Plan to Require Evolution To Be Taught in Schools

Chris OConnor

Plan to Require Evolution To Be Taught in Schools
By John Chambliss
The Ledger

http://www.theledger.com/article/20071024/NEWS/710240475/1039

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:04 am Post subject:

I'm sorry but how exactly do you teach kids biology without teaching them about evolution?

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject:

That is a really good question. I don't know the exact numbers, but the public education system in the United States is rated very low when compared to other developed nations. I think the power and influence of religion is having a negative impact on science literacy in the US. There is a constant battle between religion and science as to what is taught and how it is taught.

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject:

Do we really want education to be about need though? Sure, you can get by just fine without knowledge of Shakespeare, evolution, Aristotle and Napoleon, but surely, an education should involve more than moulding an individual into some sort of product to be consumed by industry?

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject:

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:

It also worth noting that even if we accept the idea that public education should be "need" oriented, there is very definitely a need for the citizens of a democratic republic to have some understanding of the basics of science.

We are called on to elect representatives and vote on issues that often involve decisions that have to do with scientific questions. While it may be true that citizens do not need to have a grasp of the details of every scientific discipline, I think it's also true that citizens need to have some basis on which to evaluate the matters placed before them.

Some of the most serious questions we may need to deal with in the years ahead have to do with environmental and health issues. An electorate that is ignorant of the basics of biology, and nothing in that discipline is more basic than evolution, is easy prey for self-styled "experts" who may or may not know what they are talking about.

In a very real sense, we need an electorate that has, at least, an understanding of the basics of science.

George

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject:

I think a better reason to teach some form of science in public schools is the need for some basis for judging the sheer bulk of scientific argument that is thrown at the public every day -- and not in terms of how to vote, but simply in terms of how to behave for one's own beneft. But if that's the case, then the instrument of scientific education isn't really suited to the purpose. Modern scientific education was developed according to Cold War policy that envisioned the goal as that of producing a competitive scienctific industry -- one that could compete, that is, against the scientific industry of our economic and military rivals. Our educational system, at least so far as science is concerned, is geared towards producing capable scientists. It is not geared, it seems to me, towards producing laypersons who are capable of assessing scientific information and its impact on their lives.

There's no better evidence for this than the way in which public behavior swings from pole to pole everytime some new soundbyte passes into the public radar. Knowing the principles of evolution doesn't do much to prepare the public to deal with debate over, say, stem cell research, or the effects of high frctose corn syrup on human metabolism. So, to my mind, it doesn't much matter that third graders aren't being taught Darwinian evolution. That there is a consensus among practicing scientists demonstrates that those who pursue scientific careers are being taught evolutionary theory in a thoroughgoing way, and the benefit of that knowledge for those who never pursue a scientific career is, in the vast majority of cases, negligible.

It would be better if we were devoting those resources to teaching third graders information they could use in their day to day life. For example, a more comprehensive and thorough explanation of how the body sustains itself would go a long way towards ameliorating American health care problems and improving the general lot of American citizens. Armed with a firmer knowledge of under what conditions their bodies work best and how to prevent malfunctions, many Americans would probably be less reliant on a medical system that treats rather than prevents disease and injury. And while we're at it, a basic sense of how scientific information can practically improve a person's life would likely go a long way towards sparking people's curiosity about evolution. But again, whether or not it does is pretty much beside the point. Knowing about evolution doesn't do most people near as much good as would knowing what your kidneys do and how.

Which brings us to the question of why some people are so eager to have children taught evolution. Why aren't more people demanding that we have a more thorough grade school education on the topic of digestion, or that high school chemistry classes teach about how household chemicals interact with our immediate environment? To bring the discussion back to the personal level, why do I -- someone who's been through the public education system, not to mention secondary education in a reputable private school -- have to find all of this information on my own after my official education has drawn to a close? Why do we have a educational system that practically guarantees that most people will never come into contact with this information, and that, even if they do, they'll be virtually incapable of assessing it?

Personally, I fail to see what it will benefit them to know the mechanism by which speciation occurs when their health deteriorates or they're displaced by someone with a better grasp of how new technology impacts their career. And if we only have the time and resources to teach one or the other, then I say reserve evolutionary theory for those who will actually make use of it and concentrate teaching the majority skills and information that will make a practical difference on their lives.

seeker · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject:

In general I agree with MadArchitect that there needs to be more concentration on skills for living in our public education system. However, I must say that one of the most valuable things from my own public education was an understanding of the scientific method and of how it differed from dogma. Perhaps critical thinking is also a life skill. And to this day I have holes (which I sproradically attempt to fill) in my understanding of some quite basic concepts thanks to skipping high school chemistry and physics.

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:04 am Post subject:

I didn't learn scientific method in school -- and my attendence was better than average. Any "critical thinking" skills I have now I've more or less taught myself -- and most of it by reading books that never would have been introduced in a compulsory, public school education. No do I think my educational experience diverges all that much from the norm.

Niall001 · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:56 am Post subject:

But surely an education should be seven parts teaching people how to think to three parts teaching people what to do? Isn't that what democracy demands? Where is the benefit in allowing people the opportunity to elect governments to deal with problems like global warming if they are completely scientifically illiterate?

In general, I'd much rather a greater emphasis was placed on things like philosophy, logic, science and human psychology than life skills or business.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:32 am Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject:

I think an excellent approach to teaching science could follow the lead from two books we've adressed here at Booktalk: The Omnivore's Dillema and Deep Economy...both appraoching (among aohter things) the world of food production, distribution, consumption, and waste. A careful examination of what goes on their plates and in their stomachs and down the sewer would cover more than enough curriculum for the scientific method, ecological systems, and how humans interact with their environments. And it would be immediate, pertinent, and tasty too! Hands on, tactile, practical and connected to every day living: as well as linking to the world of economics, politics, city planning, and community building. This would also extend nicely into ethics and the philosophy of the "good life": i.e., what responsibility do I have to the world around me (in particular the food I eat), and what kind of world must I live in so that I can eat the way I want?

Niall001 · Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject:

Just a quick thought but isn't a lot of what people are talking about when they talk of life skills covered by Home Economics? I know when I did it it covered things like diet, budgeting, banking, consumer rights, social problems, basic biology etc.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT