|
REAL Science Blog
REAL Science Home
Contact Webmaster
Link to This Website
RSS Feed 
Read this FREE online!
Our YouTube Channel
|
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Showdown in Texas: Christina Comer Sues the TEA
Unlike others who can only claim to have been expelled, professional science educator Chris Comer was actually forced to resign from her position because of her stance on intelligent design.
Now she is fighting back.
In early November, 2007, Comer was forced to resign from her job as Science Curriculum Director at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) after forwarding an e-mail about an upcoming talk by Barbara Forrest. According to this story in the Dallas Morning News, Comer is suing the TEA and Education Commissioner Robert Scott for illegal termination.
Most importantly, the suit is specifically intended to bring about change by challenging the constitutionality of the requirement that TEA employees must remain neutral on the subject of Creationism. The entire lawsuit is 70 pages long and includes many new details concerning the case. 
posted by Jeremy Mohn
|
On Freedoms
What is freedom?
Does freedom mean that we act as we please, regardless of the consequences? Does our own freedom give us the right to abridge the freedom of others?
I have a cousin who's serving in the Marines right now. My son has been besieged by military recruiters. I remember my uncle coming home on leave from Vietnam and how I worked so hard to learn to play the theme from "The Green Berets" to welcome him home. (As a kindergartner I didn't know the difference between the Navy & the Marines - oops!)* I remember elementary school classmates being worried about their fathers over there. I remember the fear I had at the beginning of Gulf I when my husband seriously considered enlisting and carrying on his family's tradition of service. Now I see former students who've served in Gulf I and/or Gulf II who are proud of their service and strong in their conviction that they've defended our freedoms.
We need to remember what freedom is all about. The so-called "Academic Freedom" bills popping up around the country have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with false populism.
I don't know the original source of this quote but I found it here:
Real academic freedom is the freedom of scientists to ask questions. This bill is all about letting schools ignore the answers. Short, sweet, and true. Have a safe Independence Day, and keep in mind what truly constitutes freedom. *added in edit: . . . and obviously I still can't keep the services straight. The Green Berets = Army Special Forces. My apologies.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
|
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A North American Field Guide: Identifying Anti-evolutionistii stealthus
 Anti-evolutionists who campaign for office have learned to camouflage their distaste for Darwin during the last few election cycles. Although their plumage has evolved and their calls can vary, anti-evolutionist scat shows that their basic physiological processes remain unchanged. This scat tends to blend easily into the background, often becoming odiferous only after the candidate has been elected to office.
Briefly, here are some identifying characteristics of Anti-evolutionistii stealthus:
1.Distinctive vocalizations, including calls for:
a. Local control
b. Teaching more about evolution, not less, or push to augment/modify the state curriculum; critical analysis/developing critical thinking skills
c. Academic Freedom/Academic Bill of Rights for K12 students/teachers
d. Treating "origins science" differently than other science topics
2. Social behavior: are Young-Earth Creationists, or will not give an opinion as to the age of the earth
3. Camouflage: They try to hide or downplay their association with anti-evolution groups
4. Avoidance behavior: Some will avoid public forums or press interviews.
Read on to learn more about identifying details for each characteristic. 1a. Calls for local control:These candidates will often not specify exactly what items need to be placed under local control, nor do they demonstrate that local boards don't already have this control. During the 2000 KS school board race, one of the ringleaders of the 1999 creationism debacle had this to say: But [Linda] Holloway contends she's not trying to ban the teaching of evolution, only leave it up to local boards of education.
"My question is, 'So, what's wrong with local control?'" she said. More recently, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law in late June of this year with this comment: "I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children." They're taking their cues from on high: On teaching evolution in schools, Bush believes both evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects. "He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught," a spokeswoman said. Granted there's nothing stealthy about that comment, but it shows that using the phrase "local control" can be a clue that a candidate would support the Discovery Institute's mantra of "teach the controversy." Republican strategist Ralph Reed described in May of 2007 how Republican candidates are advised to approach the evolution issue: "The issue is that this ought to be a matter left to local school boards, teachers and parents. That's really where it is in our country. And I think where the president came down when he was running in '99 and 2000, and where I think the overwhelming majority of our candidates today stand, is, you know, this is an issue of academic freedom and local control. So, nobody wants to prevent evolution from being taught. We all agree that, when that went on earlier in our country, that was wrong.
"But we also think that, as a matter of academic freedom and local control, that, if a -- if a school or a teacher decides to present an alternative viewpoint, from a scientific standpoint, not teaching the Bible -- that's for religion class -- but presenting some scientific evidence of an alternative view of human origins, what's wrong with that? Let them be exposed to it. Let them come to their own conclusions." Which brings us to: 1b. Calls to teach more about evolution, not less, or push to augment/modify the state curriculum; citing critical analysis/developing critical thinking skillsMany of these folks state that they only want to teach more about evolution, that they want to enhance or supplement science education, not diminish it. They emphasize "teaching critical analysis" or "developing the students' critical thinking skills," but they haven't shown why they're limiting that development to science classes and to evolution in particular. Lately, evolution has been joined by global warming, stem cell research, and human cloning as the only topics worthy of critical analysis within the entire high school curriculum. During the past year, the Discovery Institute has instigated the introduction of various "Academic Freedom From Learning" acts in state legislatures across the country. Spokesman Casey Luskin opined: "The Academic Freedom Act empowers teachers to teach more about evolution, not less." Don Covington has been the vice president of networking with Intelligent Design Network with an office in Johnson County. He also stated in September of 2004"We want to teach more about evolution, not less." From current Kansas State Board member Kathy Martin's website: "We should be taking a critical look at the evidence for all theories of origin, including both evolution and intelligent design." Some of us remember Connie Morris' 2006 newsletter in which she asserted: "In fact we want MORE science by CRITICALLY ANALIZING [sic] the evidence." 1c. Academic Freedom/Academic Bill of Rights for K12 students/teachersThis most recent ploy from the Discovery Institute will enable teachers to "augment" science instruction by teaching intelligent design and using Creationist teaching materials. Although the bills explicitly deny that religion is to be taught, the DI and its supporters have maintained all along that ID is scientific, not religious, and thus belongs in a science classroom. The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislation, propaganda in the form of giving legislators free passes to Expelled, and advice from their staff. 1d. Singling out so-called "origins science" for special treatment.Creationist Kansas state board of education member John Bacon told Science magazine in 2006: "I've seen polls showing that the majority of people in the state want their kids to be exposed to all theories of origin science in the classroom," he says. "If evolution is a theory, they want it taught as a theory, not as a fact." The Kansas Republican Assembly also indicates that the science curriculum should be determined by popularity. We also see in Bacon's statement the vestigial Creationist scam of "theory not fact," where the candidate deliberately conflates the scientific meaning of the word "theory" with the popular perception that a theory is nothing more than a hunch or a guess. Anti-evolutionists adhere to an artificial separation of operational science from origin science. They believe that if a human didn't witness an event, it didn't happen. "Were you theeeere?" is a favorite tagline of Creationist leader Ken Ham. You have to wonder if the anti-evolutionists are familiar with forensic science or criminal trials, or if they've heard of CSI -- the TV series, that is. If they were on a jury for a trial in which the defendant had the means, motive, and opportunity to murder the victim, with reams of incriminating circumstantial evidence presented, but no eyewitnesses or confession . . . would they be able to find the defendant guilty? 2. Social behavior: Are Young-Earth Creationists, or will not give an opinion as to the age of the earthSometimes accompanied by, " . . . but it doesn't matter because I don't want my beliefs taught in the science classroom." Young-Earth Creationists include Connie Morris, John Bacon, Ken Willard, Kathy Martin, Steve Abrams, Barney Maddox, and Florida legislator/backer of "Academic Freedom From Learning Act" Ronda Storm. Most of the folks who gave testimonials in favor of teaching the "controversy" or "criticisms of evolution" at the May 2005 Topeka ID hearings either stated their belief in a ~10,000-year-old Earth or they refused to give an answer. Let's make it very clear that Jeremy & I both agree that holding a personal belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis does not disqualify a person from public service. We should also make it clear that we will not support efforts to weaken REAL science education in Kansas. The John Freshwater case is a clear example of a Creationist teacher forcing his beliefs onto students and even into their skins. With 1 of 8 high school biology teachers endorsing creationism or intelligent design in the classroom, it is obvious that voters must be aware of Creationist teachers pushing personal beliefs onto everyone's children. 3. Camouflage: They try to hide or downplay their association with anti-evolution groupsDuring the 1999 creationism debacle, state board of education members Steve Abrams, Scott Hill and Harold Voth presented a set of standards they claimed to have authored. However, Jack Krebs provided solid evidence that the document had actually been written by Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association of Mid-America. In July of 2006 Connie Morris personally delivered thousands of expensive, glossy inserts to at least two newspaper offices in her district a couple of weeks before her defeat in the primary. The publishers of the Hays and Liberal newspapers confirmed that the inserts were paid for by the Intelligent Design Network of Kansas, Inc., but the inserts didn't refer to that fact in any way. The Discovery Institute tried a reverse-camouflage effect in July of 2006 when they launched a barrage of PR in Kansas touting the ID-friendly science standards in place at that time. This Seattle-based public relations outfit made a point of stating that they weren't trying to influence the elections which were four weeks away, although their efforts at "educating the voters" halted after the August election results indicated that their pet standards would soon be replaced. Apparently they didn't think Kansans were intelligent enough to see through their designs. 4. Avoidance behavior: Some will avoid public forums and press interviews.Kris Van Meteren (KRA leader and PR guru) had his mother Iris Van Meter use this strategy effectively during the 2002 state school board elections. Van Meter turned down invitations to candidate forums, wouldn't give interviews, and pretty much stayed in hiding during the entire campaign. Two weeks before the election, a glossy, nicely-produced brochure went out to her district maligning her opponent Val DeFever as a supporter of atheism. The Lawrence Journal-World noted the Van Meter/Van Meteren antics and the 2006 stealth attempt by Jesse Hall to defeat Janet Waugh: In 2002, Iris Van Meter ran below the political radar in the Republican Party primary to unseat an incumbent member of the Kansas State Board of Education in southeast Kansas.
She then became a key vote in the 6-4 majority on the state education board that has attacked evolution, changed the availability of sex education and hired a critic of public schools as education commissioner . . . [Candidate Jesse] Hall hasn't appeared at any candidate forums and is backed by individuals associated with the religious right, [pro-science incumbent Janet] Waugh said.
"I have attended quite a few meetings, and I haven't seen him yet," Waugh said. An email sent out across the state just before the 2006 primary -- even forwarded by some ministers to their congregations -- left little doubt that Hall was the anti-evolutionist's chosen candidate: Celtie Johnson of Overland Park, an evolution opponent, recently circulated a letter urging people to contribute to Hall and other candidates aligned against evolution in the five state education board races. . . .
"If we can win all five seats, creating a 7-3 conservative majority in spite of all the media and academia against us, then the liberals and evolutionists would learn the undeniable message that they can no longer get away with cramming evolutionism down ours and our neighbors kids' throats!" she wrote. Barney Maddox was a Creationist dentist in Texas who ran for the Texas state school board. Although he was comfortable calling Darwin's work a bunch of "pre-Civil War fairy tales" for the Institute for Creation Research, he also declined all media interviews. Of course, no one of these indicators infallibly labels a candidate as a member of the Anti-evolutionistii stealthus species. But keep your eyes open, and ask your candidate these questions: Do you support the current Kansas science standards? Would you support an academic freedom bill such as the one recently enacted in Louisiana? How old is the earth, and what leads you to that conclusion? How should "local control" influence science curriculum issues? . . . and don't let them get away with lulling Kansans into a false sense of security. [edited to add links - csa]
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
|
Monday, June 30, 2008
Popular does not mean correct
The KRA blog has a survey question up on its front page:
Were you aware that 64% of Kansans want the last say before increasing taxes and 60% believe evolution and intelligent design should be taught together? Is the KRA aware that 50% of Americans aren't aware that the earth orbits the sun and takes one year to do so? Teach the controversy! Is the KRA aware that 30% of Americans believe that alien spacecraft visit the earth on a regular basis? Teach the controversy! Is the KRA aware that 44% of Americans believe that astrology is "very" or "somewhat" scientific? Teach the controversy! (Oops, Michael Behe already tried that one.) Does the KRA know that half of our citizens believe that magnet therapy is "sort of" or "very scientific"? Teach the controversy, and make sure to show that ridiculous opening sequence from the latest Indiana Jones movie! 73% of Americans believe in at least one of the following: Extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts, mental telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, witches, reincarnation, or channeling. Does the KRA endorse teaching these ideas as well? Fifty years ago, a substantial portion of Americans believed that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. Would the KRA have endorsed teaching that idea during the 1950's? Just because an idea is popular does not mean it is correct. Let's make sure we keep the focus on teaching REAL science in Kansas classrooms.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
|
Brandon Kenig Responds
We ended our earlier post about Brandon Kenig by listing three issues that still troubled us concerning his stated positions on the Kansas Science Standards issue.
Kenig quickly and courteously responded to those issues and gave us permission to post his response here. His email is reproduced below the fold in its entirety. Jeremy,
Some answers to your questions...
1. We asked Kenig why he was inclined to believe the earth is 10 or 15 thousand years old, rather than ~4.5 billion as determined by geologists and accepted by 99.9% of scientists in the field. He did not respond to this question. When I stated this on my personal blog, this was my own personal religious belief. I have not yet completely reconciled the overwhelming scentific evidence of the age of the earth with my religious beliefs and teachings, but that it is inconsequential, because I do not think my personal, religious belief should be taught in the classroom. This is a personal issue and I may resign myself to the fact that they may never be reconciled. But that is too be expected--religion and science complement eachother, but we must accept that we cannot always reconcile the two--each has its place in our lives and in society.
2. In his response to our questions, Kenig asserted that "scientific critiques of evolution or missing data or holes in the theory can and should be discussed and taught if they are scientific in nature and technical--and that is consistent with my stated position all along." Unfortunately, Kenig did not explain which "scientific critiques" of evolutionary theory he thinks should be discussed and taught. After all, the 2005 standards included a litany of so-called "critiques" of evolutionary theory that had already been thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. We cannot help but wonder, are these the kind of "scientific critiques" that Kenig has in mind? No, this is not what I have in mind. Any missing data or critiques or new information that comes along must be supported by a consensus of the scientific community. Critiques in the 2005 standards attempted to shroud themselves in scientific reasoning, but they were undoubtedly religious and philosophical-based. To be completely honest, I am unsure of specific, scientific advances or changes to the current theory that have been embraced by the scientific community, but if these modifications or addtions come along and are supported by a consensus of the scientific community, they should be taught in the classroom. Discoveries such as the one that led to the finding and naming of the skeleton "Lucy," or findings that found additional hominid species or discounted ideas believed about the discovery of an existing hominid would be worthy of being taught if they were supported by a consenus of scientists. I would imagine that if they were, these new insights would also start appearing in scientific textbooks.
3. Throughout Kenig's Facebook group page, a recurring theme seems to be that local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates whenever they so choose. He even specifically lists evolution as one of the topics for which state mandates should be reduced. This is in direct opposition to Kenig's stated support of the current science standards. Indeed, this same "local control" stance was promoted by the instigators of the infamous 1999 standards. That is completely untrue. I don't think local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates, I just think they should have the ability to augment state mandates as they see fit. On my Facebook page, I say "I want to give control to local boards and local districts to add or expand on these topics as to how they see fit." Not once do I say that local boards or districts should have the power to detract from existing standards or water them down or reduce them in any way. Any attempt to teach creationism in the classroom would be a reduction in science standards, as would any attempt to detract from evolution or downgrade it or teach any less of it then required by the state. I just want local schools and districts to have the power to go above and beyond in certain areas. In areas like appropriating state funding, extra-curricular activities, preparation for state testing--local districts and boards should be able to innovate and adjust to the state's policies in the ways they see fit. With sex education and evolution--these policies are directly related to the curriculum and must be mandated by the state, so school districts must follow the state's mandates in these areas, but there is still room for some local control--in sex education, some school districts and boards may choose to provide more information beyond the state board's broad policy. In the teaching of evolution, some schools or districts may choose to offer an entire class on evolutionary biology or supplement in-class teaching on the subject with a visits to research centers or natural history museums. Obviously, the state mandate on evolution is much more specific, so there is less opportunity to expand it and supplement it in a pro-science approach, but teachers and schools should still be able to engage students in the topic in exciting ways without fear of reprisal or reprimand by parents or anti-evolutionists who counter that these schools and districts are going beyond the intent of the state's mandate.
I hope this helps. I'm not inconsistent. I've never run for office before, but I'm learning quickly and I will try to be much more clear on these issues. I see that my position on local control in many areas is too unspecific and some believe that I'm for local control in all areas or unconditional local control which isn't true. No matter what, no district or local board should have the power to ignore or dilute an existing state mandate--they should only have the power to expand or augment an existing state mandate. I'm learning a lot about how words can be interpreted and how statements can be phrased incorrectly and I will do my best to articulate my positions much more clearly in the upcoming months. Also, please remember that I've "evolved" on this topic as well. You have to remember, as a high school student taking biology, the pro-science majority was in control, so the controversy was at bay and my education was unaffected, so it was not something I initially thought about or was concerned about. Two years ago, I was 20 years old, and while I had a pro-evolution stance, I was still not 100 percent informed on the exact nature of the controversy and what was happening in KS. After doing my homework and realizing how serious this was and the extent to which some of the board members were willing to dilute real science and use standards that no other state in the country was following, I gradually realized this was of greater importance that I thought, especially when I learned exactly what the board was trying to do back in 2005 and how that really affected students and teachers in the classroom as well as outsiders' perceptions of Kansas.
