Comment #19557

Posted by The Messenger on March 10, 2005 07:57 PM (e) (s)

Mike, You said, “What they do not deserve is to have their education used as some sort of tool to gain leverage in a perceived “culture war”.” I hope that you truly mean this. Wouldn’t it be great if all educators stopped indoctrinating and began teaching? A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities. A true teacher knows that education is not indoctrination, but rather it is equipping a child with the skills that enable that child to learn about the world around them. Skills, methods, abilities, formulas, and the wonder of learning and growing enable a child to enjoy their childhood and reach their potential. When I hear a small group of evolutionist talk about “our” text books, it frightens me.

Comment #19559

Posted by Prince Vegita on March 10, 2005 08:07 PM (e) (s)

Beautiful story, man.  Hopefully the creationists and IDists will someday figure out that the reason evolution belongs in the textbooks is precisely because through it, people of all religions and none can come together and agree on the way the natural world works.  Will evolution be replaced someday?  Certainly.  But it will be through extensive experimentation and not appeals to ignorance, and present a marvelous opportunity to explain to our kids exactly how science works.

Comment #19560

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 10, 2005 08:11 PM (e) (s)

Sorry, Messenger, but I remember all too well what Sunday school classes were like. Pure indoctrination. I’m still proud of having been thrown out of a Lutheran congregation for noticing some of the contradictions in scripture—I was about 12. There are certainly churches that don’t operate in so authoritarian a fashion, but the kind of Christians most upset about evolution are also the most determined to brainwash helpless children.

Comment #19562

Posted by steve on March 10, 2005 08:13 PM (e) (s)

Sounds like a good time, Mike. I know in my case, my early exposure to scientific explanations immunized me from things like the ID creationism nonsense. When creationist types came along later, I already had an idea of the qualities good explanations had, and easily found creationism deficient.

Comment #19563

Posted by Ralph Jones on March 10, 2005 08:41 PM (e) (s)

Messenger,

I agree children should explore all ideas. Religions should be taught in comparative religion class and biology in biology class. Students decide for themselves what makes sense.

Comment #19573

Posted by Alex Merz on March 11, 2005 12:27 AM (e) (s)

Messenger: you sound like a relativist, and an easily frightened one, at that.

Comment #19574

Posted by Mike Dunford on March 11, 2005 01:13 AM (e) (s)

Messenger:

I certainly believe that children should be provided with both the skills and the encouragement that is needed if they are going to examine and learn from the world around them. That is precisely why I am so strongly against the educational proposals being advanced by anti-evolutionists.

Comment #19575

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 11, 2005 02:26 AM (e) (s)

Messenger said: 

When I hear a small group of evolutionist talk about “our” text books, it frightens me.

I’m more concerned — not yet frightened — by religious nuts who disown the textbooks.  When I hear the Texas anti-knowledge groups disclaim the textbooks as theirs, I worry.  It’s not “my” textbook.  It’s ours.  We ARE a community.  The knowledge we should share is important to many policies.  When we disavow responsibility for our own duties as citizens we do damage to the fabric of our society, damage to our duties to the nation and God, and especially if we fail to give our bright, wonderful children the best possible textbooks and the facts about science.

In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, civilization and salvation is marked by our beginning to keep records of laws and happenings.  Gutting books for kids is, to me, among the greatest abominations it is possible to commit.  Saying they are not “our” books is denying a duty we have to the future (and to God, for the faithful).

I hope Messenger will reconsider.

Comment #19576

Posted by DonkeyKong on March 11, 2005 02:55 AM (e) (s)

Its a lot easier to brainwash little kids isn’t it?

Shame on you….

Comment #19589

Posted by jeff-perado on March 11, 2005 04:26 AM (e) (s)

Shame on you DonkeyKong.

What is brainwashing kids?
Telling them that there is a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny, a tooth fairy, a god….

Brainwashing is indoctrination into a belief system that is not provable.  And there is no more proof about god than there is about the tooth fairy.

But science is provable, and evolution, as a science, is provable, and is what should be taught.

My mother has said to me that the biggest mistake she made when raising my brother and me was telling us about Santa Claus and that he was real, for once we discovered he was a fictional person (I hope I didn’t spoil it for the creationists out there) how could we believe in another person we were told was real, that being God.  That makes sense.  She said that god is the Santa Claus of adults, and is just as unprovable, but every bit as desirable to adults as the belief of Santa is to children.  So how can children later learn to trust, when they are started out on lies, like Santa?

Thus telling children the truth always is better than selling them a fantasy.  This is why telling them the truth about science should be done, and not selling them some fiction about creationism, either as YEC or its more modern, and more deceptive counterpart, ID.

Creationism and ID are the Santa Claus of science, let’s tell our children the truth, and that is the facts of evolution.  Our children deserve that much.

Comment #19595

Posted by The Messenger on March 11, 2005 06:16 AM (e) (s)

Jim, Are you confusing public education, government supported schools that children attend on tax payer dollars, with privately funded Sunday Schools where the first amendment allows citizens to freely practice the religion of their choice, by choice? What are you saying?!? The bias and inflammatory language of many of you seems to go right over your own heads. Sometimes we become so against what we think is radical, we fail to see our own reflections in the mirror of our hatred. Children deserve much better than what they are getting. Early elementary school children need to learn to enjoy the wonder of world around them while being taught the skills to master reading and mathematics. Instead, they have become pawns in a political fight by those who want to shape their minds.

Comment #19597

Posted by Alon Levy on March 11, 2005 06:54 AM (e) (s)

Yeah, Messenger, they’re becoming pawns. Why, they’re taught downright revolutioanry ideas like heliocentrism! When you understand why they teach heliocentrism without giving geocentrism equal time, you’ll understand why they teach evolution without giving creationism equal time.

Comment #19598

Posted by caerbannog on March 11, 2005 07:03 AM (e) (s)

Messenger said:

A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities….

