science? According to the blogs at the Dallas Morning News:

State Board of Education chairman David Bradley of Beaumont told GOP delegates [at the Texas State Republican Convention] that the board was about to take up the science curriculum for public schools. He forecasted a fight over evolution vs. creationism.
Bradley said there are some on the board (he’s among them) that believe God created Man.
“There are others who think their ancestors were apes. That’s okay. But I’m going to vote the right way,” Bradley said.

Is there anything there that suggests Bradley wants good science in Texas textbooks and Texas classrooms?

Remember the Excellence in Education Commission Report in 1983? The Commission warned that the nation was facing “a rising tide of mediocrity” in schools, in such things as lax science standards.

“Our nation is at risk. The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity. If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament. History is not kind to idlers.”

25 years later, Commissar Don McLeroy is leading the tide of mediocrity, doing crippling things to our education system that the likes of Nikita Khruschev and Mao Ze Dong could only dream about.


Smithsonian on origins of evolution theory

June 9, 2008

Smithsonian’s June issue features a story on the origins of evolution theory in the public eye, focusing not just on Darwin and Wallace, but also on the history of the idea as they found it, before they discovered the mechanism that makes the theory hold together and bind biology into a real science:  “On the Origin of a Theory.”

World history, western civilization and U.S. history teachers may want to keep a copy of the article — in U.S. history, for the Scopes trial section (or paragraph, depending on how science and philosophy friendly your text is).

Also, the article features a photo of Darwin not usually seen, from the Library of Congress Archives.

Darwin, Library of Congress (Smithsonian magazine June 2008)


Creationist group appeals decision on granting degrees

June 4, 2008

Texas’s Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is appealing the decision of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board that denied ICR the power to grant graduate science degrees.   According to the story in the Houston Chronicle, ICR plans to take the issue to court if THECB does not reverse itself.

Institute spokesman Lawrence Ford said the voluminous appeal — it is 755 pages long, including supporting documents — is based upon a claim of “viewpoint discrimination.”

The appeal described the board’s decision as “academic (and religious) bigotry masquerading as Texas Education Code ‘enforcement.’ ”

Board members and staff are accused of denying the request in April because the institute and its leaders believe the biblical version of the Earth’s creation is literally true.

Institute CEO Henry Morris III said last spring his school’s program includes information about evolution, although he and others affiliated with the school don’t accept the proof of evolution offered by mainstream scientists.

Board members and Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes said they were concerned the degree would not equip graduates to teach science in Texas’ public schools.

The real issue, Stafford said Monday, is whether the institute’s course work — offered online and still available, although not accredited — fits the label of the proposed degree.

The disputed degree is a Master of Science in science education. “Either the curriculum or the label has to change,” Stafford said.

“That label has a particular meaning of preparing somebody as a science teacher.”

Paredes reiterated that in a May 21 letter to Morris. “It was determined that the designation of the degree and the content of the degree were not adequately aligned,” he wrote. “Approval would require either a change in the designation of the degree or a change in the content covered.”

The institute is not inclined to do either, Ford said.

More information at these websites:


Moral corruption of Joe Carter and ID advocates

June 1, 2008

I’m often struck at how creationists, including advocates of intelligent design, cannot maintain an argument in favor of their perverse beliefs against science for more than about five minutes without descending into erroneous descriptions of science, or outright lies.

Joe Carter pens the very well-read Evangelical Outpost. He attends church regularly, I gather, considers himself a good Christian, and for all I know studies the Bible regularly and tithes. But he’s also an advocate of intelligent design. In 2007 he provoked a bit of a storm claiming that scientists were making the case for ID by advocating evolution (no, it doesn’t make much more sense in the longer argument). (See “The moral imperative against intelligent design,” and “. . . in which I defend the judiciary against barbaric assault.“)

I missed it earlier, but he followed up in April of this year with a repeat performance upon the release of Ben Stein’s mockumentary movie “Expelled!” — another three part epic. Carter cast away his virtue in the third paragraph of the first post:

Had the critics remained silent over the past decade, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. If they had given the theory the respect accorded to supernatural explanations like the “multiverse theory” it might even have faded from lack of support.

But instead the theory’s critics launched a irrational counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem with this approach is that the more the public learn about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become about it being an adequately robust explanation for the diversity of life on earth. For instance in Expelled, Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins provide two explanations for how life probably began. Ruse says that we moved from the inorganic world to the world of the cell on the backs of crystals while Dawkins says that life on earth was most likely seeded by aliens from outer space.

When even Dawkins admits that intelligent agency is involved in creation of life on earth it isn’t difficult to see why other people think it is plausible.

Is there a claim in there that is not completely false? Is there one claim that is not demonstrably in error — or an outright lie?

What virus causes this rabid departure from truth-telling among creationists? For if it’s not a virus, it’s a moral failing of the faith, isn’t it? And knowing that, wouldn’t advocates of Christianity’s growth, like Joe Carter, take steps to hide their prevarications?

If you have an idea what the cause is, comments are open.


Review of Ken Ham’s book: Lying for Jesus

May 16, 2008

Well developed thoughts from an atheist on morality, especially the morality of creationism, in a review of Ken Ham’s book, The Lie: Evolution, from a blogger, In Case You’re Interested. Ham is the guy who raised nearly $30 million for the Creation Museum, a monument to denial of reality.

Coincidence? Ham’s book repeats all of the shoddy arguments that show up in Ben Stein’s mockumentary film.


Quote of the moment: Ashley Montagu, on creationists

May 11, 2008

Ashley Montagu

“Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.”

Ashley Montagu (full citation needed!)

Tip of the old scrub brush to Aunt Betsy.


The Wrong Stuff, on purpose: Weikart misquotes Darwin

May 10, 2008

Richard Weikart is an arm of the Discovery Institute’s disinformation brigade. A couple of years ago he published a book attempting to link Darwin to the Holocaust in a blame-sharing arrangement. This book and some of its arguments appear to be the foundation of the text used to write the script for the mockumentary movie “Expelled!” featuring Nixon speechwriter Ben Stein.

Which is to say, the basis for the movie is dubious. Weikart’s scholarship creating links between Darwin, science and Hitler is quite creative. It is also based on arguments created from Darwin’s writings that mislead the innocent about evolution, science and history, or which get Darwin and evolution exactly wrong.

Michael Ruse published an op-ed in a Florida paper in February — a piece which is no longer available there (anybody got a copy? Nebraska Citizens for Science preserved a copy) — and Weikart responded, restating his creative claims. Alas for the truth, Weikart’s canards are still available at the Discovery Institute website, putting an interesting twist on Twain’s old line: The truth will go to bed at night while a falsehood will travel twice around the world as the truth kicks off its slippers.

Looking for Ruse’s piece, I found Weikart’s response here and here. I composed a quick response pointing out the problems, which I would like to posit here for the record — partly because I doubt Darwiniana gets much traffic, partly because the censor-happy folks at Discovery Institute don’t allow free discussion at their site, and partly so I can control it to make sure it’s not butchered as Weikart butchers Darwin’s text.

At Darwiniana I said:

Weikart’s strip quoting of Darwin is most disappointing. [Weikart wrote:]

Darwin claimed in chapter two of The Descent of Man that there were great differences in moral disposition and intellect between the “highest races” and the “lowest savages.” Later in Descent he declared, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” Racial inegalitarianism was built into Darwin’s analysis from the start.

Darwin argued the differences in intellect and manners between the “highest” of men and the “lowest” of men did NOT change the fact that we are are all related — legally, Darwin’s argument would evidence a claim absolutely the opposite of what Weikart claims. Here are Darwin’s words from Chapter II of Descent of Man, as Darwin wrote them, without Weikart’s creative editing:

Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakespeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other. [emphasis added]

That’s not inegalitarianism at all — Darwin’s saying they are the same species, related closer than the poets allow. If we stick to the evidence, and [do] not wander off into poetic philosophy, we must acknowledge that Darwin’s own egalitarian spirit shows here in the science, too. It would be an odd kettle of fish indeed that a crabby guy like Hitler, who shared the antiscience bias of Weikart’s organization, would suddenly accept the science of a hated Englishman that ran contrary to his other philosophies. Who makes the error here, Hitler or Weikart? If they both think Darwin endorsed racism, they both do — but there is not an iota of evidence that Hitler based his patent racism on science, let alone the science of an Englishman.

As to the second quote, Weikart leaves the context out, and the context is everything. Darwin is not arguing that “savages” (the 19th century word for “aboriginals”) were less human, nor that they are a different species. He was arguing that in some future time there would appear creationists like Dr. Weikart’s colleagues at the Discovery Institute who will deny evolution because, once Europeans and others with guns conduct an unholy genocide (which Darwin writes against in the next chapter), and once humans wipe out chimpanzees, orangs and gorillas, the other great apes, the creationists can [then] dishonestly look around, blink their eyes and say, “Where are the links? There cannot be evolution between (Animal X) and humans!”

Darwin wrote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, [emphasis added] and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

In the end, Darwin wrote against genocide, against racism, and in favor of the higher thinking abilities of all dark-skinned people. He wrote in favor of Christian morality. Darwin himself remained a faithful, tithing Christian to the end of his life.

Such a man, and such amazing science, deserve accurate history, not the fantastic, cowardly and scurrilous inventions Dr. Weikart has given them. We should rise to be “man in a more civilized state” as Darwin had hoped.

Update, July 24, 2008, nota bene:  To anyone venturing here from the Blogcatalog discussion on intelligent design: Get over to the site of Donald Johanson’s Institute for Human Origins, and especially look at the presentation “On Becoming Human.”  Also check out the Evolution Gateway site at Berkeley, especially this page which explains what evolution is, and this page which offers some introduction for what the evidence for evolution really is.  One quick answer to a question someone asked there:  Between H. erectus and modern humans, H. sapiens, in the time sequence we have fossils of H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis.  It’s pretty clear that Neandertal is not ancestral to modern humans, but instead lived alongside modern humans for 50,000 years or so from the Middle East through Southern Europe.  To the question of actual transitional fossils, you’d need to hit the paleontology journals — there are a lot.  You may also benefit from taking a look at the articles at this special Nature site.


Archaeology marches on! Carnivals to catch up

May 7, 2008

Testing, grading, trying to correct errors, and meanwhile progress continues.

Four Stone Hearth’s 40th edition is out today at the redoubtable Remote Central — but I missed #39 at Hominin Dental Anthro.

Real science is almost so much more interesting than faux science. #39 features the discussions about the claims that the Hobbits had dental fillings. While such a claim is damaging either to the claims of the age of Homo floresiensis or to the claims about the age of the specimens and, perhaps, human evolution, no creationist has yet showed his head in the discussion. When real science needs doing, creationists prefer to go to the movies. There is even a serious discussion of culture, and what it means to leadership of certain human tribes, with nary a creationist in sight.

While you’re there, take a careful look at the header and general design of Hominin Dental Anthro. Very pretty layout, don’t you think?

#40 at Remote Central is every bit as good. World history and European history teachers will want to pay attention to the posts on extinctions on the islands of the Mediterranean. Any one of the posts probably has more science in it in ten minutes’ reading than all of Ben Stein’s mockumentary movie, “Expelled!” That’s true especially when science is used to skewer the claims of the movie, or when discussion turns to the real problems the mockumentary ignores.

Enjoy the cotton candy.