Brandon
I've attended Shawnee Mission Public Schools from K-12th grade and I'm proud of the education I received. I want to ensure that other students receive the same type of education, and strong science standards grounded in science, not ideology, are the only way to ensure this.
|
Cutting Through the Obfuscation
Stephanie Grace of The Times-Picayune has recently witnessed some creative semantic and lexical contortions of the English language.
Has she discovered a new and emerging dialect?
No, she has merely been watching the Louisiana State Legislature over the last several weeks.
In a column concerning Governor Bobby Jindal's recent signing of the Louisiana Science Education Act, Grace writes:
Now, nobody's likely to take issue with the idea of "science education." Nor is the bill's specific wording offensive on its face. The act allows teachers to bring supplemental materials into the classroom to promote "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning" -- never mind that any decent school should be promoting those things already.
It's what the bill doesn't say that has prompted criticism by, among others, the New York Times editorial page and one of Jindal's own biology professors at Brown University, who spoke on behalf of the Louisiana Coalition for Science.
The bill never mentions that evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists as the basis for modern biology.
And it skips right over the key fact that the effort is backed by the same archconservatives who've trying to force religiously based doubts over the theory, either in the form of creationism or its successor "intelligent design," into science classrooms for years now.
Those efforts have been consistently rejected by the courts, which explains another artful bit of misdirection: The bill explicitly disavows the promotion of any particular set of religious beliefs. That directly contradicts the goal of its most ardent supporters, including the Louisiana Family Forum, which in and of itself should raise plenty of questions over just what was going on here.
Still, the obfuscation made it hard to argue the merits of the bill, and in the end, even many of the lawmakers who knew better threw up their hands and voted yes. For further analysis of the bill, see these enlightening comments on The Panda's Thumb.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
|
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Dr. Walt Chappell
Although District 8 (Wichita) state board of education candidate Walt Chappell gave indications early on he was a REAL science candidate, we were hesitant to give him our backing because he hadn't responded to an email we'd sent asking him about these issues.
We're very happy to learn that Chappell has provided abundantly clear responses to substantive questions. At his website are his responses to questionnaires from interested organizations.
Some examples follow: In response to the Mainstream Coalition: 2) Q: Are you opposed to the teaching of biblical creation or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes?
A: Yes From the Kansas Families for Education: 8) Do you support biblical creationism, or intelligent design theory, as an alternative or in addition to the evolution theory in the science curricula
Answer: Absolutely NOT!! From the Wichita Eagle: Q. Should the board revise its science standards to include criticism of evolution? If so, why, and in what way? If not, why not?
A. NO!! I have taught evolution in Kansas middle and high school science classes plus served on the College of Medicine faculty at the University of Iowa. Each major religion and culture has its own explanation of how the universe was created. No one knows how it began. But, the millions of years of scientific evidence of evolution on Earth are well documented and must be taught in our classrooms. Jeremy & I are confident that Dr. Chappell's consistent, coherent, unequivocal responses indicate that he's a REAL science candidate, and our map has been changed accordingly.
|
A Case of Mistaken Identity?
