Last week, Slate published an article about a large Texas-based charter chain that teaches creationism in its science classes. A spokesman for the chain, Responsive Education Solutions defended the practice.
“According to the article in Slate, students in Responsive Education Solutions charter schools get a different spin on biogy and history, to accord with religious dogma. ”
Zack Kopplin wrote:
“When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.
“The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were “pagans in various levels of civilization.” They’ll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a “surrogate husband.”
“Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.”
Now the chain has plans to open additional charter schools in Arkansas, as reported by Max Brantley of the “Arkansas Times,” a writer in that state who continues to defy its most powerful family. The new charters, it appears, will facilitate the resegregation of Little Rock. Not what you expect to hear on the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Texas: A state of ignorance
LikeLike
Tyranny of the Ignorant
LikeLike
I am off from school today as the Philly area got socked with a foot of snow and minus degree wind chills so I can luxuriate in catching up on my favorite blog while relaxing with my wife, also a teacher and home today.
I occasionally contribute to this blog and some who read my comments may recall that I have been lately touting the fiction of Sinclair Lewis, an author pretty much forgotten today. He shouldn’t be. In the past month I finished reading his 1920 classic, Main Street, a book about the problem of conformity which is so relevant today, and today I am working on finishing Babbitt, Lewis’ satire of American business and businessmen of the 1920s. Babbitt reminds me so much of the know nothing’s from the business world now given carte blanche by our politicians to mismanage the public schools. Some time ago I read Elmer Gantry, Lewis’ 1920s expose of evangelical religious charlatans, and I recommend that book as well. Isn’t t amazing that 100 years later we allow the teaching of creationism in our schools?
All this reading of Sinclair Lewis reminds me that history surely does repeat itself and here we are, back in the 1920s , when income inequality peaked in 1928, unions were being crushed, the KKK was on the rise, and the crash and depression quickly followed.
We are living now in that corporate state which Lewis warned of in the 1930s in “It Can’t Happen Here”. Of course his lesson was that it can. Sadly I think we have let our guard down and it is.
LikeLike
You forgot to mention that there is a movement to eliminate women’s rights, especially in regards to their body and pregnancy. Roe vs Wade is in danger of being repealed, and, even if it isn’t, Family Planning Clinics – which provide a myriad of health services besides abortion – are being closed or curtailed in many states because of newly enacted government rules, plus the right to receive birth control pills covered under health insurance is in jeopardy in various locations due to the owners’ religious beliefs.
I like the fact you mentioned some literary references. We all need to reread some of Sinclair Lewis’ books. What was old, is new again (and not in a good way). We are moving backwards and losing ground on so many fronts. It is a crime to teach our children mistruths, yet this is what their parents also believe. I don’t know how any certified teacher could agree to tell lies to children, no matter how much they were being paid. I would be interested to see the background of who was teaching at those schools.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments and important reminder that women’s rights are also under attack. Of course, voting rights, privacy rights, separation of church and state, all those values we cherish and still manage to teach in our schools, are in jeopardy too. The right to bear arms seems to trump all.
LikeLike
Women’s rights are front and center right now as all those buses of protesters from across the country protesting against Roe vs Wade are out in force at the Central Mall in Washington DC.
LikeLike
Would you teach a child the truths about the formation of Planned Parenthood, and their initial racist goals as you advocate for women’s rights? Teaching extremes, or giving only one perspective on any topic is not the search for truth, and does not lead to true learning, only indoctrination.
LikeLike
Thenextlevel2000 – I realize abortion rights continues to be a hot topic. In the Buffalo area, a GYN who performed abortions, Dr Slepian, was killed by a sniper shot through his front window in his own home, not far from where I live. His children went to school with my children.
So yes, the whole issue needs to be discussed.
However, that doesn’t diminish the fact that Women’s Clinics are being forced to close and women’s rights are being high jacked by a group of misinformed men who are currently in power.
And this seems to parallel other issues, such as teaching creationism, where some people’s religious beliefs dictate what is right or wrong for the entire society.
Or even, a select group of elites have proclaimed themselves the experts on education and are using their power to shut down the entire public school system replacing it with charter or private schools to carry out their unproven theories.
LikeLike
The history of Planned Parenthood is rather irrelevant to its current function of providing voluntary reproductive services for women and girls.
LikeLike
In answer to that question about teaching that history, yes, of course! I would LOVE to have students learn about the eugenics movement in the United States, for then they would see the parallels to the current push for creation of a test-based meritocracy.
LikeLike
I too have found my interest in the ’20’s revived. I used to think that the political changes of the last 35 yrs were essentially a populist backlash against the ’60’s. But the more I read, the more it looks like we are engaged in a backlash against the social reforms of the 20thc., which came with the decline of monarchy and aristocracy caused by the industrial revolution– buoyed by an industrial boom & the consequent clout of workers to insist on a fair share of the pie. As we descend into industrial decline, with its massive shrinking of the economy, the first instinct seems to be to reassert the old ways.
But there is something else afoot, which reminds me of how ancient European ethnic quarrels, lidded but unresolved by the repressive soviet regime, sprang back to life when the wall crumbled. The wave of post-Depression financial reform was imposed on the country by an economic emergency; civil and social reforms of the 60’s were imposed top-down by federal institutions. The unresolved quarrels have resurfaced, perhaps because our federal institutions have faltered in managing the challenge of globalism.
LikeLike
“…civil and social reforms of the 60′s were imposed top-down by federal institutions.”
Millions of people spent years – decades – writing, protesting, marching and otherwise fighting for those reforms from the ground up. The reason they had to be “imposed top-down by federal institutions” was that the states and businesses adamantly refused to give oppressed groups the rights they were entitled to or even negotiate moderate compromises. For instance, had the bus company of Montgomery even been willing to allow blacks in the “white” section when there were no whites sitting there and to allow blacks to board from the front, rather than pay at the front then exit and reboard at the back, perhaps the bus strike might not have happened and perhaps the Browder v. Gayle case might not have gone to the Supreme Court. Similarly, the Voting Rights Act would not have been necessary if Southern jurisdictions hadn’t worked so hard to exclude black voters.
LikeLike
Yes, Dienne, all true, & perhaps there is no other way society can progress, I just mean one can expect at least a step back for every push forward. I think there is every hope for the future though: I see a generation of middle-class ‘mixed’ kids around me who are coming down the pike to replace the old white men financing the current regression.
LikeLike
Yes, irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as creationism in a science textbook.
Allow me to conclude with a Sinclair Lewis quote:
“Winter is not a season, it is an occupation.”
Keep warm everyone.
LikeLike
I have an excuse to pass around a great (and famous) legal opinion you may read on this:
https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/kitzmiller-v-dover-memorandum-opinion
I think everyone should read it 🙂
To me, this is just what’s been a gradual moving of the goalposts on “reform” from “great schools” to “choice” as the rationale. I also think that was predictable and inevitable and should have been anticipated, but apparently wasn’t by the people who didn’t intend this result.
LikeLike
A more alliterative but just as accurate title might be: putting public money into private hands promotes pernicious propaganda.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
There is a very big difference between actual free markets and crony capitalism.
LikeLike
The difference being that the first is mythical and the second is what we get when we try to pursue the first.
LikeLike
Dienne,
As always, ❤ !
LikeLike
:>)
LikeLike
Reblogged this on philosophy of ed and commented:
What comes of the marriage of social conservatism, religion, and politics in America? Religious indoctrination for all.
LikeLike
Check out the student handbook guide for protection of religious expression for all of their schools – what better way to do science?!
Religious Expression in Class Assignments
Students may express the students’ beliefs
about religion in homework, artwork, and other
written and oral assignments free from
discrimination based on the religious content of
the students’ submission. Homework and
classroom work shall be judged by ordinary
academic standards of substance and relevance
and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns
identified by the school. Students may not be
penalized or rewarded on account of religious
content. If a teacher’s assignment involves writing
a poem, the work of a student who submits a
poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a
psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic
standards, including literary quality, and not
penalized or rewarded on account of its religious
content.
LikeLike
And nearby in Missouri, the legislature again deals with attempts by creationists to affect science instruction through an “opt-out” provision. http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills141/biltxt/intro/HB1472I.htm. I notice that it doesn’t provide the opposite–an option for parents to opt their children out of classes that might mention creationism.
LikeLike
This legislation is incredible (as in incredibly stupid). That’s what happens when we don’t educate our children properly, they grow up to be ignorant politicians.
I just checked my calendar to be sure – yep, it is 2014. I thought I might have hit a time wrap into the early 1800s.
LikeLike
Not sure why Ms. Ravitch posted an entry without a link to the rebuttal but here it is for those who are interested.
————————————–
From: Chuck Cook, CEO Responsive Education Solutions
Subject: Slate Article regarding ResponsiveEd
Dear Partners in Public Education:
Today, an article appeared on Slate.com entitled, “Texas Public Charter Schools Are Teaching Creationism,” which purports to report the results of one college student’s “investigation into [ResponsiveEd’s] dishonest and unconstitutional science, history, and ‘values’ lessons.” It is the latest article by Slate regarding creationism in Texas public schools. See “Showdown over Science in Texas: Creationists Corrupted State Education Standards and May Push Evolution out of Textbooks.”