Then I take it that you are opposed to “abstinence-only” sex-ed…

Comment #19600

Posted by The Messenger on March 11, 2005 07:24 AM (e) (s)

Jeff-perado suggest telling children the truth always is better than selling them a fantasy. My question to Jeff is this. Jeff, how will you recognize truth when you see it? How long did it take “Science” to recognize the truth of the “Piltdown Man”? The Peking man? How long did it take Boule and “Science” to get the teaching of Neandertals right? How long did it take to correct the misleading illustrations allowed in classroom textbooks that depicted apes beginning to walk upright? We need science taught and pure science will enable students to determine factual evidence around them. Students do not need commentators to interpret what they discover or what others have discovered.
The Branches of Science
The Physical Sciences
Physics: The study of matter and energy and the interactions between them. Physicists study such subjects as gravity, light, and time.
Chemistry: The science that deals with the composition, properties, reactions, and the structure of matter.
Astronomy: The study of the universe beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Earth Sciences
Geology: The science of the origin, history, and structure of the Earth, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that it has experienced or is experiencing.
Oceanography: The exploration and study of the ocean.
Paleontology: The science of the forms of life that existed in prehistoric or geologic periods.
Meterology: The science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena, such as weather and climate.
The Life Sciences (Biology)
Botany: The study of plants.
Zoology: The science that covers animals and animal life.
Genetics: The study of heredity.
Medicine: The science of diagnosing, treating, and preventing illness, disease, and injury.

May I be so bold as to suggest that we educate our students and give them the skills and tools necessary to continue in a lifetime of learning. With these skills and tools, they will be free to determine for themselves how they perceive the origin of matter, life, and the species. Each student should be free to determine truth as he/she perceives and experiences it. The public school teacher does not have the right to indoctrinate students. It is time for parents to wake up and become involved. Children are too precious to be used and they deserve better.

Comment #19602

Posted by Mad Chemist on March 11, 2005 07:47 AM (e) (s)

The Messenger wrote:

We need science taught and pure science will enable students to determine factual evidence around them. Students do not need commentators to interpret what they discover or what others have discovered.

It sounds here like you’re saying that science should be taught as a large lump of completely unrelated facts.  This is, of course, a silly way to do things, since the whole point of scientific inquiry is to discover why things work the way they do.  In other words, the “why” is important, just like the “what” - and we should give our students exposure to the best explanations for facts that we have, and the ability to see what needs to be done to make our explanations better.

Comment #19603

Posted by Flint on March 11, 2005 08:03 AM (e) (s)

Jeff, how will you recognize truth when you see it?

This is an interestingly subversive question. The answer is, we CAN NOT recognize truth when we see it. The best we can do is develop methods of investigation which, when properly applied, give us an approximate probability that our understandings are accurate. Combine these methods with the recognition that all truths are tentative and subject to modification as new evidence comes in, and we’re on the road to genuine knowledge.

The idea that grade school children can become sufficiently conversant with the literature, history, and tools of every scientific discipline so as to make informed decisions is like expecting these same children to learn to become competitive enough to reach the top professional level in EVERY SPORT AT ONCE. In grade school, remember. It’s a notion that doesn’t survive even cursory examination.

We are in fact attempting exactly what messenger recommends: to provide the tools and methods, the thought processes, required to learn. Messenger demands we do this, then calls it “indoctrination” when it happens. Instead, he wants parents to become involved. What would parents do differently? Presumably, they would fill their children with ‘truth’ enough to resist genuine facts and knowledge. Armed with these received ‘truths’, I guess the children would be proof against the indoctrination that actual learning threatens.

Comment #19606

Posted by bcpmoon on March 11, 2005 08:35 AM (e) (s)

The story reminds me of my nephew, who actually started me on reading on evolution (again). There is nothing so challenging to ones knowledge as a 7-year old asking question after question and you know that he is not going to go away after the first dozen.
I was browsing in a Reader’s Digest Book at my sisters’ when he strolled over and asked me about an illustration of evolution (you know, the kind of one-page with Sun/Earth/marine life/dinosaurs/mammals/man) and I had to try to explain. That was really difficult, because I knew little more than what I had been taught in school quite a while ago. I knew the theory to be correct because of its beauty, but at the end, I realized that I did not really, really know what the current state-of-the-art was, so I started reading on the topic. (And I wanted to make sure that I had told my nephew the truth - and not with a capital T).
Actually, I was astonished and delighted about the vast amount of data gathered, the great  science being done and the refined theories discussed. It is my favourite pasttime now.

BTW: Some years ago, I traveled some 8 hours by car in company of a adept on his way becoming a priest. We discussed creation at length and I still wonder if he stayed on his chosen path, because he changed the topic after I compared the glory of the interlocking puzzle of stars/earth/life spanning over aeons of time, connecting all creatures on earth and in the heavens to, well, POOF.

Comment #19607

Posted by The Messenger on March 11, 2005 08:38 AM (e) (s)

Flint, Your words indicate that you really do not understand much of what I said at all. Learning is a lifetime process and is by no means something that will enable  grade children to become so “sufficiently converstant (did you mean conversant?)” as to be able to reach top professional level in every area at once. It is rather a continuing process that begins with skills taught at each level and the wonder of learning rewarded with interesting materials and ideas presented on the child’s level. Teachers do need to teach. There is a big difference in teaching and indoctrinating and most true teachers know the difference. Your deliberate twisting of my words may keep some people from understanding, but I do hope there are a few people who have enough discernment to realize what I am advocating. 

I do believe that parents have a right and a need to be involved in their child’s education.

When you say, “We are in fact attempting exactly what messenger recommends:”, does this mean that you are an educator?

Comment #19610

Posted by Alon Levy on March 11, 2005 09:22 AM (e) (s)

<i>I do believe that parents have a right and a need to be involved in their child’s education.</i>

To what degree do you think this involvement should extend? If parents believe some crank theory, say that the Moon landing was faked, should they have the right to pull their children out of classes that teach the mainstream view, in this example’s case that NASA really did put 12 men on the Moon?

Comment #19611

Posted by Ken Shackleton on March 11, 2005 09:22 AM (e) (s)

Messenger;

You did not say if you support the teaching of “all ideas and possibilities” in the teaching of sex-ed. What is your position on abstinence-only sex-ed?

Comment #19614

Posted by Flint on March 11, 2005 09:47 AM (e) (s)

Messenger:

OK, you need to be a little bit clearer before I understand your intent. As far as I can tell, both the content and the goal of education currently is as close a match for the ideal you describe as we can approximate. I don’t see any problem with our current intent, although in some places the performance on the ground doesn’t live up to that intent.