Brandon Kenig is a District 2 candidate for the Kansas State Board of Education. Last Friday morning, Kenig sent us an email in which he said that we had "completely distorted" his position on evolution by including the following quote from his blog on our map:
"The theory of evolution should be taught in classrooms, but not forced upon students. Holes in the current evolution theory and alternative theories (such as intelligent design) should be mentioned." Did we distort Kenig's position? Was this truly a case of mistaken identity? Keep reading to follow the evidence where it leads . . . [Added in edit: Brandon Kenig Responds] At the time we made our endorsements, there was admittedly little information available concerning Kenig's positions. All we had to go on was a two-year-old post on Kenig's blog ( archived) in which he described his position on evolution. Evolution--Let me just say that I'm Catholic, and I believe in evolution somewhat and that creation can go hand-in-hand with evolution. I think evolutionists have done a poor job by trying to leave God out of the equation (I don't think the earth's 6 billion years old--more like 10 or 15 thousand years old). The theory of evolution should be taught in classrooms, but not forced upon students. Holes in the current evolution theory and alternative theories (such as intelligent design) should be mentioned. This isn't about teaching the Bible in the classroom, it's about examining scientific evidence, critiquing it, and looking at alternative evidence. Science isn't perfect and we should be prepared to examine all the evidence and not try to ignore obvious problems in current evolutionary theory and the opposition to it. Having said that, attempts by school boards and politicians to downplay evolution or ban it entirely are also ridiculous. The classroom is an open forum. And I believe that evolution and creationism can co-exist (In fact, I personally think they're both compatible). Kenig has since clarified his position to us via email, and he gave us permission to quote from those emails. First, he acknowledged that his stance was confusing: I wrote that blog entry two years ago and it was stream-of-consciousness thought at the time, and I realized after reading your interpretation of it and others' interpretations that it was unclear. I meant for it to read that intelligent design in light of the current controversy should be mentioned, but this is not the same thing as teaching it. This is not anything new--in fact, when I was in high school, virtually all of the biology teachers in my school made a statement or alluded to the controversy over teaching evolution and how some wanted intelligent design or creationism taught. Then, the teacher would proceed to teach about evolution and only evolution. So what I stated is not shocking or anything new--most people already know about the controversy but for students who don't, a brief statement acknowledging the controversy would give students some perspective and let them know what is happening. He went on to state his unequivocal support for the current science standards: I fully support the current standards re-written by the board in 2007. I feel fortunate that in the 2nd district we've had Sue Gamble as our board member and she's been a great voice for our district. This controversy has hurt Kansas nationally, and economically, we've suffered--I've heard stories of several companies that hesitated before re-locating to Kansas because of the State Board's debacle in weakening the science standards. Corporations and national organizations look at the quality of the education systems and schools where they re-locate as a major factor in their decision-making process. Religion and philosophy belong in religion and philosophy classes and science belongs in science classes. It's as simple as that. One of the questions we asked Kenig concerned his public statement at a recent candidate forum in Prairie Village. Due to a personal conflict, Kenig was unable to attend the forum, but he did send along a statement to be read by the moderator. In that statement, Kenig said that he would like to give school districts more local control over the teaching of "controversial" scientific topics. We asked him whether he considered evolution to be one of those controversial topics. In response to this question, Kenig wrote: In my statement concerning local conrol [sic] over controversial topics, I now realize I was too vague. I was not attempting to describe evolution as one of those topics--I think topics like sex education and suitable reading for English classes should be decided on a local level. I think larger, more urban and suburban districts should have the ability to go beyond the abstinence-only policy set forth by the state board and include other aspects of sex education as they see fit. These are the issues I think should be handled locally. Evolution, however, is a major component of the biology curriculum and as such, it should be consistent across the board and across the state. We wrote back, pointing out the following "Theme" listed on the Facebook group Brandon Kenig for Kansas State Board of Education: Believer in local control (reducing mandates on how certain subjects are taught in favor of local control and letting local boards augment/adjust existing state standards for their own needs--evolution, sex ed., etc., . . . Kenig responded, writing: I read what my facebook blog entry said and and [sic] what I meant was that teachers should be able to augment the teaching of evolution with additional details. He went on to say: I apologize if this appeared inconsistent--I had not intended for it to be. It is ultimately my fault because I was not more specific to begin with. But to recap: the current science standards (sans creationism or intelligent design) must remain in place, and local teachers should be given the flexibility to expand and teach the topic beyond what is offered on the state assessment (discussing different periods, different hominid forms, different research and researchers on the subject) but in no way, shape, or form should this be interpreted or used to REDUCE or DILUTE the existing pro-science standards--it should only be used to ENHANCE them. We are grateful that Kenig has taken the time to more fully explain his positions. However, we are still troubled by a few issues: 1. We asked Kenig why he was inclined to believe the earth is 10 or 15 thousand years old, rather than ~4.5 billion as determined by geologists and accepted by 99.9% of scientists in the field. He did not respond to this question. 2. In his response to our questions, Kenig asserted that "scientific critiques of evolution or missing data or holes in the theory can and should be discussed and taught if they are scientific in nature and technical--and that is consistent with my stated position all along." Unfortunately, Kenig did not explain which "scientific critiques" of evolutionary theory he thinks should be discussed and taught. After all, the 2005 standards included a litany of so-called "critiques" of evolutionary theory that had already been thoroughly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. We cannot help but wonder, are these the kind of "scientific critiques" that Kenig has in mind? 3. Throughout Kenig's Facebook group page, a recurring theme seems to be that local school districts should be able to ignore state mandates whenever they so choose. He even specifically lists evolution as one of the topics for which state mandates should be reduced. This is in direct opposition to Kenig's stated support of the current science standards. Indeed, this same "local control" stance was promoted by the instigators of the infamous 1999 standards. Are these seemingly contradictory statements the result of a candidate who is trying to obfuscate the issues, or are they products of a campaign that just isn't very well organized and coherent at this point? Frankly, it's hard to tell. The bottom line is this: we are not convinced that Kenig is a REAL science candidate, so we are changing his designation to "Unknown" with a link back to this post. We are hoping that Kenig will clarify these issues for us soon. We promise to keep you informed, and to continue following the evidence where it leads.
