A Teacher on the Front Line

The New York Times recently ran a fascinating, and at times encouraging, article about a Florida high school science teacher. It can be found here.{Printer friendly version, which also may be more reader friendly (whole article on same page). - Adminnemooseus} Edited by subbie, : TyopEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "printer friendly" link.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'm reading the article now, but my first thought after seeing the picture at the top is:Those are sophmores in highschool!?They look too old.

Yeah but they sure do look like American kids don't they

lol

For a start Campbells' Mickey Mouse analogy is a false analogy. Disney changed Mickey to maintain appeal amongst his audience. An intelligent designer, no doubt.It's encouraging to see that the students don't buy his opinions as science.What is discouraging however, is that you can fail a biology test for not believing in the TOE. And that you can't become a biological scientist unless you adopt the consensus of the biological scientific community, the same group of people who establish the consensus. A self fulfilling prophesy in the making.As far a his bouncing the ball comparison with evolution, well he is really stretching his parallelism.I think of a bird sitting up a tree trying to crack a nut. He knows if he drops it, it's going to fall to the ground. He also knows that he has to crack it before dark or else he won't be able to see to fly back home. He finally cracks the nut and eats it's contents     and then sits back and wonders how his great great uncle Rex would have dealt with his situation.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

It was an example of selection.Even if there is an intelligent designer, species still evolve and the ToE accurately describes that evolution. Not true.

quote:

---

I don’t expect you to ”believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

​

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

No, as CathSci already pointed out to you with a direct quote from the article.In the late 1980's, I obtained a copy of the California Framework for Science Education. It also stated that same position quite explicitly: the objective of science education is not to compel belief, but rather to require understanding of the material.For example, in the early 1980's the US Air Force trained us in Communism. We were right in the middle of the Cold War and the Air Force was requiring us to learn Communism. Was it their intention that we believe in Communism? No, quite the opposite. It was their intention for us to know our enemy.Frankly, I think that every single creationist be required to study and learn evolution thoroughly. If they really want to fight against and defeat evolution, then they absolutely must learn everything they possibly can about their enemy. Instead, we find that creationists have no understanding of evolution nor of science, so their attacks are ineffective, assinine, and do much more to discredit their own Christianity. Their attacks are ineffective because they only attack a contrived strawman caricature that they name "evolution"; they never come close to touching the real thing. Their attacks are assinine because they don't understand science, so they make claims that are mind-bogglingly ridiculous. And they discredit Christianity because non-Christians see the foolish claims they make and the dishonesty of "creation science" and mark off Christianity as something that they could never seriously consider. Plus, when creationists finally learn the truth about "creation science" and can no longer evade it, they suffer a crisis of faith which has resulted in many becoming atheists of the worst kind, an anti-Christianity atheist bitter about how his former religion and lied to and betrayed him.Now please compare the Framework's position of requiring understanding without compelling belief, with what "creation science" does when it gets into the classroom. There, the creationist materials are centered on requiring the student to believe. In particular, the materials repeated require the student to choose between the Creator and "atheistic science". These are public school materials, mind you. A documented case of this occurred in 1981 in Livermore, California (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/Livermore.html), where some of the elementary-grade students followed the instructions and, finding the creationist side so ridiculous, chose to become atheists. Didn't you read that part?

quote:

---

The Limits of Science

​

The morning after his Mickey Mouse gambit, he bounced a pink rubber Spalding ball on the classroom’s hard linoleum floor.

​

“Gravity,” he said. “I can do this until the end of the semester, and I can only assume that it will work the same way each time.”

​

He looked around the room. “Bryce, what is it called when natural laws are suspended ” what do you call it when water changes into wine?”

​

“Miracle?” Bryce supplied.

​

Mr. Campbell nodded. The ball hit the floor again.

​

“Science explores nature by testing and gathering data,” he said. “It can’t tell you what’s right and wrong. It doesn’t address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions.”

​

He grabbed the ball and held it still.

​

“Can anybody think of a question science can’t answer?”

​

“Is there a God?” shot back a boy near the window.

​

“Good,” said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. “Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.”

​

Bryce raised his hand.

​

“But there is scientific proof that there is a God,” he said. “Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.”

​

Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully.

​

“If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree ” would that damage your religious faith at all?”

​

Bryce thought for a moment.

​

“No,” he said.

​

The room was unusually quiet.

​

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ”believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

​

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

---

Please point to where you think that he was comparing evolution to that bouncing ball. The precise paragraph, sentence, or phrase.Shouldn't you have actually read the article before making comments about it?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

If that was really how science worked, everyone would still be a creationist.