Needless to say, we take accusations of dishonest and unconstitutional practices very seriously. Because ResponsiveEd has been entrusted by the public to operate public charter schools, we wanted to take this opportunity to briefly address the most serious accusations made by Slate and welcome further dialogue with you in the coming days.
Science
Slate begins its article by asserting that ResponsiveEd’s science curriculum “both overtly and underhandedly discredit[s] evidence-based science [(i.e., the theory of evolution)] and allow[s] creationism into public-school classrooms.”
Regarding the assertion that ResponsiveEd discredits the theory of evolution, our science curriculum does examine all sides of the scientific evidence relating to the theory of evolution—both for and against—just as we are required to do by the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Biology. In fact, the State of Texas requires all schools, “in all fields of science, [to] analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations . . ., including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” 19 TAC § 112.34(c)(3)(A). Ultimately, it is these Texas science standards that Slate wishes to overturn, believing that they “were designed to compromise the teaching of evolution” and provide “a back-door way to enable teachers to attack evolution and inject creationism into the classroom.”
Regarding the assertion that ResponsiveEd improperly “allow[s] creationism into public-school classrooms,” the answer is no. What follows is every reference to creationism contained in ResponsiveEd’s lessons on evolution.
For many years, the answer given [to the question of the origin of life] was fairly standard: most people believed that God created everything. In the mid-1800s, this idea was challenged by men such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin. Their work provided scientists with the theory of evolution by natural selection. This added a new idea to the discussion and gave nonreligious scientists a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet without resorting to creation. . . .
In recent years, these two schools of thought —creationism and evolution—have been at conflict in schools, universities, and scientific circles. Some scientists and educators have attempted to bridge them through ideas such as intelligent design and theistic evolution. However, none of these theories is accepted by every scientist, natural philosopher, or educator. In this Unit, you will be able to review the evidence for the theory of evolution and decide on your own position. You will want to analyze and evaluate the evidence and every statement made in the discussion. . . .
Still, for many, supernatural creation (either by God or some other supernatural power) of the first cell is a more plausible explanation. Some people think aliens brought the first living cell to earth or it came on a meteorite, but that still would not explain how that first living cell on earth came into existence.
There is much research to be done in this area of origins. Until more concrete answers are found, questions on how life originated will continue. . . .
When it comes to the subject of evolution, emotions often run high. Chances are, you might have heard about some of this controversy in the news. Much of this controversy centers on whether other theories on the origins of life besides evolution, such as intelligent design or creationism, should be presented in public schools. . . .
As was explained to Slate last November, ResponsiveEd’s “science curriculum teaches evolution, noting, but not exploring, the existence of competing theories.”
As if to remove any remaining doubt that its readers may have regarding ResponsiveEd’s guilt, Slate boldly asserts that “[o]utright creationism appears in Responsive Ed’s section on the origins of life.” Not only that, Slate explains, “[i]t’s not subtle.” The evidence presented by Slate to support its accusation? “The opening line of the workbook section [on the origins of life], just as the opening line of the Bible, declares, ‘In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.’” For some reason, Slate chooses to not present the quote in context, which would have demonstrated to any objective reader that the curriculum was simply providing examples of competing theories on the origin of life. The entire quote reads as follows:
5. ORIGIN OF LIFE
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning, a meteorite, with a cell from a faraway galaxy, hit the earth. . . .
In the beginning, aliens visited earth to try a new experiment. The aliens left behind a living cell, with all the capabilities to evolve into life.
In the beginning, free-floating molecules in the primordial seas spontaneously organized to form the first cell.
So far we have looked at natural selection, microevolution and macroevolution, speciation, and other aspects of the theory of evolution. All of these processes involve one form of life changing into another form of life. However, none of these ideas answers the question, “How did life begin in the first place?” Perhaps the more important question is, “How did the first cell come into being?” Remember, in order for something to be alive, it has to have a cell. As we learned in Unit 2, cells are very complex. Even a simple one-celled bacteria is quite complicated. In this Lesson, we will explore some of the theories evolutionary biologists have about the origin of life.
While context may not always be convenient, it is everything.
In summary, ResponsiveEd strongly disagrees with Slate’s implication that the Texas state standards requiring schools to critique and examine all sides of scientific theories—including the theory of evolution—is unconstitutional. We also disagree that any reference to creationism in our science curriculum violates any state or federal law, including the United States Constitution.
A complete copy of ResponsiveEd’s science lessons regarding evolution is available to you upon request. We welcome your review and input.
