Follow Me on Twitter!

  • is completely in the throes of the aphorism that a qualitative study's endpoint is hard to clamp down. 3 hrs ago
  • "needs to buy car tires; for the highlander rims" - sung to the melody of "aqualung" by jethro tull. 6 hrs ago
  • found that only about 2% of our students submitted possible plagiarized papers fall '08. wonder how that compares with national averages. 7 hrs ago
  • thinks after reading several books on secularization theory that the neo-atheist arguments are even less intelligible than before. 22 hrs ago
  • is enjoying playoff football. wishing he was in miami today - not for the game, for the sunshine. 1 day ago
  • More updates...

Recent Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Stuff You Might Find Here

Living Social Bookshelf

The Ooze Select Blogger

Scribe Member

Archives

Stuff Elsewhere

Info/Log In

Stats

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats

Smuggling Creationism into Science Class

Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 8:00 am Posted in Education, Religion, Science, Society

Can we put the debate of the Scopes’ Monkey Trial to bed at some point or are we seriously going to continue to find ways to re-ignite it.  This is just sad.

Already, more than half of the state’s eighth-graders lack basic competence in science, according to recent national test scores.

But despite pleas from scientists, civil liberties activists and educators like Peebles, Gov. Bobby Jindal signed Louisiana Senate Bill 733 into law. The new statute will allow teachers to introduce into the classroom “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” about evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.

The Christian Right’s Got a New Stealth Tactic to Smuggle Creationism into Science Class | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet.

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Of course I don't believe ID is science either, but the Scopes Trial topic is one that I always like to remember:

    In 1928, the primary college text for support of evolution was "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom", 1896, by Andrew White, prof of History; president and founder of Cornell. This was long before the discovery of proteins and DNA, so the argument basically boiled down to this: "Evolution is science, because scientists say 'so', and if you don't believe, then you are one of those flat earth fools. So accept it. Or Else!". White, as a history expert, cited Washington Irving's creative version of the flat earth story as genuine history, putting it into my textbooks that I was given not far from where the Scopes Trial was held in Tennessee. As the founder of America's first 'secular' university, White was also in a position to make implied threats real. Whether evolution has a solid scientific basis today will always hit considerable skepticism due to the methods of White and others.

    This would, of course, be another reason for disjoining origins speculation from science in the class room: Both sides have an extensive track record of victory at all costs and by any means.
    • ^
    • v
    White founded Cornell with Ezra Cornell who floated the bill.

    The first real secular program of study was through Charles Eliot at Harvard. Eliot was the first founder of the secular program of study.

    Union College was technically the first non-sectarian college. Johns Hopkins was the first to be founded with a non-sectarian religious purpose. Cornell's curriculum had the openness of a Quaker curriculum even if White (who was a classmate of Gilman who founded JHU) was adamant about a non-dogmatic perspective. Religion was not the issue for White as much as dogmatism. For any of these the influence of the Society of Friends on the curriculum and the trajectory of the early history is palpable.

    Are you deriving this from a particular source? I am not sure it is accurate. Suggest you read Veysey's book and Reuben's book for better information on this account. Marsden is also very good here as well as Ringenber and Rudolph.

    Again, idea that evolution is an ideological claim rather than a scientific basis for theorizing is an assertion without evidence you continue to make.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't know what you mean by "origins speculation". Do you mean the origin of life in general, or the origins of species?

    I am certianly not sure about pedagological history, but Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species would, even today, be an exemplary text for the teaching of evolution in a college classroom. I would have thought that it would have been used that way back then.
    • ^
    • v
    Not only scientists, civil libertarians and educators, but also at least one conservative pundit, at the National Review no less, has spoken out against this benighted law. Including a particularly forthright denuciation of the Discovery Institutes as a “gang of sleazy confidence tricksters.”

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGI0Zm...
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus