What's Being Taught In Biology Class
by JoyIn the comments to Mike's blog Sober and ID: Part II, NCSE propaganda director Nick Matzke refers to a 1999 essay by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, in which he argues that the evolution vs. creationism debates need "a new script."
Commenter Analyysi offered further observations on the meat of that essay, per how Haynes decries the teaching of scientism in public schools as if it were science. I post below a blog written last year about how evolutionary biology is being taught in my 'economically challenged' redneck corner of the country, to demonstrate that things HAVE changed. For the better.
Last year my grandson took his requisite semester's worth of introductory biology and evolution, so I carefully vetted the new textbook, comparing it to a truly awful anti-religious polemic disguised as a freshman anthropology textbook my son had to purchase for a course he took in college back in the early 1990s.
I listed the details of my examination in a blog that for some reason never got published, so I offer it now to illustrate that Hayne's positive suggestions back in 1999 have been incorporated into new materials for teaching high school biology, and it's apparently not generating much controversy. The change has happened despite the desperate tactics of NCSE and other such organizations devoted to preserving exclusive indoctrination in Neodarwinism as the prescribed 'cure' for religious beliefs.
I have not seen any official NCSE objections to the new way of introducing students to evolution, so must conclude that Eugenie and Nick have no problems with the new, more open and critical presentation. I have no problems with it, so it may be that the 'war' is over. Now all that needs to happen is to tell the combatants they can all go home.
The blog, written in January of 2006:
My grandson's new textbook is entitled Biology, the Dynamics of Life. It is a Glencoe Science/McGraw-Hill textbook with National Geographic features, and includes the NC-specific materials to be found at the Glenco/McGraw-Hill website. It has seven authors and an edition copyright of 2005. While genetics is introduced in unit 4 right after a unit on cells, evolution isn't introduced until unit 5 (starting on page 366 and comprising 100 pages).
Unit 5, chapter 14 - "Change Through Time" - begins with an early geological and geophysical history of the earth and moves right into fossils. Section 14.2 - "The Origin of Life" - presents both ancient and modern ideas about where life came from (including spontaneous generation and abiogenesis). None of the current hypotheses presented for abiogenesis is given particular credence, and none are presented as fact. Just prior to the chapter 14 assessment there's a page labeled "Biology and Society" where the 4 hypotheses are given a paragraph each before finishing up with a two-sentence statement about "Forming Your Opinion."
The 4 origin hypotheses (in order of presentation): 1. Divine origins. 2. Meteorites. 3. Primordial Soup. 4. RNA world. the Divine origins blurb is the only one with two paragraphs. These read -
"Common to human cultures throughout history is the belief that life on Earth did not arise spontaneously. Many of the world's major religions teach that life was created on Earth by a supreme being. The followers of these religions believe that life could only have arisen through the direct action of a divine force."
"A variation of this belief is that organisms are too complex to have developed only by evolution. Instead, some people believe that the complex structures and processes of life could not have formed without some guiding intelligence."
That's it. No anti-theological argumentation, no historical lies, no position taken. Just short paragraphs describing the Creationist and ID positions, without even using the terms "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design." Whoa!!!!
After the blurbs for the rest of the hypotheses, "Forming Your Opinion" states quite simply:
"Review, analyze, and critique the different ideas about the origin of life presented here. Consider strengths and weaknesses during your review."
How refreshing! I am so glad to see that what my grandson is going to be learning this semester isn't propaganda, isn't lies, isn't biased anti-religious garbage"¦ it's just facts and science, along with a lovely encouragement toward critical thinking! I won't have to waste any time at all trying to counter bigoted horsehockey coming from the erstwhile authority of the local school system, and he'll still learn the most valuable science he needs to learn to pursue his dream of being a paleontologist!
I'll add that in section 15 Darwin and natural selection are introduced, but I have no problems with the way these and other topics of the subject are treated either. I wish every high schooler in the country could be introduced to evolution this way. It's very encouraging to me that science (or at least the textbook writers, editors and publishers) are now paying attention to fact-based material and losing the ugly bias. I'm sure some parents around here may object to the subject on general principles, but far fewer will have such objections to this material than would have if the text were something as nasty as the one my son had to buy.
I wonder what the die-hard ID-critics of the Great Internet Wars would say about the exercise of thinking critically about the origin of life hypotheses, and open discussion in the classroom, which is not just suggested but required as "lab" in this textbook. Isn't the exercise of critical thinking in their view supposed to be aimed exclusively at theological notions?