|
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Trap Is Set
Snooze Alarm
Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star asks:
. . . why should anybody give the [Kansas state] school board races any thought this year? Simple, said Jack Krebs, [former] president of Kansas Citizens for Science. "Because the conservatives have led us astray two times when we haven't been paying attention," he told me. Yes, that's the lesson Kansans keep forgetting. It's off years like this one that make possible all those embarrassing headlines later on. It's in these off years when candidates aligned with the religious right tend to win in the Republican primary because the moderates are napping. This graphic sums it up:  1999: EvoWars I - evolution, history of the earth, history of the universe taken out of the state standards 2000: Voters replace most creationists on the state board with moderates. 2001: Good science standards adopted. 2002: Voter apathy. Two creationists elected to state board. 2004: Voter apathy. One more creationist elected to state board. Creationists now in majority. 2005: EvoWars II - ID-friendly standards adopted 2006: Voters replace most creationists on the state board with moderates. 2007: Good science standards adopted. Why don't we break the cycle this year? Let's change it to . . .  . . . and stop relying on a snooze alarm. The time to wake up and vote for REAL science is NOW.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
|
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Ken Hubert - A Stand Up Guy
Here is an interview with Ken Hubert, a high school Biology teacher from Faribault, Minnesota.
From Randy Moore, the interviewer:
When classes began at Faribault (Minnesota) High School in the fall of 1997, high school biology teacher Ken Hubert was looking forward to a productive year. However, early in 1998 Ken became concerned that a colleague - first-year biology teacher Rodney LeVake - was not teaching evolution as prescribed in the school's curriculum. When Ken confronted Rod with his concerns, Ken learned that his concerns were justified-Rod told Ken, "I can't teach evolution." When Rod was later reassigned to a physical science class for refusing to follow the school's curriculum, he filed a lawsuit that ended in early 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused, without comment, to hear Rod's case. I knew about this case, but I did not know the back-story concerning how Mr. LaVake came to be reassigned to teach physical science. I personally admire the principled stances taken by those involved in this situation. It seems to me that the school did what was best for students by ensuring that they have an opportunity to learn REAL science. Hat-tip: Greg Laden
posted by Jeremy Mohn
|
What is REAL science?
On this blog, we advocate for the teaching of REAL science in public school science classrooms. But what is REAL science? REAL science... Recognizes its limits - Science only works with phenomena that can be independently verified by observations or empirical tests. This is a practical approach to the study of the natural world that has proven to be extremely conducive to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Since this approach does not rule out the existence of non-verifiable phenomena, any claims about the existence or non-existence of such phenomena are not scientific.
Enriches our understanding of the universe - Science enhances our appreciation of ourselves and of the world around us. It does not attempt to supplant or displace other ways of knowing, such as philosophy, religion, or ethics. Knowledge gained through scientific investigation is transferable to other contexts, but science does not invalidate other modes of human inquiry.
Approximates reality - Science is not an attempt to prove hypotheses, but rather an attempt to falsify them. The purpose of a scientific model is to provide a conceptual framework that guides and directs future research. Although all foundational scientific models have been extensively tested, no scientific model should ever be viewed as absolute truth. All scientific models are tentative and subject to potential modification as new empirical evidence becomes available.
Leads to new knowledge - Science is a systematic approach to developing physical, mathematical, and conceptual models for understanding the natural world. The best scientific models are those that have both explanatory and predictive power. In other words, scientific models should not only explain what is currently known, they should routinely generate new hypotheses for further research.
Everyone in this debate wants a better world, and we can all benefit from the knowledge gained through the application of the scientific method. When it comes to science education, our goal should be to teach our children to understand and appreciate the scientific method so that it can be utilized for the benefit of all humanity. Consequently, we must not allow the quality of science education in our public schools to be compromised by the current culture war concerning who holds "the Truth."