But what current education has to do with “indoctrination” I can’t see. Teaching is what takes place in public schools. Indoctrination is what takes place in church and bible schools. The former is attempting to show children how to think and draw informed conclusions. The latter is intended to provide pre-packaged conclusions as ‘Truth’ to be memorized and taken on faith. And you are quite correct in saying that intelligent people have no problem telling the difference.

So what is your problem? We’re doing what you wish, as well as we can.

Comment #19615

Posted by Russell on March 11, 2005 09:53 AM (e) (s)

I do hope there are a few people who have enough discernment to realize what I am advocating.

No, I’m honestly not at all clear on what you’re advocating. It seems as if you’re writing in code. Let’s try to pin things down a little. (And, just for the record, I’m not trying to be hostile or contentious. I’m honestly curious. I like The Messenger. I think he(?) is at least a couple of standard deviations more honest than the average IDer)

A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities.

First, how would a teacher disallow a student to explore all possibilities? Are you suggesting the teacher should actually teach everything and anything that anyone considers science?

educate our students and give them the skills and tools necessary to continue in a lifetime of learning. With these skills and tools, they will be free to determine for themselves how they perceive the origin of matter, life, and the species.

Or are you suggesting we should teach no theories at all, just facts and formulas? Or that we should specifically not teach the theory of evolution?

A true teacher knows that education is not indoctrination…  The public school teacher does not have the right to indoctrinate students.

This sounds like code. Should we consider standard biology (which is inextricable from evolution) “indoctrination”? Should we consider inclusion of religious ideas not indoctrination?

Comment #19624

Posted by Mike Walker on March 11, 2005 10:39 AM (e) (s)

May I be so bold as to suggest that we educate our students and give them the skills and tools necessary to continue in a lifetime of learning. With these skills and tools, they will be free to determine for themselves how they perceive the origin of matter, life, and the species. Each student should be free to determine truth as he/she perceives and experiences it. The public school teacher does not have the right to indoctrinate students. It is time for parents to wake up and become involved. Children are too precious to be used and they deserve better.

Nothing is taught this way in schools. You don’t just teach the principles of a subject then let the children figure out the applications for themselves. One generation builds upon the knowledge and experience of those that have gone before, otherwise our society goes absolutely nowhere.

Imagine a children’s basketball team that is taught the principles of the game - the rules, the shots, the moves -  and then are left to figure out for themselves the best way to play. Without a coach to pass on and apply his knowledge and experience of the game to the players, they’d be killed every time.

Imagine that we teach only the principles of history - the methods, the sources, etc. Every generation would be left to figure out our history from scratch. OK, so you might want to give them a set of history books with competing historical viewpoints and then tell them, “you decide”. But as soon as you distill that list of history books down to a manageable number, you are guilty of influencing the children towards a limited set of theories while “censoring” others. After all, who are we to say that the KKK’s version of American history is wrong?

As Jim Harrison pointed out, churches don’t teach Christianity to our children this way either. Imagine a Sunday School teacher inviting a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Wiccan, and an stheist to speak to their class as part of teaching comparative religion. Then the teacher could tell the kids - “well, now you have the basic facts about religion, you decide which is true.” The teacher’s feet wouldn’t touch the floor as he/she was thrown off the church premises.

So why are we expected to single out evolution to be taught in this manner when nothing else is?

The truth of the matter is that as soon we try and avoid teaching anything more than just the “skills and tools necessary” education becomes a huge free-for-all of competing theories and ideas. Children will be bombarded from all sides with the various interest groups selling their latest crackpot ideas all hoping that the kids will, using their “skills and tools”, decide their version of reality is true. Progress will grind to a screeching halt.

Comment #19625

Posted by Mike Walker on March 11, 2005 10:50 AM (e) (s)

The scary thing about Mike Dunford’s original artcle is that I can imagine someone like Ken Ham writing the exact same piece apart from changing the creationism reference to evolution. That doesn’t mean I think the article is bad in any way, it’s just shows how important it is for our children to be taught the truth at that age, and how easy it is to manipulate kids into believing fiction.

(OK, so I can also imagine Messenger writing the same comment about Ken Ham’s version of the article :-)

Comment #19626

Posted by Ken Shackleton on March 11, 2005 10:51 AM (e) (s)

Messenger…..answer the question on sex-ed please.

Comment #19627

Posted by Andrew Wyatt on March 11, 2005 11:09 AM (e) (s)

Its a lot easier to brainwash little kids isn’t it?

Shame on you….

“Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”

Crawl back into your hole, and peddle your shameless, anti-intellectual pandering to the like-minded.

Comment #19628

Posted by Andrew Wyatt on March 11, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)

Its a lot easier to brainwash little kids isn’t it?

Shame on you….

“Won’t somebody please think of the children?!”

Crawl back into your hole, and peddle your shameless, anti-intellectual pandering to the like-minded.

Comment #19629

Posted by Christian on March 11, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

Flint: The answer is, we CAN NOT recognize truth when we see it.

That must be really sad walking around in the dark. Without any truth how can you trust anything? If you want to pass on how to be blind I think you need to stay away from any form of teaching.

Comment #19630

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 11, 2005 11:38 AM (e) (s)

Denis Diderot said,

Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: “My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.” This stranger is a theologian.

The darkness of ignorance surrounds us all, Christian; pretending otherwise, like you seem to do, only leads to falling flat on our faces. Stop blowing on our candles, please.

Comment #19631

Posted by John A. Davison on March 11, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

The most valuable thing we could do in education would be to start right off by telling our children what we do NOT know anything about. For the biological sciences I would recommend the following be included in the list about which we know absolutely nothing for certain.

1. How the universe was created.
2. How life was created
3. How many times life was created.
4. How life evolved.

Concerning matters about which there is considerable doubt I would add the following.

1. Is evolution in progress today?
2. Can sexual forms evolve?
3. Is natural selection a creative force?
4. Did Mendelian allelic mutations ever have a role in creative evolution?

By presenting these questions right up front would greatly ameliorate the conflicts that we now see afflicting the teaching of evolution in public schools.

John A. Davison

Comment #19632

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 11, 2005 12:02 PM (e) (s)

According to the Messenger, “There is a big difference in teaching and indoctrinating and most true teachers know the difference”. Yep, but by that light, conservative religious education doesn’t involve very bloody much teaching. There’s nothing inevitable about that—to the extent that religions genuinely stand for values like truth-telling and mutual respect, they can perfectly well transmit their traditions without psychological coercion.

The real problem here is that some versions of Christianty and other religions have come decidely hostile to  intellectual openness and democratic values like tolerance. Willfully embracing irrational, fantastic, and often hateful principles, they simply can’t be transmitted without force and fraud. Which, of course, is a pretty good reason to reject them completely.

By the way, the notion that public schools should be regarded as instruments of tyranny because they are maintained by the government sounds pretty peculiar in the mouths of folks who are in favor of private tyranny. Obviously governments can be abusive, but at least public institutions are subject to public control. In the American situation, one of the basic functions of universal public education is to support the individual against the group.

Right-wingers and fundamentalists often accuse others of brainwashing children, but they aren’t really down on brainwashing at all. What they are really demanding is a monopoly over the technique.

Comment #19635

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on March 11, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)

A touching post, Mr. Dunford. Spot on.

Comment #19636

Posted by John A. Davison on March 11, 2005 12:25 PM (e) (s)

While I am happy to admit to being a right-wimger, I don’t care for your lumping that genre with fundamentalsts. I have always been on record as being in opposition to both the Darwimps and the Fundies. Indeed the polarization as you have stated it is preciesly the root of the problem. A public declaration of ignorance can hardly be construed as a form of brainwashing. Both factions might do well to practice that caveat.

John A. Davison

Comment #19637

Posted by The Messenger on March 11, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

Dear Caerbannog, I suppose you are aware that I was speaking in the context of origins. There are many ideas and topics that are not appropriate for elementary children. We have professionals who develop curriculum and who are much better at establishing curriculum than I. Where I live and teach, we have an excellent curriculum. I understand that some areas are not so fortunate. I personally have no problem with abstinence, but that discussion is for another blog and another time. As I understand it, this blog is dedicated to evolution.

Comment #19638

Posted by Katarina on March 11, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)

People will teach their own children what they believe. The important thing is for the public to be educated first, especially when it comes to discerning scientific theory from belief. We need more PBS series that delve more deeply into the theory of evolution.

Public school is a place for teaching what has been well established. Though what is well established may change over time, the theory of evolution has still not been challanged for its actual content. To initiate that challange in public schools comes after pathetic failure to initiate it in the scientific community.

If anyone is guilty of using children and young adults as pawns in their political game, it is the ID movement. The children who trust them now will be in for some bitter disappointments later on.

Anti-evolutionists have failed to establish that the peer review process has rejected challenges to the theory of evolution based on bias, as opposed to lack of content.

Anti-evolutionists have failed to make a case that sticks. They have failed to come up with anything testable, or even conceptually satisfying. Why would we teach our children their position?

Yes, evolution is a powerful idea that can dazzle people. It’s power is what seems to arouse fear in those who refuse to see it. The notion that small changes over time can lead to incredible complexity and beauty is not an easy one to envision. But it is not just a notion, it is our best explanation for what has been observed in many different feilds of study.

I don’t mind telling children about the anti-evolution movement, in fact I think they would benefit from knowing its true nature, so that they don’t confuse it with science.

Comment #19639

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 11, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s)

Messenger wrote:

Wouldn’t it be great if all educators stopped indoctrinating and began teaching? A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities.

And then, in response to someone who points out that Sunday Schools don’t do this at all:

Messenger wrote:

Jim, Are you confusing public education, government supported schools that children attend on tax payer dollars, with privately funded Sunday Schools where the first amendment allows citizens to freely practice the religion of their choice, by choice? What are you saying?!?

So apparently you don’t mind brainwashing, indoctrination, dogmatism, etc. just so long as it’s not the wrong kind.  The whole public/private distinction is irrelevant other than as a matter of law.  If you truly believe in the virtues of open-mindedness and “exploring all ideas and possiblities”, then you believe that every school should do this, not just public schools.

Isn’t it funny how the very same people who speak of the values of fairness, openness, academic freedom, etc. have absolutely no inkling to apply these virtues to their own institutions?  How many Cre/IDists go out of their way to present the mainstream scientific case in their churches or private Christian colleges?  Heck, most of these colleges make their faculty sign statements of faith which tell them precisely what they’re allowed to believe.  That’s not exactly encouraging people to explore all ideas and possilbities.  And these are the teachers we’re talking about, to say nothing of the students. 

This blatant inconsistency leads me to believe that the call for exposing students to “both sides”, teaching them “the controversy”, or helping students “explore all ideas and possibilities”, is nothing more than dishonest posturing.  Creationists don’t believe in that stuff at all, because they certainly don’t apply it to themselves.  Indoctrinating is exactly what they have in mind, they just want to make sure it’s their particular brand and not someone else’s.

Comment #19640

Posted by Katarina on March 11, 2005 01:44 PM (e) (s)

Many parents who enroll their children into private schools do so partly to avoid the teaching of evolution, because it is something they do not believe in. If many private schools reject evolution, it is partly a supply-demand equation. If the public were better educated, the demand for rejection of evolution would drop and so would the supply.

I don’t blame the private schools, because they provide what people demand. But public insitutions should be doing more to educate adults. And do so in a way that is not offensive to any religious choice, including the basic idea of creationism. After all, we cannot prove evolution was not the tool of creation. Is it asking too much to concede that point?

Comment #19641

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on March 11, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

The most valuable thing we could do in education would be to start right off by telling our children what we do NOT know anything about. For the biological sciences I would recommend the following be included in the list about which we know absolutely nothing for certain.

1. How the universe was created.
2. How life was created
3. How many times life was created.
4. How life evolved.

Concerning matters about which there is considerable doubt I would add the following.

1. Is evolution in progress today?
2. Can sexual forms evolve?
3. Is natural selection a creative force?
4. Did Mendelian allelic mutations ever have a role in creative evolution?

By presenting these questions right up front would greatly ameliorate the conflicts that we now see afflicting the teaching of evolution in public schools.

John A. Davison

But Mr. Davison, why would we want to lie to our children?

Comment #19642

Posted by The Messenger on March 11, 2005 02:01 PM (e) (s)

Steve’s argument would make a little bit of sense if Jim had been referring to private education, but he wasn’t. He was referring to a church service. The last time I checked, however, private schools still had the right to choose their own curriculum. The public has the right to choose or not to choose to send their children there.