History
Slate then turns to ResponsiveEd’s teaching of history. While Slate claims that it “discovered problems” with ResponsiveEd’s history course, it does not go so far as to assert that the course violates any standard, regulation, or law. A complete copy of ResponsiveEd’s history course is available to you upon request.
Partnerships
Slate then proceeds to describe in sensational detail some of ResponsiveEd’s past and present associations. Among those named are Character First, Accelerated Christian Education, Dr. Donald Howard, and Dr. Ronald Johnson. What is Slate’s purpose is mentioning these relationships? The not-so-subtle message to the reader is simple: Because ResponsiveEd has been (or is) associated with these organizations and people, it is unable to operate a public charter school in compliance with its charters and the laws governing charter schools. The strained argument goes something like this, ResponsiveEd must be violating its charters or the law because it uses material from Character First, whose founder is Mr. Tom Hill, who is a “follower of Bill Gothard, a minister who runs the Institute in Basic Life Principles, a Christian organization that teaches its members to incorporate biblical principles into daily life.” The argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Instead, attention should be given to the actual Character First materials utilized in ResponsiveEd’s schools—materials of which ResponsiveEd is very proud.
As applied to me, according to Slate’s reasoning, ResponsiveEd must be incapable of meeting our contractual and legal obligations because I, as the CEO of the organization, am a professed Christian, attend church each week, have a degree in religion, have worked at a Christian rescue mission, and have worked at Accelerated Christian Education. Once again, the logic fails. I would suggest that the pertinent inquiry is ResponsiveEd’s actual operations, not the personal beliefs of some of our past and present associations.
After reading Slate’s scathing representation of the above individuals and organizations, one might think that ResponsiveEd’s natural reaction would be to distance ourselves from them. Nothing could be further from the truth. ResponsiveEd greatly values the contributions that have been made to its academic program by its past associations and current partners and strongly disagrees with the implication that such associations and partnerships make us incapable of complying with our charters and applicable law.
Conclusion
Slate concludes its article by calling ResponsiveEd “an internal threat to the charter movement.” In contrast, we believe that we have had a meaningful contribution to the charter movement and we believe our track record supports this belief.
This letter is presented to you because we appreciate the trust you have put in us. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions or wish to review any of our materials more closely.
Thank you,
Chuck Cook.
LikeLike
“the existence of competing theories.”
There are no competing theories.
LikeLike
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2008/09/then-a-miracle-occurs-public-beta/
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Furthering the aims of sectarian religious belief is not a function of public schools. PERIOD. No matter what language you cloak it in! Take your eons old middle east desert mythologies elsewhere where the vaunted marketplace will determine if it can survive. Oh, unfortunately it probably will, what’s the saying: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
LikeLike
One might say that the charter curriculum is attempting to inject ‘critical thinking’. I would feel a whole lot better about it if it pursued the subject into comparative religion– what do the other religions of the world have to say about origins? They contain themselves to science vs the bible, resulting in a very narrow curriculum indeed.
LikeLike
I agree with you emphatically, Spanish & French Freelancer. It is a great pity that the thought police keep us from being able to do any substantive work on comparative religion and mythology in K-12 public schools.
LikeLike
Robert, I had numerous books on creation stories from different cultures in my library. Sometimes the English (not the Science) teacher would do a unit with one or more of their classes. Of course, that was in the day when teachers were free to choose their own reading materials and “create” their own curriculum.
Now that’s a “creation” topic that needs exploring.
LikeLike
Indeed, Ellen!
LikeLike
Cynthia – the rebuttal is even more disturbing then Diane’s original post.
So “theories” of life include Creation by God, Alien intervention, or the evolution “theory”. And all the theories are “equal” in scientific validity. You’ve got to be kidding.
Scientists disagree on the origins of life – implying that many scientists believe God created the animals and the next day he created Adam and then Eve from his rib.
Evolution needs to be proven? What about the skulls of early man which have been discovered and carbon traced? Are they not sufficient facts?
Perhaps the origination of the original cell hasn’t been decisively proven, but the rest of evolution has its basis through scientific research. And new discoveries are constantly being made. A question about one aspect of evolution does not mean that creationism is an acceptable answer.
The fact that the curriculum presents creationism and evolution (plus alien life) as two or three valid SCIENTIFIC viewpoints, simply invalidates your curriculum. This is not the proper subject for a debate. Debate the issue of capital punishment, not if Adam and Eve or aliens were the first creatures on the planet.
And if the rest of Texas is teaching the same way, then you are creating your own primordial mess.
LikeLike
Ideas about the possible origins of life (including a number of scientific proposals (I won’t call these theories or hypotheses because none rises to that status):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Origin_of_life
Most not mentioned in the long note, above, from ResponsiveEd, BTW.
LikeLike
Interesting set of articles – I wasn’t aware that Intelligent Design was actually from the idea that an alien told Rael that neither creation or evolution is the answer – aliens were responsible for populating the earth.
That explains so much. Now the question is – which solar system spawned Friedman?
LikeLike
there is something to evolution, but with quantum physics, we know that science cause and effect does not follow linear thinking. I read somewhere where Darwin requested on his death bed that his works be burned, considered the most influential scientist of his era. My choice would have been Newton, he may have been a little before that time.
A good compromise would be to merge the two disciplines science and social studies, and let the kids be free to examine the debate. They are very sharp, sometimes more than adults.
Last week I read Rapunzel to some 2nd graders and their questions were, If everyone needed Rapunzel’s hair to enter the tower, how did she get up there?
Also,
If the prince fell from the tower, was blinded, ate roots and berries in the wilderness, how did he find the roots and berries?
We all came up with all kinds of explanations.
Let’s do that with Creationism, which has a track record of thousands of years, and evolution. What will the kids say? We have hear a teachable moment.
LikeLike
“I read somewhere where Darwin requested on his death bed that his works be burned”
Myth
LikeLike
Complete and utter bunk. Never happened.
BTW, Darwin’s latter works are fascinating–his studies of emotion in humans and other animals and his book on worms are both great delights, and in some respects, contemporary science is just catching up to some of the proposals that he made in these works. He was a remarkable person–gentle, compassionate, generous in spirit, open-minded, undogmatic, and extraordinarily careful and rigorous in his approach to his work–completely unlike the demon he is made out to be by young Earth Creationists.
LikeLike
“We have hear a teachable moment.”
If I may amend your statement “We have hear a SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS teachable moment that is banned by most state constitutions.
LikeLike
“good compromise would be to merge the two disciplines science and social studies, and let the kids be free to examine the debate”
Horse feathers !
How can anyone debate anything that they do not understand?
They cannot, they can only give voice to it here own misunderstandings.
You apparently understand neither quantum mechanics nor evolution.
LikeLike
The issue of the origin of life is an extraordinarily complex one. Beyond the most superficial stuff, one quickly becomes engaged in very complex matters involving advanced genetics and chemistry. These are not topics for introductory courses.
LikeLike
The story of Darwin’s deathbed renunciation of evolution is an utter fabrication. This simply didn’t happen.
Wonderful observation by your 2nd graders!
It’s great, of course, for kids to study current sociopolitical debates. An excellent resource for kids and teachers is procon.org.
However, that sort of study should not interfere with science instruction. At the turn of the last century, there was debate about whether atoms existed. Kids can learn something from studying that debate, too. But we shouldn’t be telling them, in science classes, that the existence of atoms is currently debated by knowledgeable persons–that there is meaningful current scientific doubt about the atomic theory.
I do wish that our science teachers would do a better job of making clear to students the tentative nature of scientific explanation. It’s important to understand that unlike an article of faith, a proposition is scientific proposition if and only if it is falsifiable. It’s also important for them to understand that scientific propositions are inductively warranted and that inductive reasoning does not lead to absolute certainty but, rather, to degrees of warrant. At some point, as with the theory of evolution, the evidence is simply overwhelming. However, every true scientist knows that current understandings will be modified in the future and often radically so. Like all creatures, we humans are born with a particular cognitive and perceptual apparatus that limits our access to reality. We are fortunate to be able to build prostheses such as radio telescopes and mass spectrometers that can extend those abilities. However, the whole point of a scientific as opposed to a superstitious worldview is that we accept that our knowledge and understanding are limited, partial, incomplete, and subject to revision–often to radical revision–in light of new learning. In 1905, Lord Kelvin spoke to the Royal Society and told is audience that the future of physics was all about pushing the already known out to increasing numbers of decimal places. In that same year, Einstein published his papers confirming the atomic hypothesis (the paper on Brownian motion), positing the existence of quanta (and so presenting a foundational document for quantum mechanics), and describing his special theory of relativity, and these changed physics utterly.
LikeLike
I enjoy your posts so much. You bring up what is to me the crux of ‘critical-thinking’ curriculum: study science as history of theory; bring kids up to speed with how the world thinks now about various theories, and how they got there. Rationalism had (and is having) its day thanks to centuries of ever-hardening theology which early in the dark ages became rigid and brooked no discussion. To teach scientific rationalism as the evolution of theory is to allow students to examine theology in the same light.
LikeLike
“I do wish that our science teachers would do a better job of making clear to students the tentative nature of scientific explanation. ”
We try.
We are up against quite a bit, you know.
Thanks to old wives tales, superstition , and our rediculus mass media,, among other things, I could spend all day every day simply correcting misunderstanding.
” unteaching” what they already ” know” so to speak.
And that is with the adults I know.
Sigh.
LikeLike
I do understand, Ang. And I think very highly of the work that science teachers are currently doing throughout the country. Over the years, I have met a lot of truly gifted science teachers.
About your other point: well said! No, Columbus did not discover America. No, there is no single religion that we can call Hinduism. No, “Allah” is not the name of a god; it is the Arabic word for “the God.” No, Darwin did not recant evolution on his deathbed. No, Lincoln did not undertake the Civil War in order to free the slaves. No, our memories are not like videotapes; they are reconstructions containing much confabulation. No, we are not descended from “man the hunter”; we are descended, mostly from grandma et al., the fruit and nut and seed and leaf and tuber gatherers. No, we do not see the world as it is; we see the world as our particular perceptual and cognitive apparatus presents it to us. No, we do not learn vocabulary and grammar primarily via explicit instruction. No, most of your body is not you; you are mostly a colony of independent organisms. No, most life does not live on the surface of the Earth; most of it, by weight, is bacteria living underground, some of it many miles down. And so on.
Unlearning and unteaching are typically the most profound types of learning and teaching, and,
“Common sense is that layer of prejudices laid down before the age of eighteen.” –Albert Einstein
LikeLike
study science as history of theory; bring kids up to speed with how the world thinks now about various theories, and how they got there.
yes, yes yes
LikeLike
Well, the Ptolemaic system had a track record of about 1300 years. It probably provided great teachable moments 1000 years ago, no doubt. But the world did not know the system was wrong, unlike creationism. Dude, their museum has people riding dinosaurs.
LikeLike
Martycul – the dinosaur riding cavemen is the next science unit.
LikeLike
Years ago, I was creating a grammar and composition program for the Texas office of a large educational publisher. We were just about to go to press with six levels of the program when I received a note from the publisher saying that we had to do a global search of the files to remove or replace the word “imagine” and all its variants. Some geniuses in Texas had decided that the root of “imagine” was “magus, magi,” meaning “wizard or sorcerer”–i.e., someone in league with the devil.
I wish I were making this up.
We had no choice. We had to do as the publisher demanded and send to press a text with no imagination in it.
Of course, words like “imagine” and “imagination” actually derive from the Latin “imago,” meaning a likeness or image, as you probably know.
Those same geniuses in Texas who feared the sorcery of imagination were also big proponents of instruction in traditional grammar. I longed to point out to them that the words “grammar” and “glamour” are, at root, the same word and that both are Scots for “magic or sorcery,” as in the line, “But all the wizard’s glamour could not prevail against our hero.” When reading was uncommon, unlettered persons thought of reading as magical and glamorous. Funny thing, I still do, don’t you?
But one doesn’t find the kind of ignorant censorship I’ve just described everywhere in religious schools. I have taught in both public schools and in Catholic schools, and interestingly, I encountered more censorship in the latter than in the former.
I’d also like to share this thought from the current Dalai Lama:
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
Would that all had his wisdom!
LikeLike
“We had to do as the publisher demanded and send to press a text with no imagination in it.”
First – a primal scream
Second – a quote from Einstein
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Third – another quote from Einstein.
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions.”
LikeLike
yes. yes. yes.
LikeLike
Textbook Publishers = idiots (and Texas drives the content of our curriculum).
The Dalai Lama = inspirational (and full of wisdom)
The Dalai Lama came to UB about five years ago and I got to hear him speak (a check off on my bucket list) and it was one of the highlights of my life. This gentle soul spoke about compassion (even though his life is in constant danger, plus he is in exile). It is difficult to even associate him with the inane ness of this topic. Yet, he gets it.
Once again Robert, thanks for sharing to provide us with a better perspective on the issues.
LikeLike
What all Blue State readers should understand is that evolution is probably taught tepidly –if at all –in most small town American public schools. Even here in California. Either the teacher is evangelical himself, or the school board members and students are. If you don’t want problems, you have to soft pedal evolution. This Texas charter school story is alarming, but robust teaching of evolution in regular public schools is already dead in many places.
LikeLike
That’s so very true, Ponderosa! And the situation/problem that you describe also carries over to societal/political debates and discussions in American History and American Government classes as well. Just dare to explore two sides of many topics, and the teacher is deluged with pressure and intimidation–from students, parents, and administration!
Also, I’ll add to Ellen Klock’s comment, (“That’s what happens when we don’t educate our children properly, they grow up to be ignorant politicians.”) That’s what happens when we don’t educate our children properly, they grow up to be ignorant VOTERS.” And that, I believe, is the real underlying purpose of the entire reform movement.
LikeLike
“That’s what happens when we don’t educate our children properly, they grow up to be ignorant VOTERS.” And that, I believe, is the real underlying purpose of the entire reform movement.”
BINGO!
and hello from a fellow Georgian
LikeLike
On this topic, I highly recommend Diane Ravitch’s wonderful book The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn
A great read. Treat yourself if you haven’t read it!
LikeLike
My stepdaughter’s biology teacher, in a town in the suburbs of Boston, announced to his class that “Evolution is not science. It’s a theory, and we won’t be spending time on it.” So, this happens even in blue states, alas.
LikeLike
How horrible.
I cannot help but wonder from what university this clown got his degree and how he could possibly have passed any science classes at all.
Sorry for your SD.
LikeLike
Bob Jones “University” perhaps.
LikeLike
This question gets to the heart of ‘school choice’, southern-style.
There is another ‘choice’ school of thought– Milton Friedman’s– which is strictly economical, belonging to the neoliberal Chicago school of thought, to which Obama & Duncan (&Christie, & many other conservative Republican governors) belong, which is all about letting free-market capitalism deliver public goods; the theory being that the cost of delivering public goods will decline… (!)
Nationally, inner-city school parents have tentatively bought into the Friedman school of thought imposed by their governors, in the hope that charters will provide their kids, at least for 10yrs or so, something better than the crumbling gang-infested remnants of public schools, which reflects the problems with funding schools w/RE taxes.
The southern evangelicals have always & only been about being allowed to use their school taxes to support their culture. The origin of such school was always part and parcel of segregation. Charters are a way to do it. At this point in our culture there may well be black evangelicals who would like to use their taxes to support a gospel version of same.
Both versions of ‘school choice’ pose a challenge to the federal DOE. (1)Friedman-style: once a city or state has taken over a school system, due to lack of local real estate tax funds, may the state/city decimate the existing public school structure and replace it in any way they wish– including a system of privately-funded schools feeding money into political campaigns, without regard to local educational goals? (2)southern-style: is it OK for a state to revamp its public school funding in such a way that the state splits out into myriad individual cultures?
The Friedman question is about corruption in state govt. My opinion is it’s illegal on the face of it. Those states are simply not educating all of their kids.
The southern question is more interesting. If a state decides that they wish to pursue this route, they are still going to have to show that they are providing a quality education for every child.
LikeLike
The proponents of creationism are bound and determined to spread their point of view. In November, my daughter and I visited Zion National Park. We stopped in the bookstore as we waited for the park’s shuttle bus. I hurriedly scanned guidebooks to the park, mindful to catch the next shuttle. I paid for a guide whose layout seemed clear and also contained beautiful pictures of the area. We settled into our bus seats and I had a few moments to peruse my guide more carefully. A closer review revealed it was a creationist guide to the park.
Though a bit annoyed at the delay in getting out to the trails, my daughter, a recent B.S. in environmental studies, understood the necessity of waiting for the next shuttle so I could return my book, depriving these folks of profittering from our National Parks.
LikeLike
George Bush, Jr., personally intervened to ensure that gift shops in our national parks carried young Earth Creationist literature. Your tax dollars at work.
LikeLike
I feel the creationists are getting short shrift in this thread. I have issues with the text posted, though I don’t disagree with the attempt to make room for spiritualism in the teaching of science– it has a long way to go; it needs to make room for all world religions, not just the Christian bible. The major issue I have with this sort of text is that it suggests commonly accepted scientific theory is inherently opposed to a spiritual view of life. This happens because its authors take a literal view of the bible. Like any other narrow view, that has no place in public schooling.
Yes, I believe in the separation of church & state, precisely as Jefferson stated it & as paraphrased in the 1st amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not however equate to, public schools shall teach only rationalist doctrine, and all references to the spiritual life are banished to out-of-school life. Follow that path closely and you will arrive in France and Turkey, where headscarves are banished, a clear message that spiritualism (& in the case of France, Islamic spiritualism) is not tolerated. Surely against ‘the free exercise therof.’
The federal government must walk a careful path here. It is not a given that evolution excludes belief in God. Teaching children that science and religion are on opposing paths to understanding life serves no one, and represents a form of religious intolerance.
LikeLike
I suspect a scientist might reply the visions of the deep universe provided by Hubble are spiritual. And to state it is not a given that evolution excludes belief in God, I would have to ask: whose God?
LikeLike
Agreed!
LikeLike
“It is not a given that evolution excludes belief in God.”
The conclusion of On the Origin of Species references a creator (though Darwin’s views about this matter seem to have changed later on),
the1950 encyclical Humani generis by Pope Pius XII asserted that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution,
and a recent Pew study reports that “just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.”
So, no, it is not a given. And certainly public schools should neither promulgate nor seek to disprove religious belief.
A proper humility should be exercised on these matters. Throughout history, people have pondered ultimate matters and have arrived at an astonishing variety of beliefs. A proper humility would recognize our profound ignorance and have respect for the attempts that people have made to answer the ultimate questions. To me, a properly scientific attitude is embodied in a statement like this: “I don’t know. But here’s what I suspect, and this is why I do.”
The view that we have the answers to the ultimate questions is not scientifically warranted. That’s scientism, not science. The proper response to a mystery is to say, “This is a mystery. I have ideas about this if you would like to hear them.”
It’s as unscientific to say that we know that the universe was not created or that free will is an illusion or that the mind is simply the brain as it would be to say, as many did in the ancient Middle East, that the sky is a dome with the stars stuck into it like raisins. One who makes such a claim is like a Neolithic farmer who is certain that the sun is a burning chariot or that mental illness is possession by demons.
No less a scientist than MIT’s Alan Guth, who may well be the foremost cosmologist of our time, writes in his Inflationary Universe that the creation of a universe is technologically feasible!!! So did the great physicist Brian Silver in his masterwork The Ascent of Science, into which he poured a lifetime of study in the closing days of his life. Even the de facto leader of the so-called “New Atheists,” Richard Dawkins, says that nothing we know of science rules out the idea that the universe was created. One of the greatest of contemporary philosophers, Oxford’s Nick Bostrom, has made a fascinating case, based on an argument from probability, that the universe is a simulation. Perhaps the greatest living expert on the cognitive psychology of perception, Donald Hoffman, who came to this field after having received advanced degrees in quantum mechanics, argues persuasively, to my mind, that materialistic reductionism, epiphenomenalism, and functionalism are false. One of the brightest of contemporary American philosophers, Thomas Nagel, has a new book in which he argues that it is almost certainly the case that dualism is correct. I haven’t read this, but his previous works are brilliant. One of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century, Martin Heidegger, writes in his later works of the importance of “being in contact with the divinities.”
We grope toward understanding. We speculate. But, as Frost says,
We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
On these ultimate matters, we should all exercise restraint and humility–certainly we should do so in our role as teachers, for with that role comes a responsibility to the truth.
And we should celebrate and teach, as our friend Spanish and French Freelancer suggests, the varied attempts, throughout history, to come to understanding of those ultimate questions, in all their diversity and variety. We’re all so ignorant that for any of us to point to others’ deeply considered beliefs and deride them is sort of like someone who has learned three words of a language making fun of someone who has learned only two.
LikeLike
Correction:
So, no, it is not a given. And certainly public schools, and charters receiving taxpayer dollars, should neither promulgate nor seek to disprove religious belief.
LikeLike
“This happens because its authors take a literal view of the bible.”
Apparently not. If they read the Bible literally they would realize there are two different conflicting creation stories in Genesis and that would really leave them in a muddle.
LikeLike
Correct!
LikeLike
It always astonishes me that people do not understand that anatomically modern humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand of years and that if one goes back a 20th of that time, the Jews did not exist, yet, as a distinct people and neither, of course, did their texts and the religion described in them. These are historical phenomena–a blip on the timeline. When, in one of those Genesis accounts, reference is made to a beginning in which there was “darkness on the face of the deep [Hebrew tehom], this is an instance of a particular shared early Semitic mythology, attested in contemporaneous texts, about an originary ocean deity, Tiamat–a mythology found other early Middle Eastern religions–ones locatable in particular places at particular times. Does it never occur to people that these books whom some think were not written by people but dictated by the creator of the universe say nothing about autoimmune disorders nor about spiral galaxies but have a great deal to say about the sky being a solid canopy, a firmament, in keeping with a widespread cosmology belonging to a particular people at a particular time? It ought to be obvious enough to people that these texts instantiate views with a place on the historical timeline. Do those who take these texts literally actually believe that they have a duty, as these texts say, to smite Canaanites? that we only imagine that the heavens are not a firmament? Do they really think that we have a duty to seek out and stone to death adulterers and homosexuals? Or do they recognize that these are the beliefs of a people at a particular time and place in human history?
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff! I find it a relief, like breathing fresh air, after the dispiriting headlines of the day, reading the posts of my learned friends here.
LikeLike
Regarding evolution and religion;
See the work of Ken Miller PhD. (Prominent witness for the “science side” in the Dover trial, professor of Biology at Brown University )
Try Finding Darwin’s God.
If you would like a smack down of “Intelligent Design” check out the Dover trial.
Begin here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/inquirer/
LikeLike