This is a story that needs to be told: the sordid history of standardized testing. I wrote about it in chapter four of my book “Left Back” (2000). Many scholarly dissertations have documented the story. Others have tried to alert the public about the assumptions embedded in the fabric of standardized testing. But the policymakers don’t read or don’t care.
The very idea that the essential intelligence and worth of a human being can be scientifically measured by multiple choice questions is fraught with flawed and dangerous assumptions. When we then use those measures to judge the worthiness of teachers and schools, the damage the tests do is multiplied.
Steven Singer has done excellent research on the history of standardized testing and summarizes it here.
The standardized test was created in an era when the new field of psychology was trying to establish itself as a “science.” The psychologists earnestly believed that intelligence was innate, inherited, and could not be changed. They also believed that intelligence varied by race and ethnicity. Tomes were written about the superiority of whites over other races, and among whites, the superiority of Northern Europeans over Southern Europeans. This belief was conventional wisdom among psychologists.
One of the men who wrote and believed this was the Princeton psychologist Carl C. Brigham. He joined the College Board as its senior psychologist and created the first Scholastic Aptitude Test.
Once you know this story, you will never forget it. It will change the way you view the tests forever. You will ask why federal and state officials are so determined to impose them. You will wonder why anyone takes these biased instruments so seriously. They are social constructions, neither objective nor scientific.
Singer writes:
“Make no mistake – standardized testing has been a tool of social control for the last century. And it remains one today.
“Twisted statistics, made up math, nonexistent or biased research – these are the “scientific” supports for standardized testing. It has never been demonstrated that these kinds of tests can accurately assess either intelligence or knowledge, especially as that knowledge gets more complex. But there is an unspoken agreement in political circles to pretend that testing is rock solid and produces scores that can be relied on to make decisions that will have tremendous effects on the lives of students, teachers, parents and communities.
“Our modern assessments are holdovers from the 1910s and ‘20s, an age when psychologists thought they could isolate the racial markers for intelligence and then improve human beings through selective breeding like you might with dogs or cats.
“I’m not kidding.
“It was called eugenics.
“Psychologists like Carl Brigham, Robert Yerkes, and Lewis Terman were trying to find a way to justify the social order. Why is it that certain people are at the top and others at the bottom? What is the best way to decide who belongs where?”
Their tests justified the social order. Those at the top deserved their privilege. They had the highest test scores. Those at the bottom had the lowest scores and were where they belonged. At the bottom. A few might rise, just enough to keep the fraud going. They would lecture those they left behind to try harder. And the social order would remain unchanged.
Of course one can chase the origin to Carnegie’s funding of this work, the underlying theories behind eugenics and other horrible ways we look at the world. The 10’s and 20″ produced a strong foundation and the reaction of “The Mismeasure of Man” by Gould.
These values are still there, even though we profess to believe otherwise. The “Bell Curve” come to mind and standards, standardized testing all rest on these failed assumptions.
“The Mismeasure of Man” is a solid read for anyone who is interested in the political construct called intelligence. More about IQ than tests, it blows a big hole through the “scientific measure” of intelligence.
We can thank Charles Darwin’s theory, and its misguided applications, for eugenics and race-ranking. Read his “Descent of Man”, where he clearly proposed the eventually extinction of dark-skinned races (ex. Fuegian Indians) because they were “less fit” (genetically inferior) to Europeans; or, his misogynist’s views of women as mere reproductive vehicles. Naziism has direct links to sociobiology, along with racist polemics like “The Bell Curve” and all the other refuted and discarded “theories” (more like speculative hypotheses) that intelligence is not equally distributed among our gene pool.
I’m grateful to live in a country based upon a Judeo-Christian premise of all created equally and equally endowed by their Creator.
Good timing. I just sent out my thank-you card to Modern Science (“Thanks for the nuclear bomb!”), so I’ll turn to my Darwin card now.
“. . . and all the other refuted and discarded “theories” (more like speculative hypotheses) that intelligence is not equally distributed among our gene pool.”
Perhaps if we had an agreed upon definition of “intelligence” we might find that “intelligence is not equally distributed. . . “. So far we have no agreed upon definition of what constitutes, of what is “intelligence” and probably never will so the last point will always remain moot.
“I’m grateful to live in a country based upon a Judeo-Christian premise of all created equally and equally endowed by their Creator.”
And much as the definition of intelligence will never be agreed upon neither will your statement “a country based upon. . . .” will never be agreed upon and will always remain moot.
Duane
But we actually do have a very good definition of intelligence.
It is (by definition) that which enables you to get a high score on an IQ test. (just as “learning” or “educational achievement” is that which enables you to get a high score on a test like PARCC)
Hope that helps.