Such a change in the way students are introduced to evolution didn't come about because Neodarwinists and religion-haters such as Dawkins and Myers [et. al.] have won or are winning the debates. Rather, it looks to me like evolutionary biology just might be about ripe for new ways of approaching open questions. As I have long predicted would happen as soon as science proper determined to deal with the metaphysical corruption in its midst.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Whew! I had some trouble posting this, the first time I tried it went back and inserted itself in January of 2006. So I tried again, and noticed that it was date-stamped December 31, 1969. Hmmm… Did Telic Thoughts exist in December of 1969? My daughter, first child, was born precisely 10 days previous to this date stamp (brought her home in a giant stocking on Christmas Eve that year). I can tell you all that my mind was definitely NOT on Neodarwinism vs. Intelligent Design on that date.
So I'm glad it got updated upon publishing, given that the subject is a textbook for a high school sophomore class my daughter's son took last year… §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 26, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
So much of what passess for protecting science is anti-religion in a see through disguise.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Bradford:
What surprises me was how long this was allowed to go unchallenged, since it was transparent all along. This is one good thing that has come of these NDS vs. ID debates, a focus on the anti-theological arguments enshrined in public school textbooks - indoctrination in anti-religion under color of law.
I think it's great that textbook publishers have cleaned up their authors' acts for them. And surprise, surprise… scientific literacy has been going UP, not down. §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 26, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Joy:
Agreed. Where is the concern about the sanctity of the constitution when anti-theology arguments are in evidence?
The attempt to link ID to illiteracy will go the way of other urban legends.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I may stand to be corrected, but if this is supposed to be a definition of ID, I suspect it would be considered a poor one:
* It starts out by identifying ID as a variation of a religious belief. ID proponents would contend that design detection is not based on the premise of the divine but on the observation of phenomena which would in other contexts clearly indicate intelligent agency.
* It employs the "too complex" phrase, suggesting that ID stems largely from incredulity with respect to the degree of complexity evolution is imagined capable of generating. But this is a mischaracterization. ID does not say, "We have no idea how evolution could have possibly created such complexity [...therefore, God must have done it]," but "We have ample experience with complexity of this sort, and our experience tells us that intelligence is required to produce it. Therefore, absent coercive contrary evidence, intelligent agency is the best explanation."
Comment by RickToews — February 26, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
RickToews:
Oh, I agree it's a very poor definition of what I think about ID, but then again, I am not someone who gets to produce the "official" definition of ID. That was done by Johnson, Behe, Nelson and the DI, et. al., who have made just this assertion more than once. So I'm happy enough that the usual polemics have been edited out.
Deal is, there simply isn't an "official" definition of ID, and no Court of Grand ID Poobahs to come up with one. So I give the publishers brownie points for at least trying to put something together that wasn't purposely designed to insult, ridicule or embarrass religious students. It's a start.
The rest will come. The crucial step, it seems has been taken - encouragement of critical analysis and discussion. That's what the DDs were most terrified of, but the deed is done. Science itself will come around when the kids move in - armed with several decades' worth of improved technology, genomic expertise and basic grasp of the several newly identified hierarchical life-codes.
Comment by Joy — February 26, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Joy, You wrote:
I like it too if the textbook is really as tolerant and fairminded as you describe it. However, I don't think the problems we are facing today is merely a problem of textbooks and curriculum. There is an ugly movement of religious intolerance growing in our country. The self appointed defenders of science are not really interested in defending science, their real agenda IMO is to undermime established religion and religious freedom. Richard Dawkins is not alone! It would be nice if we could have some civil compromise and accomodation, but what I have read, including from some of the more militant of the contributors on this site, leads me to believe that compromise is not part of their vocabulary or thinking. All the anti-ID anti-creationism stuff is nothing but a big smokescreen.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 27, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
February 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
John:
"Fair minded" is a relative assessment, so I'm just going by the concerted efforts to drop arguments that do in fact display issues that could be challenged on Constitutional grounds. The textbook publishers get it even though the writers generally don't, because they have to deal with state school textbook committees comprised of people who find this stuff offensive. Their anti-theistic bias is being cleaned up for them, they haven't changed their minds.
The issue with the 'New Atheists' finally and notably abandoning science to promote their bigotry is just the final step toward where they were going all along. I am not afraid they can turn America into something it's not, any more than I was afraid of the wannabe theocrats. In a 'free' country you're going to have fringe on your wings, and more than a few outright crazies in the mix. But religion can neither be officially promoted nor officially forbidden in this country under its governing charter. In order to be either a theocracy or an atheocracy, the United States would have to become something else entirely.
That's not likely to happen without serious resistance from the governed, so only a complete suicidal fool would try it. We've more pressing concerns with a certain lame duck and his coterie, who have spent the last six years gutting the governmental charter from the inside. They've done a lot of damage. Should the nation fall to authoritarianism in the end the future will be bleak and what's taught to teenagers for a semester of their lives won't matter. But it's not like Christians weren't warned, Jews weren't used to it, and patriots weren't complicit.
All authoritarian mind-tyrants look alike to me.
Comment by Joy — February 27, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Joy,
Let me try to expand a little bit more on the point that I was trying to make. When I took high school biology a long , long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away? Well it seems like a different world looking back upon it now) one of the requirements was that we had to write a paper on a topic of our own choosing; the only "rule" is that it had to relate somehow to biology. I decided to stick my neck out and write about creationism; what it can explain that evolution can't. In one part of the paper I wrote about evolution leading to all kinds of godlessness. I remember becoming worried after handing the paper in that I had destined myself to martyrdom… well worried I would be sent to the principals office for stepping over some kind of line. Much to my relief when I recieved the paper back the teacher noted in the margin next to my statement about godlessness "I believe in both evolution and God" I remember that statement because it has had an influence on my thinking. I kept an open mind and began to consider other points of view. Now the question is could a teacher today legally say (or write) something similar or would she/he be stepping over some constitutional line? Mrs. V had an influence on me because she tolerated and respected my religious beliefs. Are new teachers, at modern Universities being taught what it means to respect the religious beliefs of the their prospective students? Remember religious students are not going to go away. Teachers are going to have to personally interact with thease kinds of students that requires a certain meausre of tolerance. From what I see happening on university campuses today I think that kind of tolerance is being badly eroded.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 28, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
?
If you adhere to the strict logic of legal precedents it would be stepping over the line. However the Judge Joneses and Matzkes of this world would find a reason to look the other way.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Why? Is theistic evolution more acceptable?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 28, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
There is a double standard. Churches and clergy favoring an anti-ID stance were recruited to voice their views in celebration of Darwin Day by the same crowd that bemoaned a coming theocracy. Klein is right about one thing. There is a political aspect to all this but it is centered on his side of the fence.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
John:
Unless your parents were to complain about the margin note, your teacher can say what she wants about it. And of course (according to the Department of Education) you can write about your beliefs about biology according to the parameters of the assignment. You can even present it orally to the whole class, in terms of the assignment. But the teacher can't make her remark to the whole class, because in that role she's a representative of the state. Conversely, she can't criticize your essay to the whole class on religious terms either.
However, she could sign up to be in-school sponsor for an after-school club of kids who gather for religious reasons. My biology teacher (for both Bio-I and II) was the preacher at the First Baptist Church in our town. His brother was the chemistry and physics teacher, and youth pastor at the same church. Neither of them ever confused their job descriptions, and both were very excellent teachers - among the best I ever had.
But it was no secret who they were on Sundays and Wednesday nights. Nobody cared.
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Bradford wrote:
There is also a double standard big time today on university campuses. Some professors apparently not fulfilled with teaching alone are using their classrooms as a way to indoctrinate the next generation. According to the news reports I have been seeing religion in general and Christianity in particular are targets of some scathing attacks. Just last night I saw a report on a woman studies professor who denounced Jesus as one of the opriginal middle eastern terrorists. Womans studies allows one to give expert opinions on the roots terrorism? And the origins of Christianity? Jesus, by the way, was hardly a terrorist. Of course, any one who believes in creationism or ID is in for similar denunciation and ridicule. If you're a student and you try to defend your beliefs it was reported the professor might retaliate in your grade. This has certainly changed since I worked 20+ years ago on a university campus. Joy, reminisced about a time when nobody cared what you believed. It seems to me that is a by-gone time that is quickly fading into the distant past.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 28, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Hi John. Much of what is occuring on and off campuses can be traced to rabid anti-Christianity. That goes for opposition to ID on the part of some as well. I posted a comment recently about a professor teaching a class my son attends who went out of his way to depict IDers in terms usually reserved for criminals. Terrorists are spoken of with less vindictiveness.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 4:17 pm