We have an obligation to our children to pursue only the best available science. We should accept nothing less than REAL science in our public school science classrooms.
posted by Jeremy Mohn
|
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Sparks and Boasting Tongues
Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. - James 3:5 (New International Version) I've been trying to figure out why the John Freshwater situation has me so bothered.
It's not as though child abuse is uncommon - unfortunately. The fact that this man is forcing his beliefs on everyone else's kids . . . that's commonplace as well. And although I don't like it when my kid is hurt accidentally at school, I don't fly off the handle and start threatening litigation.
Some of Freshwater's defenders claim that the burnings are being publicized as a smokescreen for what they say is the real issue - Freshwater's refusal to remove his personal Bible from his desk. This refusal just doesn't bother me, except that his defenders are using it to turn the situation into a discussion about religious persecution instead of what constitutes proper behavior for a science teacher. A student reading his/her Bible during non-instructional school time - lunch, passing time, recess - is constitutionally kosher, even though emails continue to circulate false rumors that the ACLU has banned the Bible from public schools.
So why is this situation giving me nightmares?
What keeps coming back to me are memories of the methods course all aspiring science teachers had to take. Much of the class was focused on using lab apparatus & supplies safely. How to get kids to wear goggles over their eyes instead of on their foreheads. How to store and handle acids. The importance of limiting class size. How to repair electrical equipment. How not to do the "Bed of Nails" demonstration. Why we don't have kids handle mercury anymore. Why we don't show Jearl Walker's hand-dipped-in-molten-lead demonstration. How to walk across hot coals safely, and why you bother to do so. The emphasis was always on keeping the students safe.
This focus on student safety goes beyond the science classrooms. I've observed day-to-day school operations for 20+ years of teaching across the Midwest, and the first priority is always, always, always student safety. Fire and tornado drills, drug dog protocols, practice for Columbine-type incidents, cleaning up hallway spills immediately . . . the list goes on and on. We devote much time and effort to keeping these kids safe, and it's always fine by me that we use a bit of class time to help make sure kids remain safe.
And what did this teacher do? He burned kids. On purpose.
He violated the basic trust inherent in in loco parentis - in the absence of the parents, the school district is responsible for the safety of those kids.
It didn't matter that the owner's manual for the device stated in no uncertain terms that contact with the body was to be avoided. Because he thought he knew more than the device's manufacturer, kids were hurt.
And because he thought he knew more than the established science community, his boasting tongue lied to students about science.
The 50,000-V sparks he applied to those kids have started a fire of his own making. He abused the trust parents placed in him, and his career should rightfully go down in a great forest of flames.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
|
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Expelled Frozen Out in Canada
From Peter McKnight of the Vancouver Sun:
The makers of Expelled, including Ben Stein, have not let facts stand in the way of their anti-Darwin screed McKnight goes on to describe how the producers quote-mined reality in making this film. To summarize, he notes In effect, then, the producers are doing precisely what the Nazis did: Distorting Darwin's writing in order to justify their beliefs. On this point, there may be hope for [narrator/star Ben] Stein yet: When I alerted him to the alteration of the Darwin quote and read him the full passage, he said he was "kind of dismayed if that's true." He also said he would check it out, so I look forward to Stein disavowing at least that part of the movie.
I don't, however, expect the producers to disavow any part of the movie because their disdain for truth comes through loud and clear. Consequently, I'm not particularly bothered by the existence of Expelled. For it displays, in a way a movie review never could, the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the ID movement which, unable to construct a convincing argument, resorts to dishonesty and deceit.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
|
Friday, June 20, 2008
John Derbyshire Nails It
In a National Review Online blog post entitled "Governor Jindal, Veto This Bill!," John Derbyshire explains what the Louisiana Science Education Act is really all about:
The entire effect of this law, if Gov. Jindal signs it, will be that one cartload of Louisiana taxpayers' money will go to the Discovery Institute for their mendacious "textbooks," then another cartload will go into the pockets of lawyers to defend the inevitable challenge to the law in federal courts, which will inevitably be successful, as they always are, and should be. Could this really be all about selling textbooks? I honestly don't know. However, one of the authors of the book is a freelance technical writer named Jonathan Moneymaker. That can't be just a coincidence, right?
posted by Jeremy Mohn
|
Archives
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
|
Blog Contributors
What is REAL science?
Disclaimer:
The thoughts and opinions expressed on this blog are solely our own. They do not necessarily represent the views of our employers or any other
organization with which we are affiliated.
Comment Policy:
One of the goals of this website is to foster constructive dialogue concerning science and science education. Comments not in line with this goal may be deleted.
Our Visitors:
|