Going way back to the beginning of this thread - why is it that none of you even acknowledged a single question that was asked of you? Did any of you note these questions?

How long did it take “Science” to recognize the truth of the “Piltdown Man”? The Peking man? How long did it take Boule and “Science” to get the teaching of Neandertals right? How long did it take to correct the misleading illustrations allowed in classroom textbooks that depicted apes beginning to walk upright? When you are so dogmatic and believe that you have arrived at “truth” and that you have a right to censor others, should you not be held accountable for what you teach?

Comment #19644

Posted by Ron Zeno on March 11, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)

Please don’t feed the trolls.  (No offense meant, unless you are purposely trolling.)

Comment #19645

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 11, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

When you are so dogmatic and believe that you have arrived at “truth” and that you have a right to censor others, should you not be held accountable for what you teach?

Yes. That’s why scientists leave it to fundamentalist zealots to believe that you have arrived at “truth” and to attempt to censor others.

The backlash against the manifest falsity of many of those “truths” is what brought us out of the appropriately-named Dark Ages, when the Church ruled supreme. Of course, a few diehard relics still try to turn back the clock, but people have become accustomed to modern medicine, modern conveniences, computers… you know, the fruits of modern science.

Comment #19646

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on March 11, 2005 02:25 PM (e) (s)

The Messenger:

How long did it take “Science” to recognize the truth of the “Piltdown Man”? The Peking man? How long did it take Boule and “Science” to get the teaching of Neandertals right?

Far, far, far less time than it took creationists.  Seriously.

Comment #19647

Posted by Flint on March 11, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)

Messenger:

Steve’s argument would make a little bit of sense if Jim had been referring to private education, but he wasn’t. He was referring to a church service.

YOU weren’t referring to any particular kind or venue of instruction either. You wrote:

A true teacher is not afraid to allow a student to explore all ideas and possiblities.

Or are you saying that if someone is indoctrinating YOUR beliefs, the ‘true teacher’ requirements can be rationalized away because of funding sources, or who is doing the instruction.

Or are you going to start claiming that instructors in churches should not be ‘true teachers’, because since you like their message, being false teachers is just fine?

Incidentally, your original questions were addressed, you just didn’t like the responses. Science makes errors and suffers frauds just like any other human enterprise. The difference is, science continues to learn and study and investigate, and is eventually able to CORRECT errors.

And so I will repeat: The truth is not knowable. The best we can do is adopt methods which in practice allow us to come closest to the truth over the long run. The alternative is to make stuff up, and then DEFINE it as true, and then worship it. This approach provides two surefire guarantees: you will BE wrong, and you will STAY wrong.

Comment #19648

Posted by Katarina on March 11, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)

Messanger,

When you say, “censor others,” can you be more specific about who the “others” are? I am not sure what specifically you want on the curriculum.

Also, what is censorship? It usually refers to opinion or point of view. Scientific theory is more than opinion or point of view. Which scientific theory challanges the theory of evolution?

Thank you.

Comment #19649

Posted by ~DS~ on March 11, 2005 02:48 PM (e) (s)

That wa s anice post Mike, TY for sharing. Childern are natural scientists. Somewhere around Junior High School is where we start losing them in the US in terms of math and science.
I often criticize Creationists, but Creationists are not just handicapped by their underlying dislike of evolution and common descent for purely religious reasons. It’s not entirely their fault or entirely their choice to be so limited.

The run of the mill creationist sympathizers are entrapped by the inadequacies of the human mind, and we all share those same propensities. They cannot consider evolution a real possibility, not merely because of fundamentalist dogma, but because they rely too much on every day common sense. To conceive of dramatic evolutionary change as plausible, you have to abandon everyday human intuition to a degree.

Think of the common creationist refrain “Why aren’t monkeys evolving into people now, right now, before my very eyes?”

We-meaning those of us regs who are science buffs-chuckle at that, but they’re serious when they object in that fashion! Evolution works over time scales that cannot be understood using common sense. Those of us deeply interested in science have been doing it so long, it almost feels like common sense to us at this point. We’ve nurtured a little intuition to help us deal with it.

I’m convinced that quite a few rank and file Creationist advocates, the laymen type, lack that; they simply do not have that facility. Human minds are shaped by our own evolutionary requirements, and those requirements are the proxy of creatures that live less than a century. The events that must transpire for  evolutionary biology to work their magic, to turn a dog sized mammal into a great Blue Whale, or a bacterium into a human being, operate over time periods of millions and billions of years. Creationists are human. And being human, they intuitively put such events not in the category of ‘rare’ or ‘time consuming’ where we now understand such events properly belong; but rather they place them erroneously in the class of ‘never’. And of course their religious convixtions otften seal their ignorance off from science.

Just as mankind cannot count on common sense when dealing with velocities approaching light, or objects on the scale of quarks and photons, or complex systems that iterate millions of times, we cannot truly grasp what ten-thousand years means in our gut, much less billions. We’re all prey to these same weakness, because we’re all human. We’re equipped to memorize a few hundred plants and animals, make some abstract connections about those organisms to eek out a living, and deal with social issues in small groups of hunter gatherers. It’s damn near a miracle that with that kind of limited intellect, we can imagine evolution or other counter intuitive events at all. It’s a very new way of thinking for human beings, and many of us just weren’t exposed to it.

The difference between ourselves and creationists, is we have managed to bridge that lack of intuitive capacity with a combination of analysis and imagination. Most of that mental framework was absorbed in our youth, when our minds were more plastic. I truly feel sorry for those who cannot or will not acquire that skill. They deprive themselves and their children of so much wonder and beauty, ‘tis a pity.

Having said all that, I don’t know if Messenger and his ilk here fall into the catagerory that honestly lack the prequisite sciencitifc background to overcome human intuition, or if they’re just shilling for the cause, but either way, they’re out of their minds iof they think we’re going to just stand by quietly and let them screw up science.

Comment #19650

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 11, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

Messenger, apparently without an encyclopedia handy, wonders: 

How long did it take “Science” to recognize the truth of the “Piltdown Man”?

