"Citizens for Objective Public Education Inc"? Hah!

[Carrikature]

Has anyone seen the text of the letter? I'd like to see their arguments that evolution is "secular humanism".

See post #7 in this thread.

[rogue06]

I don't know if by that you mean that the common version of evolution must be taught at all costs.

At all costs? No. But what purpose would really be served by teaching characterizations -- strawmen versions -- of it? Would you be in favor of teaching a version of history that declared that Poland invaded Germany thus starting WWII?

I only meant to say the biologist had better know mutation by adaptation and any possible forms of gene splicing. While the teacher might be suitably required to teach Darwinism, I don't think he needs to agree with it. But heh, Creationists are not a cautious lot; they will just use the law until the law turns against them.

I would hope the teacher would be capable of teaching something a little more up to date than "Darwinism" (evolutionary thought has progressed quite a bit since his day).

[Cerebrum123]

At all costs? No. But what purpose would really be served by teaching characterizations -- strawmen versions -- of it? Would you be in favor of teaching a version of history that declared that Poland invaded Germany thus starting WWII?


I would hope the teacher would be capable of teaching something a little more up to date than "Darwinism" (evolutionary thought has progressed quite a bit since his day).

If that last part is so true, the public school system sure hasn't caught up(they are STILL using outdated, and often falsified teachings).

[rogue06]

If that last part is so true, the public school system sure hasn't caught up(they are STILL using outdated, and often falsified teachings).

Several years ago a girlfriend of mine had a son who's textbooks had a map showing the equator passing through the U.S. and elsewhere had another map with the cardinal directions mixed up. That doesn't mean geography is wrong.

[Cerebrum123]

Several years ago a girlfriend of mine had a son who's textbooks had a map showing the equator passing through the U.S. and elsewhere had another map with the cardinal directions mixed up. That doesn't mean geography is wrong.

I wasn't arguing against evolution in this thread, just stating that it's not being taught accurately, and regardless of what position you take on this issue, that it is a real problem.

[phank]

I wasn't arguing against evolution in this thread, just stating that it's not being taught accurately, and regardless of what position you take on this issue, that it is a real problem.

Here, I have to agree. Teaching of evolution, where it happens at all, is either counterproductive (because creationists teach it), or simply abysmal (because the teachers don't understand it). In much of the US, just using the word "evolution" causes school administrators more hassles than they want to deal with.

But it's not all that hard technically to teach the basics fairly well, and advance from there. The difficulty seems to be administrative, political, and religious. Not scientific.

[lucaspa]

I can agree with that. But recycling a list of worn out and terminally rebutted PRATTs isn't learning about evolution and from what I've been able to ascertain that is pretty much what COPE offered.

The letter offered more than that. In fact, it was pretty ingenious (altho dishonest) in trying to link evolution to Secular Humanism and then have Secular Humanism be a religion. Yes, Secular Humanism is a religion, but there are several flaws in the linkage and the philosophical portrayal of evolution and science. However, the argument is novel. They also raised a concern that does need to be addressed: Insurance that evolution is being taught as agnostic and not atheist. Now, there was nothing specific I saw in the letter that pointed to a specific part of the proposed standards that would make evolution anything other than agnostic. Nor did they bring any documentation that evolution has ever been taught as atheism in Kansan public schools. However, that is the underlying concern and I hope those supporting evolution in Kansas have enough sense to address that concern.

Now, when they got down to specific scientific issues, yes, they offered PRATTS.

[lucaspa]

At all I would hope the teacher would be capable of teaching something a little more up to date than "Darwinism" (evolutionary thought has progressed quite a bit since his day).

This is semantics. The 5 major theories Darwin proposed in Origin have turned out to be valid. Because of that, and because natural selection continues to be THE mechanism for adaptations, evolution is still often referred to as "Darwinism". Don't worry about it.

[lucaspa]

I wasn't arguing against evolution in this thread, just stating that it's not being taught accurately, and regardless of what position you take on this issue, that it is a real problem.

For both you and Rogue06, what exactly about evolution do you think is "not being taught accurately"?

[lucaspa]

I don't know if by that you mean that the common version of evolution must be taught at all costs. I only meant to say the biologist had better know mutation by adaptation and any possible forms of gene splicing. While the teacher might be suitably required to teach Darwinism, I don't think he needs to agree with it. But heh, Creationists are not a cautious lot; they will just use the law until the law turns against them.

There is no such thing as "mutation by adaptation". Adaptation is the product of natural selection which, in turn, is a 2-step process: variation and selection. Mutations are one source of variation.

No, strictly speaking, a teacher does not have to agree with evolution in order to teach it well. However, if a teacher cannot accept the evidence compelling acceptance of evolution, I would question their fitness to be a science teacher.

[rogue06]

The letter offered more than that. In fact, it was pretty ingenious (altho dishonest) in trying to link evolution to Secular Humanism and then have Secular Humanism be a religion. Yes, Secular Humanism is a religion, but there are several flaws in the linkage and the philosophical portrayal of evolution and science. However, the argument is novel. They also raised a concern that does need to be addressed: Insurance that evolution is being taught as agnostic and not atheist. Now, there was nothing specific I saw in the letter that pointed to a specific part of the proposed standards that would make evolution anything other than agnostic. Nor did they bring any documentation that evolution has ever been taught as atheism in Kansan public schools. However, that is the underlying concern and I hope those supporting evolution in Kansas have enough sense to address that concern.

Now, when they got down to specific scientific issues, yes, they offered PRATTS.

IMHO, the attempt to make evolution into a religion is a PRATT as well.

[rogue06]

This is semantics. The 5 major theories Darwin proposed in Origin have turned out to be valid. Because of that, and because natural selection continues to be THE mechanism for adaptations, evolution is still often referred to as "Darwinism". Don't worry about it.

Darwin got a few things wrong as well such as his understanding of genetics. The point is, at least in America, Darwinism refers to what Darwin thought and as the modern evolutionary synthesis demonstrates much has been discovered since then. And note that things like evo-devo, genetic drift and neutral mutations is causing a new look at the modern evolutionary synthesis as well.

[rogue06]

For both you and Rogue06, what exactly about evolution do you think is "not being taught accurately"?

At the High School level -- a lot. Many teachers skirt around it at best and others make only halfhearted attempts to teach it.

[USIncognito]

If that last part is so true, the public school system sure hasn't caught up(they are STILL using outdated, and often falsified teachings).

We all know HS biology education (in many, though not all districts) could use a lot of improvement (especially in the textbooks), but do you have any specifics you'd like to comment on or would you rather just allude to thise "outdated, and often falsified teachings"?

[Cerebrum123]

We all know HS biology education (in many, though not all districts) could use a lot of improvement (especially in the textbooks), but do you have any specifics you'd like to comment on or would you rather just allude to thise "outdated, and often falsified teachings"?

Ok, first you have Haeckle's "embryonic recapitulation" being taught as fact. You have whales evolving from "fox like" creatures(now it's supposed to be a form of ungulate, and related to the deer). The "Peppered Moth" is still being widely used, even though it has been showed to have been a poor study, and studies since have had contradictory results. I'm not 100% sure on this one, but they may have even been using Piltdown man, but it has been a while since I have read the book(the other stuff was in there). Now, you have 1 example of blatant fraud(2 if Piltdown man was used), 1 of poor study that wasn't performed correctly, and 1 that is simply out of date with what evolution currently teaches.