“twisted statistics”
“Statwistics”
Statwistics is the field
Satistricks are the game
To make the public yield
With mathy sounding name
From the article
Brigham created a civilian test of intelligence that could be used to sort and rank students just as the Army Alpha and Beta tests had been used to sort soldiers. He called it the Scholastic Aptitude Test or S.A.T.
Yes, THAT SAT.
Though the test has been revised multiple times since Brigham created it, the purpose has remained the same – to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, to hold some students up as worthy of further educational investment and to keep others out. Moreover, the means by which the SAT makes this distinction was and remains culturally and economically biased. Researchers have been pointing out since Brigham’s day that the test favors students from wealthy, white backgrounds over those from poor minority homes. Yet today 2.1 million teenagers every year still must take the test to get into the college of their choice.
I think this needs to be emphasized: SAT is as useful as the state standardized tests. At least they are useful for some people. For whom? For those who want to keep our kids in place:
Testing remains a way of keeping you in your place.
Yeah, it is testing that’s making minority children live in hypersegregation and attend schools largely staffed by whites (82% overall, 71% in cities per NCES) who have lower expectations for them, give them worse grades for the same quality of work, and mete out discipline far more harshly.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2016/02/22-teacher-perceptions-race-startz
It’s the testing. It’s only the testing. (Repeat it as many times as you need.)
Tim, are you saying that testing (and boot camps) are the answer to poverty and segregation? If so, you are in the same company with Gates, Duncan, Rhee, etc.
dianeravitch: necessity being the mother of invention, I have hit upon an appropriate moniker for this particular defender of the rheephorm status quo who is all in for high-stakes standardized testing-to-punish in order to label, sort and stack rank public school students, staff, parents and their associated communities in order to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted—
“Non Sequitur.” Per my computer’s dictionary: literal translation in Latin, “it does not follow” as in “a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.”
Hence the point that Non Sequitur is trying to make is…
Completely unclear. Rheeally! And in a most Johnsonally sort of way too!
But it seems quite appropriate if one wants to deflect, evade, and avoid answering the tough questions.
Really!
Someone doesn’t agree? I have a passel of six-year-olds at my beck and call ready to throw heavy desks at all and sundry that disagree with making $ucce$$[ful] charter school students [sorry, “little test-taking machines”] cry in order to bring those all-important test scores up up up and away!
It’s all for the kids! [That’s my first and last foray into the Land of Non Sequitur.]
Just sayin’…
😎
This is something, I’d like to see clearly. The article says
Are the people championing standardization and privatization racist? Honestly, I don’t know. I can’t see into their hearts. But it is undeniable that the results of their policies disproportionately hurt our black and brown children. Judging by effect – not necessarily intention – they are racist as well as classist.
I think the intention to keep us inline is more fundamental than this side effect on the non-white races (I am not saying, more sever, just more fundamental). Focusing on racism could be an effective weapon in fighting tests and school take overs, but wouldn’t it be better to evaluate in more detail who is trying to keep whom in line, instead? Shouldn’t we try to see what Friedmanism (or Economism, as the Poet would probably say) is really doing and is trying to do in the future?
I remember Michael Moore trying to pin racism on Charlton Heston in one of his documentaries ( I think in Bowling in Columbine). It didn’t look good at all. He should have just focused on guns.
Testing in order to retain the social order is reflected in ESSA. I happened to be doing some key word searches of ESSA for a different blog. There are 345 references to evaluation, assessment, and measurement with 91 of these modified by the word “innovative.”
There remains a pre-occupation with “high-quality” as a modifier for evaluations and the old scam measure of “growth” is retained.
Although the federal government cannot mandate specific tests and methodologies, it is still pre-occupied with measurements as if these are indicators of quality. The law treats indicators of high quality and effectiveness as if these terms are especially relevant to “high need” schools, meaning schools where a high proportion of students qualify for free or reduced price lunches, a proxy measure for poverty.
The law still requires evaluation systems that ‘‘(xi) enable results to be disaggregated within each State, local educational agency, and school by— ‘‘(I) each major racial and ethnic group; ‘‘(II) economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged; ‘‘(III) children with disabilities as compared to children without disabilities; ‘‘(IV) English proficiency status; ‘‘(V) gender; and ‘‘(VI) migrant status, except that such disaggregation shall not shall not be required in the case of a State, local educational educational agency, or a school in which the number of students in a subgroup is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.
So, the use of testing to sort students based on characteristics that they cannot control is built into the system on the pretense that this isorting is needed for accountability and the pursuit of “quality and “high quality” in outcomes of education.
I spent my entire career standing up for my ELLs when it came to assessment. I have always stated that these standardized tests fail to show this population’s true potential. At first, I was considered an “upstart.” Then, as time and experience passed, many of the psychologists, speech therapists, administrators and reading teachers joined my concerns over mislabeling poor, language minority students. Students are so much more than their test scores, and this is so true for ELLs.
Testing in order to retain — or, I would argue, recreate — the old-school pre-Civil Rights social order is exactly right. Making sure that our lowest 20% of students (our poorest and most often non-dominant culture) children have no chance to move up and into our political/business social circles.
“Testing Race”
Testing’s always been a way
To keep folks “in their place”
To keep minorities at bay
It biases by race
Thank you for publishing this.
Wide distribution need.
The NAACP needs to understand that standardized testing works against minority students. Stack ranking can limit opportunities for students that don’t fit the white, middle class mold. The danger is not that black students will be forgotten; the danger is that black students will be “put in their place,” and it is usually not where opportunity lives. It is unfortunate the NAACP and some other groups have been co-opted by the corporate money train.
Thank goodness that everything is on the level, then, with no issues of white supremacy, when it comes to teacher-created tests, classroom grades, and matters of discipline.
http://hub.jhu.edu/2016/03/30/racial-bias-teacher-expectations-black-white
Wait, what?
“Black female teachers are significantly more optimistic about the ability of black boys to complete high school than teachers of any other demographic group. They were 20 percent less likely than white teachers to predict their student wouldn’t graduate high school, and 30 percent less likely to say that than were black male teachers. ”
Wait what? Black male teachers seem to be the least optimistic about black boys future potential! Actually, I find nothing surprising in teachers finding those students who face the most challenges as having the least chance of success. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that stereotyping and some racism does not play a role. Obviously it does, but I’m not sure that this study, at least this summary, really gives us much useful information. I’m also not sure how this bias among teachers is a good reason to be relying on invalid and unreliable standardized tests instead that arguably are labeling even more children as unlikely to succeed.
Yes, Tim, and thank the Lord we have you, Eva Moskowitz, KIPP and TFA to overcome the white supremacist attitudes of opt-out parents.
While the rest of the world began moving past racialist theories half-way through the last century, conservatives like Charles Murray continue to insist on a basis for race and for inherited racial characteristics, including intelligence, morals, and so forth. if we do not stop this “balanced” approach where we fail to recognize the connection between racialist explanations and conservative think tanks and foundations, we will weaken the attack on racist practices that flow from institutionalized racism and sucks us all in, liberals and conservatives, Blacks and Whites, immigrants and native born, educated and uneducated, rich and poor. We must look at why conservatives insist on these spurious racial differences, insist on reifying a social construct like race, and initiate race-motivated policies that adversely affect all of us. Education is just the tip of it, along with policing. Environmental racism (Flint, freeways destroying neighborhoods), financial racism, employment racism, media racism, and on and on, all need to be explored and we cannot defeat racism among liberals if we do not attack it among conservatives where it is a cornerstone.
I clicked through and found a list of complaints abotu SATS without a single intellectual argument why SATS or other tests are inappropriate now.
Doctor Mengele measured how tall people were in Auschwitz. I am sure his intentions were evil. I don’t see why that means there is something wrong with measuring height (or IQ) in 2016.
Michael D,
I recommend you read my chapter 4 in “Left Back,” which has ample documentation. William Bagley of Teachers College, a psychologist, called the reliance on standardized tests “determinism.” He pointed out that blacks who lived in the South had higher IQs than whites born in Appalachia. The higher scores reflected parent education and the environment, not “native intelligence” or potential. That is still true. SAT scores are highly correlated with family income as are the scores in every other standardized test. Standardized testing is the mainstay of meritocracy, if you agree that answering multiple choice questions is the best way to measure merit
Duane, however one defines “a country founded upon” (and all the dynamics of history, religion, philosophy and political theory that go into a country’s inception) it cannot be denied the role of Scripture upon our founding, or the denial and rejection of it in regimes like USSR and China. The greatest tyrants and oppressors in recent history all used evolutionary-sociology to justify their genocides (ex. Stalin, Hitler and Mao). Your very freedom to speak out against power, or question authority, is because our forefathers believed that you, being made in the image of God, have the right to confront and resist tyranny and abuses of the State. Maybe, you’d wished in live in the days of Mao, where just writing this blog could have you imprisoned?
As much as xtian religious folk love to insist that the country was based on supposede Judeo-Christian values, those values were not the exclusive holdings of said folk. Many Enlightenment thinkers, who help European thought break out of that religious stranglehold. Have you ever read any Susan Jacoby? Here is a review of one of her books “Freethinkers” and how freethinkers like Madison, Jefferson and others helped to steer our constitution away from sectarian religious underpinnings. See: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jacoby.htm for a brief discussion on the non-religious foundation of this country.
And spare my your insisting that anything/anyone being made in the image of a god. Nonsense, utter nonsense. Religious bigotry in a subtle fashion.
By the way if I lived in Mao’s country I would have been long dead, but I don’t so that strawman just needs to be burned or as we used to do as kids shoot it full of arrows.
Duane,
I never said our roots or Constitution were exclusively derived from Scripture, only that a significant amount was, or that the influence of Judeo-Christian thinking upon of the formation of our society cannot be denied. Yes, FreeThinkers had a significant role too, and yes, Jefferson has “unorthodox” views and he played a critical role in balancing out our Republic.
However, many FreeThinkers stole their ontology and epistemology from Scripture or other theological premises, because many paradigms that believe in virtue, nobility and righteousness really have their axioms and corollaries derived from Scripture, though they themselves will claim “no religious heritage, or metaphysical neutrality”. Like Robin Hood, they steal or borrow theological concepts to prop up the foundation of their unstable house of humanism (a house “built upon the sand”).
BTW, I believe in the 1st Amendment because the State has no job in promoting or prohibiting religious belief and expression, as many of the Puritans were martyred by the Anglicans or Catholics for pointing out the heresies and injustices of their practices.
So, if you want to believe your evolved out of the image of an Ape, then others who think they are more evolved can oppress or murder you in the name of “survival of the fittest”. If your cool with that, then I guess you’d have enjoyed the Gulags of Russia, or the gas-chambers of Nazis. The rest of us like to believe in that fairytale that we are made in the image of someone much more perfect than ourselves; it provides us with dignity, self-worth, moral sense and the rights of not being tread upon by others, and the Golden Rule of not treading upon them (since they have rights too, and a Judge who will hold all accountable…..but it is just an “opiate of the masses” that keeps us together…..right?)
Finally, godless and totalitarian regimes of the last 200 years tend to use evolutionary theory, or its misapplied sociobiology, to justify their abuses. If you spoke out against the power of Mao (because you believe he was oppressing people), you could have been killed (that was my point). If you are admitting the State is not god, and saying that oppression is wrong, when sociobiology says its an inevitable outcome of “nature red in tooth and claw”, then you are disagreeing with the humanistic premises you claim to believe in (that there are no absolute, universal, standards of morality or social ethics [which can only be derived from a divine mandate]). Universal justice and righteousness for all cannot be derived from evolutionary humanism, or materialism.
The Free Speech we enjoy is this dialogue is derived either from theological premises or “natural law” (ex. British Common Law), which itself has theological roots, but was hijacked by a bunch of humanists and enlightenment philosophers. We speak freely about injustices because people have worth, meaning and value derived from the “god-imagedness”, and oppression is real and wicked (not just an inevitable outcome of “competition”). No evolutionary premise gives us these rights or reasons to speak out against evil, because evil is “relative” and an outcome of “natural selection”……really?
I really am confused how it is “bigotry” to insist every person has infinite worth because they have a Divine-image. What, say they are but “evolved mud” and somehow a system of ethics can be derived to protect the value of their lives? Bigotry is for those who undervalue others, and my faith prohibits that.
Rick,
” if you want to believe your evolved out of the image of an Ape” and “they are but “evolved mud” and somehow a system of ethics can be derived to protect the value of their lives?” are statements that show your ignorance of evolutionary processes.
I do not doubt your good intentions in regards to other humans. but your understanding of others thinking on our origins, whether evolutionary, societally or other are so tinged, so wrought with your religious beliefs that we’ll never come to much agreement. Religious beliefs are fine for those who hold them in/by/through faith but that does not mean that those beliefs hold for all and they certainly don’t. So at this point I’ll just say I disagree with much of your thinking and leave it at that.
Take care!
It’s all good, Duane. I’m “tinged” and so is your thinking too; and yes, we cordially disagree. BTW, I’m a PhD candidate who has studied much about the origin debate (the topic of my thesis) and have read most of the experts and ex-spurts (opinions spouted out under high pressure). So, while I’m sure you find me biased, I believe there is much objectivity to my points….but then again, objectivity assumes some kind of standard of truth, which many might deny. It’s easy to accuse others of having “religious beliefs”, when one is denying their own faith or metaphysics; their own brand of religion.
I am re-reading an interesting discussion on “truth” (and that’s the name of the book) by Simon Blackburn the author of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. You might be interested in reading it as it gets into what constitutes truth, including what might constitute “standards of truth”.
Rick: “So, if you want to believe your evolved out of the image of an Ape, then others who think they are more evolved can oppress or murder you in the name of “survival of the fittest” ”
Interestingly, though not accidentally, people who criticize evolution don’t know what it is and what it says.
The word “fit” in the expression “survival of the fittest” does not refer to the best athlete in the arena for survival. No, fit here refers to “best fit, best adjusted to the environment”.