Which truth?  It was apparent the fossil didn’t fit in with what was known even in 1913 for the evolution of hominids.  Because of this dissonance, scientists continued to study the issue, and in the early 1950s a scientist analyzing the actual specimens detected signs that the specimens were not at all what they seemed to be.  In the meantime, few publications, if any, had incorporated the Piltdown specimens into any sort of matrix of human development — they didn’t fit.  The truth that it was a hoax gone awry?  The truth that it was British nationalism run rampant?  The truth that it demonstrates specimens must be kept available for further analysis?  The truth that creationism is now sterile in producing tools to determine answers to such questions of science?  Which truth?

Had we relied on creationists, we’d still know nothing.

The Peking man?

Which truth?  It was obvious from the first discovery that these were ancient hominids, critical in the understanding of human evolution.  That has not changed.  It is true that some of the original specimens were lost in the battles leading up to World War II.  It is true that more specimens confirm those finds overwhelmingly, and it is also true that there are exacting casts made of the original specimens.  It is true that science has debated exactly which species Peking Man is.

You rather suggest that something was missed with these spectacular fossils — but you don’t say what.  I would have a question for you:  It’s been 70 years since the fossils were found:  How long will it take creationists and other anti-Darwinists to quit saying, erroneously, that there is some problem with the fossils?

How long did it take Boule and “Science” to get the teaching of Neandertals right?

Have we got it “right” yet?  There are several thousands of specimens of Neandertal.  Now we know that the species lived alongside Homo sapiens in the TransJordan area for 50,000 years or so, about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago.  We know that the species seems to have made a last stand on the tip of Iberia known as Gibralter.  We know pretty well that the species did not throw spears or other missiles, but instead engaged in close-quarters combat with large food species such as the aurochs.  We don’t know for certain whether the species could interbreed with our line.  We know Neandertal had compassion and altruism, that they cared for their wounded, that they cared for their elderly, and that they grieved for their dead and buried their dead with ceremony and ritual. 

Which part of that was not “right” in the past?  What is your real claim, Messenger?

Messenger said: 

How long did it take to correct the misleading illustrations allowed in classroom textbooks that depicted apes beginning to walk upright?

How are those illustrations misleading, and when were they ever in textbooks?  Is it your claim that the gait of Neandertal does not suggest a more stooped appearance than H. sapiens? 

Question for you again:  How long will it be before anti-science folk acknowledge once and for all that Lucy’s species was fully bipedal?  What do you think should be the illustrations showing the progression from proto-ape through Lucy to modern humans? 

When you are so dogmatic and believe that you have arrived at “truth” and that you have a right to censor others, should you not be held accountable for what you teach?

Science is quite the opposite of dogma.  Creationists have asked to censor science more than 100 times since 1925, in state legislatures alone.  There is no record of scientists ever asking that creationism be censored.  Yes, creationists should be held accountable for the errors they teach.  What do you suggest as an appropriate calling to account?

Comment #19651

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 11, 2005 03:05 PM (e) (s)

Flint writes “The truth is not knowable.” That may be true in a sort of a sort of way, but what really upsets many supporters of traditional religion is not the impossibility of finding things out but the horrible possibility that we’ve already found out too much. For example, we’ve discovered that the Universe is not a haunted house.

Traditional skeptics despaired of ever figuring anything out. Modern skeptics are afraid that maybe you can know a thing or two. Hence the popuarity of skeptical philosophers among Creationists. Or do you think that these guys got enthusiastic about Karl Popper after a dispassionate examination of the methodology of particle physics?

Comment #19652

Posted by Ed Hessler on March 11, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

I’m glad you posted this; a reminder of how important conversations with children are.  You may or may not be familiar with the Philosophy for Children program, not used much in schools anymore but the dialogues are stunning (just as the work of Harvard psychiatrist, Robert Cole has shown again and again in his work with children on issues of morals and ethics, etc.). 

I have in my files the report of a teacher who spent some time with kindergarten kids talking with them about space, a way for them to experiment with words (cf Geller, April  1985, Science and Children). 

The discussion grew out of work with bubbles and balloons as well as a book on the idea that things take up space.  The thinking, i.e., as the author put it having “the chance to ‘see’ what they think by trying out ideas” is something to behold.

Fortunately, we are seeing more and more transcripts of conversations such as these. One book I especially like is “What Students Bring to Light” (Shapiro 1999, TCP)which provide windows into how students think about things, what they find interesting, what inhibits accepting some scientific explanations, what they use in learning, the kinds of questions that interest them and how they create meaning, especially in science which asks them to “step around their own meanings and personal understandings of phenomena of publicly accepted ideas.” This was a longitudinal study of students over several elementary grades (the same students).

Another of these transcripts is found in a book edited by Minstrell and van Zee, “Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science” (AAAS 2000) in a paper by Kathleen Metz in which is included snippets of conversation about student research projects and revisions they made (second grade)through their work and dialogue with their teacher. It is a stimulating exploration of the science within the reach of young learners through the use of materials and conversation, in a way not too different from how a professor might interact with a graduate student or as we educators would put it scaffolding “the knowledge that supports their control over the inquiry process.”

I’m glad you found this such a powerful experience.

Comment #19653

Posted by John A. Davison on March 11, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

Is it an error to teach that there must have been a Creator? Just wondering.

John A. Davison

Comment #19654

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on March 11, 2005 03:17 PM (e) (s)

No, Dr. Davison, it is not an error to teach in Comparative Religion that some (not all) religions believe in a Creator.

It would be something worse than an error to falsely claim that we have reached a consensus on this.

Comment #19655

Posted by Scott Davidson on March 11, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

It would depend on how Mr Davison phrased it as well.

Something like:
“I believe that there was a creator because…”

Is preferable to:
“There was a creator”

Since it’s better to justify an argument, than to just make an unsupported statement.

Comment #19656

Posted by Flint on March 11, 2005 03:33 PM (e) (s)

There is also a qualitative difference between accepting the philosophical notion that there may have been a creator (as one of an infinity of unsupportable, unfalsifiable statements), and teaching that there must have been a creator. The first is an exercise in logic, the second is an exercise in brainwashing.

Is it an error to brainwash our children? Ah, now we’re back into philosophy. Dr. Davison has at least been kind enough to illustrate the consequences of this decision, at length and in detail.

Comment #19658

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 11, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

Messenger wrote:

Steve’s argument would make a little bit of sense if Jim had been referring to private education, but he wasn’t. He was referring to a church service. The last time I checked, however, private schools still had the right to choose their own curriculum. The public has the right to choose or not to choose to send their children there.

