Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate: Kansas
« on: 2006-08-25 07:55:55 » |
 |
How to Make Sure Children Are Scientifically Illiterate
[Hermit: I find "I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others" an extremely strange idea. Given the number of faith-filled fools on this planet marketing this idea, meaning that this is a fairly widespread piece of nonsense, I don't particularly blame Lawrence Krauss for imagining that this is a sensible proposition, presumably he hasn't bothered to examine the full implications of his approach. Still, I am at somewhat of a loss to comprehend why any scientist should feel pressed to defend what is clearly a provably harmful delusional behaviour, no matter how widespread this mental incapacity might be.
Even when in the form of something as soft, squishy and feel-goodish as some of the Eastern and New Agey blands, faith, taking some idea or modus or another on trust, rather than on evidence, imposes a major susceptibility to snake-oil peddlers, as well as the need for reality-blinkers in order to prevent cognitive dissonance, in the infected. While I have heard arguments that such mental-head-in-sandedness behaviour need not necessarily affect all thought, that some measure of compartmentalization is possible, my observation is very different. Everyone I know who has never learned to think sufficiently analytically to be immune from faith, or worse, anyone who has discarded rational thought for faith, even where the faith is not necessarily religious (think about the behavior of the NeoConned when they start frothing about "Islamofascism") tends, in my opinion, to reflect the distressing characteristic of having becoming immune to reason in numerous areas, while apparently being completely oblivious to the insidious take-over over their cognitive capacity (if they ever had one); indeed, strenuous denial of a demonstrated inability to think one's way out of a wet paper-bag is a reliable diagnostic marker for the adoption of "faith".]
Source: New York Times
Authors: Lawrence M Krauss
[b]Dated: 2006-08-15
Voters in Kansas ensured this month that noncreationist moderates will once again have a majority (6 to 4) on the state school board, keeping new standards inspired by intelligent design from taking effect.
This is a victory for public education and sends a message nationwide about the public’s ability to see through efforts by groups like the Discovery Institute to misrepresent science in the schools. But for those of us who are interested in improving science education, any celebration should be muted.
This is not the first turnaround in recent Kansas history. In 2000, after a creationist board had removed evolution from the state science curriculum, a public outcry led to wholesale removal of creationist board members up for re-election and a reinstatement of evolution in the curriculum.
In a later election, creationists once again won enough seats to get a 6-to-4 majority. With their changing political tactics, creationists are an excellent example of evolution at work. Creation science evolved into intelligent design, which morphed into “teaching the controversy,” and after its recent court loss in Dover, Pa., and political defeats in Ohio and Kansas, it will no doubt change again. The most recent campaign slogan I have heard is “creative evolution.”
But perhaps more worrisome than a political movement against science is plain old ignorance. The people determining the curriculum of our children in many states remain scientifically illiterate. And Kansas is a good case in point.
The chairman of the school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is not merely a strict creationist. He has openly stated that he believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in The New York Times this month as saying that his personal faith “doesn’t have anything to do with science.”
“I can separate them,” he continued, adding, “My personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom.”
A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams’s religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board.
I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others. However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.
It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.
Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children.
Another member of the board, who unfortunately survived a primary challenge, is John Bacon. In spite of his name, Mr. Bacon is no friend of science. In a 1999 debate about the removal of evolution and the Big Bang from science standards, Mr. Bacon said he was baffled about the objections of scientists. “I can’t understand what they’re squealing about,” he is quoted as saying. “I wasn’t here, and neither were they.”
This again represents a remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method. Many fields — including evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics — use evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses. But they do not stop there. Science is not storytelling.
These disciplines take hypotheses and subject them to further tests and experiments. This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.
As we continue to work to improve the abysmal state of science education in our schools, we will continue to battle those who feel that knowledge is a threat to faith.
But when we win minor skirmishes, as we did in Kansas, we must remember that the issue is far deeper than this. We must hold our elected school officials to certain basic standards of knowledge about the world. The battle is not against faith, but against ignorance.
|
Author
Logged