Here is what Darwin himself says about the possible implications of his theory (which is not to be confused with the process of evolution) to humans.
In however complex a manner this feeling [of sympathy, aka empathy] may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.
Darwin clearly implies (and expands elsewhere) that morals are not acquired but instinctive, and they are the result of evolution simply because they help survival. In particular the reason we don’t run around killing other people is not because we saw one of the 10 commandment billboards along I40 but because murdering fellow members of our species wouldn’t have worked well during evolution.
That morals are coming from religious beliefs and evolution has nothing to with them is very popular among those who never read a word of Darwin, and is expanded upon in this video
According to the video, racism has been egged on by evolution. While the video claims, Hitler and WWII are products of Darwin’s theory, it of course ignores the greatest ever genocide in history, the one that happened here in America before Darwin said “Mama” for the first time, the one which was executed by morally well equipped Christians.
Your caricature of me as not “knowing evolution” is unfounded. I’ve read both the Origin of the Species and the Descent of Man, along with most of S Gould, EO Wilson and others. Yes, one may hypothesize that sympathy could’ve been selected for during our supposed transition from ape to human. Yet, one may equally ponder if some by use of force could’ve gained a selective advantage over others, so that their subset of the genome would leave more offspring than the other, because intra-specie competition can be a driving force of change.
Hamilton’s theories of kin-selection leading to “evolutionary altruism” (ex. I’ll deny myself for the good of 2 sisters or 8 cousins) has possible validity. Yet, one may propose that altruism could’ve never been advantageous, because selection works at the level of the individual, not the genome, and individuals can gain advantage by being selfish and ensuring only their offspring have better chances to survive, versus the offspring of local or distant family relatives.
Maybe sympathy and altruism (true altruism like “the just dying for the unjust”, or like Mother Teresa, who had no evolutionary benefit for her self-denial to India’s Lepers) are the facets of our nature being made in the Divine Image, of reflecting the perfect Love and Grace of an Infinitely Perfect, Good and Loving Being? Maybe our sins of omission are those when we don’t live up to our potentials to reflect the divine nature, not when we just act as “mere animals”.
So rape is a vestigial behavior left over from our supposed polygamous past, as Steven Pinker asserts, along with violence and hatred because “nature red in tooth and claw” gave us this “dark side”? Or, is it because we rebelled against the Creator and became fallen and cursed beings, now living with a depraved sin-nature? Both hypotheses are viable, and time will tell which one is true.
Do morals come from selection acting upon mutations which caused changes in brain-thinking, resulting in neural units called “memes”, as R Dawkins speculates about? Or, do they come from that inner conscience, because God left an imprint upon each soul, but we fail to act 100% upon it “to him who knows to do good, but fails to do it, to them that is sin”?
If evolution is based on some kind of selection and seeks more “efficiency”, then was Hitler that wrong? Those that are born retarded or have defective genes, should they be allowed to leave offspring and continue to pollute the gene pool? We believe we should show these weaker and less-fortunate ones mercy, grace and charity, but why? One could easily rationalize that some should be sterilized or some other eugenic method be applied to maintain a healthier gene pool, and use evolutionary theory as that rationale. Let’s be honest it is the Judeo-Christian heritage of our culture that gives us the conviction to help out those less fortunate, not any supposed or speculative evolutionary musings. “Love does its neighbor no harm”; always, not just when there might be some self benefit.
Now, if you are inferring that the abuse, oppression and genocide of N American Indians by “Christians” is an example of “religiously-inspired”, before Darwin was born; well, just as you claim I don’t know evolution, you don’t know Christianity or the Bible. NOWHERE did Jesus or the Apostles teach that one spreads their faith by the sword or violence, and those that do are hypocrites (as seen in all State-Church Empire building, like those done by Catholics and Spain). If one is “to esteem others better than oneself…putting others’ needs before ones’ own”, then there is no legitimizing the evils done in the name “Christianity”, because those actions contradict the clear teachings of Scripture.
Wolves dressed up in sheep’s clothing are still wolves and the Shepherd will one day say “I never knew you, depart from Me”. So, don’t use the hypocrisies of supposed believers as evidence of a misguided faith; it makes a poor smoke-screen.
Consider the possibility that human sympathy and attitudes about violence may have developed over time by a larger process which is not best characterized as “natural selection.” Perhaps the spread of Christianity was a part of that process rather than its cause. Perhaps Christianity evolved in the slipstream of our growing capacity for kindness. Maybe literacy has something to do with all this.
Heck if I know. We can only look at the available evidence and come up with our best theories. Nobody knows the answer to these questions beyond any reasonable degree of doubt. And if nobody knows the answer to these questions, they sure as heck don’t know that “God” left an “imprint” on our “soul.”
Just because we don’t understand how something came to be doesn’t mean that God is the reason it came to be. If that’s the best theory you can come up with, well, you’ve done your best.
FLERP: “Just because we don’t understand how something came to be doesn’t mean that God is the reason it came to be. If that’s the best theory you can come up with, well, you’ve done your best.”
Educators on this blog feel very strongly about these all-hat-but-no-cattle billionaires who tell them how to do their job, dismissing their expertise as old fashioned nonsense.
Researchers in evolution, genetics, molecular biology, pharmacology, archaeology feel the same way when non-experts form their opinion about evolution and evolution theory and dismiss scientists’ findings without knowing anything about the subject and its evidence, just because they think they have a better idea.
People certainly have the right to run around and talk about their own version of evolution theory, but then they shouldn’t be surprised if they make some people really angry and also end up sounding like fools.
Those who think that evolution hasn’t happened and that evolution theory is just an easily dismissed theory should stop when they hear news about a new, dangerously resistant strain of the flu virus, or a new tuberculosis bacteria on steroids, and try to translate it to what they learnt in school. Why? Because the mechanism which has produced these brand new creatures in a matter of few years and sometimes in a few months is the very same mechanism which has worked for evolution for a billion years.
If this mechanism spontaneously produces more viable creatures in a few months, imagine what it could do in a billion years.
Incidentally, humans have exploited the same mechanism for thousands of years when they domesticated animals, grew better wine grapes, sweeter cherries or bred dogs for various purposes—not to mention the production of genetically modified foods. It’s safe to say, the evidence for this mechanism surrounds us, so evolution hasn’t happened on the back of something abstract, something beyond the reach of humans, and certainly not beyond the reach of scientists and their labs.
Please use your empathy when you form an opinion about a scientific theory. Think about the fact that university scientists are getting exactly same treatment as K-12 educators: businessmen and politicians dismiss the value of profs’ research, and force them to do the kind of “research” their market driven, economy centered worldview dictates, and which has as much value as VAM in education.
If you think “But I have a very strong religious conviction against evolution, so I have to dismiss it”, then you are thinking similarly to the no-excuse education “experts”: they also have a very strong conviction about an authoritarian world, and they think, this is the world education needs to be fitted into.
You have the right to think this way, but I think it’s worth internalizing it.
If you choose to dismiss evolution you are dismissing evidence without examining it, and if you dismiss evolution theory, you are dismissing one of the best, extremely well tested theories and with it you necessarily dismiss much of the other successful, well tested and widely applied scientific theories such as those of physics.
Incidentally, the Pope hasn’t been in your camp for decades.
Mate — in case there’s any confusion (there seem to be), I was not dismissing the evolution theory. I was arguing against the “God of the gaps.”
Let me rewrite that without my all-too-typical typos:
In case there’s any confusion (there seems to be), I was not dismissing evolution theory. I was arguing against the “God of the gaps.”
I got that, and I tried to expand on it.
“Incidentally, the Pope hasn’t been in your camp for decades.”
I’m with the pope, but I had to laugh that you chose him as a role model for the more fundamentalist Christian denominations. In fact, just recently an evangelical college in my state disciplined a professor who referred to the pope’s call for religious tolerance when she wore a hijab in sympathy with Muslim women. It caused quite an uproar. In the end she agreed to resign, but the college hierarchy did not win the PR war even on their own campus.
I, myself, do not understand why some believers feel like evolution is an attack on their faith. I do not see science and religion as diametrically opposed forces. A faith that evolved out of the oral traditions of a nomadic tribal society certainly is still “evolving” even if we choose to limit our most sacred texts to the translations of writings at least two thousand years old. Likewise, I believe our scientific understanding of the world also is continuing to evolve.
” I’ve read both the Origin of the Species and the Descent of Man, along with most of S Gould, EO Wilson and others”
Your incorrect reference to “survival of the fittest” suggested to me that your apparent extensive reading was not accompanied with basic understanding of evolution theory. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have implied that accepting the fact of evolution would also mean a necessary acceptance of strong people murdering weaker ones. How else do you explain what you wrote?
So, if you want to believe your evolved out of the image of an Ape, then others who think they are more evolved can oppress or murder you in the name of “survival of the fittest”.
In any case, there are much more up to date and easier books on evolution than those Darwin wrote.
This time you claim
“Now, if you are inferring that the abuse, oppression and genocide of N American Indians by “Christians” is an example of “religiously-inspired”, before Darwin was born; well, just as you claim I don’t know evolution, you don’t know Christianity or the Bible. ”
I think I intended to claim four things: one, evolution theory doesn’t cause or imply genocide, two, any ideology can be used to commit genocide, three, Christianity has been used extensively to justify genocide, four, Christian morals were not successful in saving the American Indians (or preventing slavery).