Interesting article, though I am a bit concerned about a statement the teacher made in the video (about 3:35): She needs to go back to school. There is, indeed, data that says there is "the fact of evolution." That's the entire reason we have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. You can't have a theory without a fact to base it upon. The reason we have a theory OF evolution is because we have already determined the FACT of evolution.We can even observe it happening directly. We've all seen my example that you can do in a high school biology class regarding E. coli and T4 phage which shows evolution happening right in front of your eyes not once but twice. Why doesn't she do this experiment for her students? Searching for fossils is a good thing, but there's a more immediate, "in-your-face" way of showing that evolution is, indeed, a fact.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I really respect this teacher for realizing the importance of relationship with his students. I recall when I first came to EvC, I never took hook line and sinker what the Biblical Creationists at AIG said, but I also never understood why evolution made sense. I had, in effect, been brainwashed and was afraid that belief in science was countering my faith in God.There really is a vast culture of ignorance that has been perpetuated by the Biblical Creationists, but to many of us, it is a big deal whether or not God exists. (In fact, we even believe that if God did not exist, nothing would be here anyway....thus it is a moot point.)It is a good first step to allow that Science and Faith are both valid and that both ask different questions.Later, it is an even bigger step to admit that there is no proof of god in the scientific sense and that this is OK.Like I said, I respect this teacher for caring about his students and not wishing to alienate them.

I actually have a big problem with these statements as a rationalist/atheist. I don't think that faith is valid and that it should be actively discouraged. As for the second statement, the fact that there is no way to verify god in a "scientific sense" IMHO means that there is no reason to even consider god/faith at all. If you are not moved to consider Santa Claus, the FSM, or the infamous Teapot orbiting the sun opposite us, then there is not reason to consider your god(s).

Well I was really looking for page 9 when I got to the end of that story! Poor Bryce was pretty easy to convince. I just figured maybe he answered the question because the teacher was trying so hard to convince him in a pleasant way and he did say you need to understand it even if you don't believe it. I had to go back and find the part where he initially didn't answer the question to get the gist of what this all meant to the poor hopeful teacher.There was quite a lot of religious overtones there as well. Especially when the teacher thinks to himself -"If I do this wrong, I'll lose him." That sounds like a priest concerned for the kid's soul. This sounds like there is nothing to do with scientific evidence involved in believing in an intelligent designer. The argument is always made to sound like religion vs science when in actual fact it is two different interpretations of the same scientific evidence. So you see this is not about religion at all -Darwinism may not be criticized scientifically or any other way.It reminds me of the Chinese paleontologist (Can't remember his name right now)that said 'In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.' ID proponents only want to be allowed to give the evidence against evolution, they have no intention of introducing religion into the science class but it always gets taken as religion when somebody finds Darwinism unsatisfying as an explanation for life. No problem there,the more the merrier - as long as the downside gets a hearing as well. Not when it comes to evolution. We ask the same questions -what are we doing here? Where did we come from? For a religious viewpoint to have any validity, it has to resonate with reality -they are not two different realities. What happened and why we are here -the answer has to be the truth not just what makes you happy. So what? So we evolved from something like a chimpanzee, what's the difference? That sounds to me like a con job. No, refined diets, less function, less growth. That's why we don't often have the space though plenty people fit them in just fine and in the ones where they are impacted, they often partially erupt -so space is a bit short in a portion of the population.
As for being prone to lower back pain. I'd love to see the evidence for that.It sounds like an evolutionary assumption derived like the wisdom tooth problem from imagination. I say we're built to walk upright with anatomical features that support that ability. So you see the lack of evidence for evolution is just as easily explained as the so-called evidence.
What do you mean there are no transitional forms?!! Everything is transitional! Deceptive logic that.10/10 for lack of the usual mocking aggression. Edited by Beretta, : A positive point

Then show the evidence. If evidence can be found then it would change ID from pseudoscience to science.Edited by bluescat48, : missing sentenceEdited by bluescat48, : spelling

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

The argument is always made to sound like religion vs science when in actual fact it is two different interpretations of the same scientific evidence.

---

The problem is that the cdesignproponentist's "interpretation" is nothing more than a conglomeration of unconnected, ad hoc attempts at reconciling what they think the scientific evidence is with their narrow interpretation of parts of the bible. Thus, it is quite simply not scientific, but most assuredly religious.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Since many here feel there is no such evidence perhaps you should open a thread and supply that evidence. We have, here at EvC, have had such attempts made to present the "evidence" and find a mix of ignorance of what evidence is available, obvious nonsense and, rather frequently, (as evidenced in Dover) outright lies.Perhaps you can do better? You've avoided giving anything but assertions in almost every post you've made. It is about time you did better. This is another whine that is made over and over and over. If you think you can offer a different interpretation of scientific evidence that is available then you should start another thread for that too. Note that you have to actually know what the evidence is before you can do this and that you have to consider at least a very large majority of the available evidence.This has also never been done when asked for here at EvC. I suggest that you either put up or shut up on this particular tack also.