Slashdot Mirror


Classroom Clashes Over Science Education

cheezitmike writes "In a two-part series, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science examines two hot-button topics that create clashes in the classroom between science teachers and conservative-leaning students, parents, school boards, and state legislatures. Part 1 looks at the struggle of teachers to cover evolution in the face of religious push-back from students and legislatures. Part 2 deals with teaching climate change, and how teachers increasingly have to deal with political pressure from those who insist that there must be two sides to the discussion."

12 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Why 2 sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why 2 sides to discussions that have been scientifically settled? Have the other side of the discussion in Sunday School.

    1. Re:Why 2 sides by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny
      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Why 2 sides by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If a student is forced to accept what is told to him without question" then the student is not in a science classroom.

      However, if when the question is answered with facts and data, the student persists in the Truth of an untenable hypothesis which is not supported by facts and data, the student ought not presume to get a good grade in a science class.

      Science is not a religion. I say this as both a scientist, and a religious person.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:Why 2 sides by hughJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with this is that the teachers are generally not equipped (educated) sufficiently on any particular science topic to be able to address legitimate questions from the students. Any student that's spent any amount of time digesting anti-Evolution talking points is sufficiently equipped to make your average grade school science teacher look foolish in front of the class. Simple questions are quick and easy to ask, but the answers may require extensive explanation that's either not straight forward, beyond the grade level of the class or even the teacher's own academic level.

    4. Re:Why 2 sides by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Why 2 sides to discussions that have been scientifically settled?"

      Because in America, the opinion of someone who has a 10'th grade education is equal to that of someone who has a PhD in geology on how old the Earth is.

      Because USA USA USA USA USA!

      I wish I was exaggerating.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:Why 2 sides by coastwalker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you check out analysis of why the Republicans cosy up to religious nutters, its because there are a lot of them and they vote. Broadly speaking they are a reasonable fit to - Small government, rampant capitalism, strongly enforced arbitrary laws and illegal overseas crusades.

      Certainly a better fit than to Democratic - Education and health for all, heavily regulated capitalism, updating law in line with societal change, illegal overseas wars just for economic interests.

      Certainly that's how it seems from Europe. The religious have been bought by one political party. Basically man its the money, they bought the religious for the votes.

      They come with a whole lot of baggage unfortunately, being bat shit crazy that is.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  2. why not teach the science consensus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Climate change: the majority of climate scientists think it's true and a component is man-made, but a small and decreasing percentage of climate scientists disagree.

    Evolution: There's all but no doubt, and essentially no reputable scientists in the field disagree with the core concepts.

    QED.

    1. Re:why not teach the science consensus? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prove to me that a+b=b+a, for all values of a and b.

      Don't just say it's obvious. Don't just give a few examples and assume it will always work. Don't just subtract b from each side, unless you're prepared to prove that b-b=0 and a+0=0+a. Provide a rigorous proof.

      Back from Wikipedia? Good. Now tell me again how we shouldn't have our students trust in scientific consensus, and how they should have to review the evidence and decide for themselves. Because right now, the commutative property is taught by appeal to authority. Teacher says it always works, so it always works. In your world, we would have to give each kid a copy of Principia Mathematica and wish them luck. Except PM has its own critical flaws, so I suppose we'll also need to introduce them to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Oh, but we can't trust in the translations of experts, so better teach them German first.

      The fact is that people (children in particular) are not equipped to evaluate the truthfulness of every statement. We must trust in the consensus of the experts. The alternative is for society to regress to a point where it was possible for a single person to know all of human knowledge. I'm sure the creationists would love that.

  3. Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...as long as all churches are required to have an atheist (e.g., Daniel Dennet) or a historic biblical scholar (e.g., Bart D. Ehrman) come in for every sermon or Sunday school lesson to present an alternative viewpoint.

  4. Re:Bigger Problem by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't "believe" in either one.

    I accept as fact Darwin's theorems concerning evolution based on observation and proven fact. As a Christian, this does not conflict with my beliefs.

    I accept on fact that climate change as a constant thing that has happened before mankind and will likely continue afterwards. The only question that remains unsettled (in spite of shouting from either side) is how strongly mankind can and does alter climate, and what, if anything, we could *safely* do to reduce mankind's influences if indeed they are strong enough to provide adverse reactions to the system as a whole.

    I limit my beliefs to matters of spiritual faith and of human emotion. Everything else requires hard evidence.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. another danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the religious parents of a child explain "give the answers they want even though we know they are wrong thanks to the Bible," the fact remains that the student is being exposed to evidence that undermines his faith.

    This is what the religious practitioners all fear. When a young and impressionable mind is exposed to challenging information, no amount of preparation can prevent at least some of it from making an impression. So, it is not sufficient to keep religious discussions in the church and to allow secular discussions at school. Any exposure to religion-undermining memes *at all* is a threat to parent's goal of keeping control over their child's beliefs.

    No amount of enlightened philosophizing will convince such parents that it is ok to keep secular education secular. And telling them to send their kid to private school is no good either; most religious parents either can't or won't pay for it. They want the property-tax-funded public education for their child, and they want to filter out anything that might challenge their religious beliefs, and they are going to fight for this tooth and nail.

    You can't silence them through rational argument. There is no convincing them, and we are stuck with them. Your only option is to get just as involved, and just as pushy, and just as loud as they are.

    1. Re:another danger by plover · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "other" interpretation. You make it sound as if there are two and exactly two "sides". The problem is that when you open the discussions up to include the Judeo-Christian creation mythos, you have to welcome every other equally untestable explanation out there: Eurynome, the AEsir, the raven, Pangu, Enki, the Ogdoad, flying spaghetti monsters, pyramid building aliens, the machines from The Matrix, or any of a thousand other explanations that have arisen throughout the centuries. Since none can be proven or disproven, what is there to teach from a scientific perspective?

      Religious ideas regarding creation could certainly be discussed in the schools - but in history, literature, or philosophy classes, not science.

      --
      John