Otherwise, you are correct, I don’t “know” the Bible, and I don’t understand it. But then again, it’s not a book on science in any sense, so the best one can do is read the Bible and perhaps believe in some part or all of it.
In fact, as soon as I try to understand it, I run into trouble, like
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Some people think, this is a good exercise in trying to “understand” this from a non-genocideological point of view. My understanding is that millions try to do this exercise on Sundays, considering context and other excuses.
I personally think, it’s much simpler not to believe that this stuff is a call for genocide, and done with it. There is absolutely no reason to bring any rationale or logic into the discussion.
But what do I know?
It is tough if you take the Bible literally because it literally condones/forgives the most awful of actions. It also is full of contradictions. There are two creation narratives and two stories about the birth of Jesus for example. If however if you read the Bible as a collection of writings of men, perhaps inspired by their creator, trying to understand their relation to their creator, then who did what in the name of God becomes a different discussion. People do awful things in the name of their God and/or their beliefs whether driven by a belief in the divine or not. Wouldn’t it be easy if we all had the answers or maybe it would be better if we had never evolved to the point where we can ask these questions?
” If however if you read the Bible as a collection of writings of men, perhaps inspired by their creator, trying to understand their relation to their creator, then who did what in the name of God becomes a different discussion. ”
Almost. Except the discussion started with outrageous claims about who did what in the name of evolution theory, and the deniability of evolution is based on the Bible as if it could be used as a reliable source of scientific or other facts.
As you said, the Bible is literature while evolution is a scientific fact, so I think it’s best not to pretend that there’s connection between them.
“As you said, the Bible is literature while evolution is a scientific fact, so I think it’s best not to pretend that there’s connection between them.”
Two different domains. No need to conflate the two.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
I agree that evolution is not a cause of genocide, though it is not a prohibition against either. It provides no mandate, no moral-obligations to act in ways that are altruistic. For it opens the door and allows for (both those that do rationalize it so) competition versus cooperation, extinction versus egalitarianism. If species do get more adapted via intraspecific competition (weeding out the less fit), and this change leads to better adaptations in changing conditions, THEN my point about not showing kindness and charity to those born retarded or with genetic problems is valid. An evolutionists may determine to ensure that none of these kinds of people leave offspring. There is nothing but our “myths of morally good feelings” (according to atheists) that keep us from doing otherwise.
Why should I care about “saving the whales” or any endangered species? Where, how and why did, or would, evolution put in me a moral sense to be a Garden-Keeper or Creation-Steward? When, if other species go extinct (the inevitable outcome of most species) there are more resources left for me and my kin? Maybe evolution put in me the “nature red in tooth and claw” attitude of “screw everyone else, me first”?
Are these are darker demons of vestigial beliefs and behaviors that are relics of our animal past leftovers of our history of struggle? Or are they evidence of our fallen, corrupt and sinful nature as proposed by the Bible and Koran? Were we made in the image of Infinite Love and Justice, and fell from that? Or, are we at best groping via evolution to attain a sense of morality and conscience?
Again, nowhere is murder or slavery condoned in the Bible. In fact, taking one against their will and forcing them into bondage was a crime so great before the Lord that it merited capital punishment (in fact many will claim that the moral, ethical and penal codes of the Mosaic Covenant are the highest expressions and standards of righteousness and justice in our history, a claim with good merit).
So, your supposed “Christians” that did any harm to Indians or others are hypocrites (but aren’t we all) because “love does its neighbor no harm”)
Now, if there is a Being of Infinite Love, Justice, Wisdom, Goodness, etc.. and He/She/It chose to reveal truth to its creatures, and a command was given to kill another group of people in retribution (for Amalek, the Jebusites, etc.) for the great evils done upon Israel, then that might be a just action; just like defeating Hitler was a just action.
Now, this One that “rules over nations”….”controls wars, raising up one nation and casting down another”..”bringing judgments upon those that practice war”…”nations are the axes in My hand, to swing one against another”…”to reap the evil that you brought upon yourself by your own wickedness”, etc. is ALSO perfectly just and fair, and shows no partiality or favoritism to any person (“shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is right”?). Then this One that told Israel to slaughter tribes as an act of punishment upon those tribes, later would tell Nebuchadnezzar to destroy and slaughter Jerusalem because of the judgments upon Israel’s sins, because He is perfectly impartial and punishes even His own redemptive nation.
Interesting that if Jehovah is the product of the human mind, a local tribal diety invented by a group of people to give their lives meaning, “an opiate for the masses”, to make them believe in some kind of “superiority”, then how does one explain that all forms of favoritism, partiality and injustices are prohibited against any and all people in the OT moral codes? Why show “kindness to the stranger and alien” and receive them with loving and open arms, when you could oppress them and take advantage of their weaker status?
Yes, there are commands of war, commands of peace, “a time for war, a time for peace” and millions of people of faith have found no contradictions in this; as I find no contradiction in a Being of Perfect Love, Mercy, Grace, Righteousness, Justice, Wrath, etc. (as if all these traits cannot be reconciled in the One, as they can be reconciled in us [we love, but we also punish])
Now, as to these puerile and outdated, old and archaic, and false claims that the Bible is just literature and has no scientific or archeological support to validate its narrative and claims; that is just so much hogwash. While there maybe some inconsistencies or problems in C-14 dating (which is often unreliable), there is a myriad of historic finds that corroborate the narrative. There is enough evidence for one to make a reasonable and rationale assent to faith, if one is willing to deal with it and be confronted by their Creator.
Peace and Grace!
“Now, as to these puerile and outdated, old and archaic, and false claims that the Bible is just literature and has no scientific or archeological support to validate its narrative and claims; that is just so much hogwash.”
Which is why I did not include “just literature” in my post. The Bible has been used to justify great evil, but it has inspired great good as well. I really don’t find it necessary to defend my beliefs to anyone by disparaging what they choose to believe. I wish everyone would give it a rest.
2old2teach: “Which is why I did not include “just literature” in my post.”
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be offensive at all. I meant “literature” in the wider sense—but not wide enough to include “natural science literature”.
This is an excellent thumbnail history of the roots of ‘standardized’ testing, and right on every conclusion. I have often recommended Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” for those who want some of the details (and I’m pretty sure that Singer read that work and digested it for you, as well as adding some more recent information).
The key question is, “Just what are we testing, is it important and how do we know we are measuring it correctly?” Circular logic abounds.
John,
You are so right that circular logic abounds with standardized testing …and with Rheeform in general, which is what Joni Mitchell’s “The Circle Game” (aka The Rhee-form game”) was about
“The Circle game”
Yesterday a child came out to wonder
Caught a dragonfly inside a jar
Fearful when the sky was full of thunder
And tearful at the falling of a star
But the Rhee-forms they go round and round
And the edu-phonies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of crime
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the Rhee-form game
Then the child moved ten times round the seasons
Sweated over ten poor Pearson tests
Words like, College Ready, must unease him
And Common Core of Coleman sap his zest
And the Rhee-forms they go round and round
And the edu-phonies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of crime
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the Rhee-form game
Sixteen tests and sixteen bummers gone now
Persons turn to Pearsons through the years
And they tell him,
Take your test, it won’t be long now
Till you work for Gates for peanuts and for beers
And the Rhee-forms they go round and round
And the edu-phonies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of crime
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the Rhee-form game
So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty
Though his dreams have lost some grandeur coming true
There’ll be new tests, maybe better tests and plenty
Before the last Rhee-forming test is through
And the Rhee-forms they go round and round
And the edu-phonies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of crime
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the Rhee-form game
“You are so right that circular logic abounds with standardized testing ”
Circular and self replicating. At another place (I think Chalkbeat), I claimed that the yearly Tennessee CC test called TNReady , as other standardized tests, is useless. So then a guy says “It’s not useless because it prepares you for other similar tests.”
So the K-8 yearly tests prepare you for the K9-12 tests, which prepare you for SAT which prepare you for those college tests more and more of which are online and designed by Pearson.
Why does this look like a familiar business model? Because it is. Take any of the enormous amount of useless products (material or not) that surround us, and see why they are successful, though we all know, they are a useless.
The tricky part is how to introduce a useless product. Well, attach it to something which is useful, or at least perceived as useful. One of the most common model is the computer. When you buy it, it’s loaded with useless software. Open just one of these programs, and the business model starts working.
Of course, the business model is coming from nature; just think of viruses, parasites.
In conclusion: the best scientific term to describe Pearson, Rhee, Coleman and friends is to call them parasites. There is nothing personal about this; it’s just best scientific practice.
“Loopy Reform”
Möbius loop
Escher stair
Bottom is top
Cheat is fair
Up is down
Back is fore
Round and round
Reformer lore
“Loopy Reform”
I am ordering a poem with the title “Parasitic reform” or “Parasitic tests” or the “Useful useless tests”, or anything of this nature. See my earlier remark.
On the threads of two postings on this blog, 3-7-2016 and 3-16-2016. Judith Lloyd Yerow alerted viewers to the following:
Todd Rose, THE END OF AVERAGE: HOW WE SUCCEED IN A WORLD THAT VALUES SAMENESS (2016).
I am in the middle of reading it now. So far I would say that it is very relevant to this and many other similar discussions.
😎