As Flint pointed out, you referred to “teachers” without qualification, which includes private school and Sunday School teachers.  Of course your objection would still miss the point even if you had been more specific.  If indoctrination is wrong, what difference does it make if it’s a teacher, a minister, or a parent?  If you believe that open-mindedness is a virtue, it doesn’t go away just because you’re in a church or a private school.  The creationist objection to “indoctrination” doesn’t pass the smell test.

Going way back to the beginning of this thread - why is it that none of you even acknowledged a single question that was asked of you? Did any of you note these questions?

I only noted a single question, and it appears to be purely rhetorical.  That means it was intended to make a statement, not to elicit a response. 

Let’s look at it again:

Wouldn’t it be great if all educators stopped indoctrinating and began teaching?

You are claiming that teachers are currently doing nothing more than “indoctrinating” students.  I reject the premise.  Most teachers do nothing of the sort.  As I said before, I see this as a dishonest rhetorical ploy peddled by the creationist lobby.  What the creationists don’t like is that what’s being taught conflicts with their own indoctrination. 

If you want to know how I think teachers should teach, it’s this:  Teachers should teach kids to think critically, to be skeptical, to understand the enormous complexity of what they’re dealing with, and to research things on their own.  In fact, I think most good teachers (with the exception of creationists) already do this.  They should also teach kids what accepted science is, since scientists have spent the last 300 years doing what I just described and have come up with some fairly solid results. 

What teachers should not do is teach kids that all “ideas and possibilities” are equally valid or equally worth exploring.  They’re not.  That’s the entire lesson of the scientific age:  somethings are right, and some things are wrong, and we have a fairly good (though imperfect) method for figuring out which is which.  Why should we teach kids that they should explore the possibility that perpetual motion devices might work?  This is not encouraging open-mindedness, it’s encouraging stupidity. 

Likewise, there is absolutely no justification for teaching kids Cre/ID claims that are factually wrong, unsubstantiated, or based on faulty reasoning.  There is no justification for telling them that Cre/ID is a valid scientific alternative when it isn’t.

Comment #19660

Posted by Katarina on March 11, 2005 03:48 PM (e) (s)

Public schools teach neither that there must have, nor must NOT have been a creator. Either would be unacceptable.

Comment #19661

Posted by steve on March 11, 2005 03:51 PM (e) (s)

Comment #19644

Posted by Ron Zeno on March 11, 2005 02:18 PM

Please don’t feed the trolls.  (No offense meant, unless you are purposely trolling.)

Let me save you some time, Ron. Many people here, including some of the contributors, believe that a good use of Panda’s Thumb is arguing with creationists. For a variety of reasons I disagree, but it’s not my site, and there’s nothing you or I can do to stop them from what we see as troll-feeding.

If that’s all Panda’s Thumb was, I’d have left a long time ago, and you probably would have too. I stay for two reasons, but the deluge of troll-feeding has ruined one of them recently. First, the articles and commentary that the contributors post in the ‘articles’ so to speak, are very good. They’re worth reading. The second reason is the comments of science-oriented people who post good observations in the comments. This reason is currently lost because the comments are overwhelmed with creationists and their feeders. I usually won’t look through 150 posts of “debate” about comments by people like Davison, Heddle, Messenger, etc, to find the few smart comments about the topic. Given the structure of the site, there’s no way to choose to filter out the arguments with creationists, and no commenting section which is free of that.

I understand that some contributors don’t want to sequester creationist arguments to a ghetto. Fine. But there are other ways to separate or identify the comments such that novel comments don’t drown in interminable arguments with a half-dozen creationists. The comments section should have a structure which is resilient to this kind of monotonous devaluation. There are any number of solutions. Threading, or the ability to turn off display of certain people’s comments, or just a separate comment section for people who accept basic science, are just a few ideas. Currently, the comment sections are only good if you want to witness or participate in arguments with creationists. I think a structural change would enable other uses, because me and you, and perhaps many others, don’t want to waste our time with a few fanatics.

Comment #19662

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on March 11, 2005 03:56 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Messenger, if this

Wouldn’t it be great if all educators stopped indoctrinating and began teaching?

was the question you referred to, then the answer is simple: it would be.  The addendun, of course, is that only teachers in religious schools (Sunday schools, Wheaton College, etc.) are engaged in indoctrination.

So yes, it would be great if all teachers who currently practise indoctrination - such as Sunday school teachers - stopped doing it.

Comment #19663

Posted by steve on March 11, 2005 03:58 PM (e) (s)

Here’s another idea, which is implemented at /. with great success—moderators can rate the comments, anywhere from the lowest (flamebait, offtopic, trolling) to the highest (insightful, smart, funny) and then individuals can set what level of comments they want to read. In that way, no one is censored, the comments are there, and anyone who wants to is free to read them. But those of us who like our wheat with no chaff can get the good stuff.

Comment #19664

Posted by Roadtripper on March 11, 2005 04:16 PM (e) (s)

I must agree with Steve.  I don’t post here often, but I read every post.  Lately though, it’s gotten to be a chore.  While I enjoy the numerous informative posts to be found here, I’m tired of wading through all the worn-out repetitive nonsense posted by the ignorant, the incompetent and/or the insane.  On any other site I’d be making good use of the automatic ignore list feature.  Fortunately, I’m fully capable of ignoring them manually.  Maybe if the idea catches on, they’ll go look for attention elsewhere….

Comment #19665

Posted by Mike Walker on March 11, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

Steve, I second your suggestion that Panda’s Thumb should have a more structured BBS-type organization to it, where a *little* more control can be exerted to keep certain discussions on topic.

You could keep the basic format of the PT site the same - the front page being a summary of main posts by the contributers to PT, each linked to a discussion topic. But beyond that, the Bathroom Wall would be replaced by a proper BBS with topics and sub-topics to allow a multiple debates to go on with getting all tangled up with each other (as they tend to do now). Off topic posts can then be kept off the main discussion threads.

Add a basic registration system to prevent spam, and to keep persistent offenders from ruining the forums (but not to censor debate), that would improve what is already an excellent site.

Of course, I’m not the one running things or footing the bill :-) Are there any plans in the works along this line?

Comment #19666

Posted by steve on March 11, 2005 04:38 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, I don’t know what the best structural solution is. I accept that many people like to argue with creationists here. A good solution wouldn’t interfere with that. But a group of us, who like the comments which aren’t related to creatists, are finding it more and more tiresome to sort through those, and I spend less and less time here because of that. I think a good solution can be found which wouldn’t step on the ability of people to troll, and others to feed them, but also enable some of us to get away from that and have a productive discussion about the very many interesting aspects of biology, evolution, and the creationst movement.

Comment #19667

Posted by steve on March 11, 2005 04:46 PM (e) (s)

All the implementations I can think of are imperfect, but the perfect outcome would be a preferences setting like:

Arguments With Creationists
0 Show
x Hide

That’s an ideal, but hey, i can dream, can’t I?

Comment #19668

Posted by Ken Shackleton on March 11, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

The Messenger wrote:

I personally have no problem with abstinence, but that discussion is for another blog and another time. As I understand it, this blog is dedicated to evolution.

Messenger;

Thanks for ducking the question….but you did say that you were in favour of teachings kids “all ideas and possibilities”.

Given your reply above, would I be correct in assuming that your education qualifier only applies to the teachings of human origins; and that the teachings of other subjects, such as sex-ed, would not be quite so open to “all ideas and possibilities”.

Comment #19669

Posted by roger tang on March 11, 2005 04:48 PM (e) (s)

Well, personally, if you had to post ratings, I’d put something “Slef Made Martyr For the Faith” as opposed to “flame bit” or anything like that….

Comment #19670

Posted by Jeff Low on March 11, 2005 05:05 PM (e) (s)

Yes, I can see it now…

Child: “If a baby gets 50% of its genes from mommy and 50% from daddy, then how does evolution occur?”

Evolutionist: Well, ummmm, uhhh……..

Child: “Aren’t there certain genetic patterns that we have given the term ‘race’ to which will continue to exist through time with no change because the same genes are simply being handed down from generation to generation, albeit in different combinations, thereby proving that evolution doesn’t occur?”

Evolutionist: Well, ummmmm, uhhhhh……..

Comment #19671

Posted by RBH on March 11, 2005 05:36 PM (e) (s)

Regarding the issue of how to organize PT so as to control threads of comments, as a Mod on Infidels I know that moderating contentious threads can be a bloody chore, but (usually) worth doing.  I sometimes wish we could send our resident trolls there for a thrashing!  PT, however, is essentially self-moderated: Each Contributor can control comments to posts he or she initiates.  That produces considerable inconsistency, of course, as each of us has different notions of what appropriate modding is, different time commitments for reviewing threads, and different facility with the software.  On Infidels Moderators have access to thread control tools like deletion, editing, splitting off and closing derailments, pesting users (prohibiting a user from posting in a particular Forum), banning users, and so on, to control the idiots.

Without considerable change in the software I’m not sure what can be done on PT.  I’m tempted to think about a group of ‘uber-Mods’ who are empowered and responsible for all comment threads (AFAIK that’s do-able to some extent in the software), but that’s to ask still more time and effort from people who already expend a whole lot of both on the defense of science/evolution enterprise.

A significant gain would be made if our friends would simply quit feeding the trolls.  Give them no feedback whatsoever.  One really doesn’t have to respond to every idiotic off-topic asinine remark Davison makes.  Let him and the others who disdain informed conversation wither unattended.  A fundamental principle of behavior management is “Water the behavior you want to grow.”  Attention given to trolls waters trolling behavior.  Don’t give it to them.

Take the comment immediately preceding this one, Jeff Low’s little caricature.  It’s easy to blast it, ignorant as it is, but doing so merely recognizes his existence.  Don’t.  Let him blather to an empty house so he must listen to the echoes of his own ignorance.

RBH

Comment #19672

Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on March 11, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Point taken, sir! I shall now cease to be a source of sustenance for trolls, and become merely a decorative room ornament who asks the occasional question.

Comment #19673

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 11, 2005 05:45 PM (e) (s)

Is it an error to teach that there must have been a Creator? Just wondering.

John A. Davison

Do you mean, in biology classes?

Pedantic error, yes.  That’s not justified or warranted by the topic and the material.

Theological error, it depends.  What is the official religion of the group doing the “teaching?”

Legal error, yes.  Government may not make such statements — it doesn’t have that right.  The right is reserved to citizens.

Science error, yes.  There isn’t evidence to support the claim.

But you knew that, of course.

Comment #19674

Posted by steve on March 11, 2005 05:46 PM (e) (s)

Too many people love troll feeding. My only hope is a structural solution which lets me get away from it.

Comment #19675

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 11, 2005 05:54 PM (e) (s)

Mike Dunford said: 

After all of the time that we have spent exposed to students at the university level, what we found there came as a complete shock. These elementary school kids were actually enthusiastic and eager to learn. They were attentive, and they even asked creative, thoughtful questions.

Did you  mean to suggest that university level students are not eager to learn, not attentive, and don’t ask creative or thoughtful questions?

Maybe it’s different in science.  In my business law classes, I find college kids (and much older) quite eager to chase stuff down.  My high school kids are much less happy to ask about history or economics, however, and I think it’s related to how many times they’ve been told to “shut up,” and to the fact that the courses are required, and not their choice.

How would you react in class if a college kid asked exactly the same questions those second graders asked?

And, by the way, thanks for going to talk to those kids.  That’s a brave and wonderful thing to do.  And it sounds like you guys had some fun.  Some of us could be jealous of that fun …

Comment #19676

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on March 11, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)

RBH, although I sympathize, if we were to take the principle of not watering trolls seriously, we would have to shut down PT entirely, wouldn’t we? The whole point of our being here is to try to engage the public, many of whom are misled by the arguments of creationists, which do make superficial sense to those who aren’t familiar enough with what science really teaches. Heck, in my younger days, I considered myself a creationist. Were it not for folks like Philip Kitcher and Richard Dawkins, I wouldn’t have learned that there are answers to the things the creationists say.

Heaven knows, the “trolls” are annoying. But we’re here to address what they say, even when their arguments are silly and off-topic and so forth. Now, if they’re abusive, or obscene or not helpful at all to our enterprise, then we can delete them or gently correct people and whatnot, but Davison’s comments are not even close to being improper, from what I can tell. Few comments on PT are.

The way I see it, we’ve enabled comments precisely to discuss “all the worn-out repetitive nonsense posted by the ignorant, the incompetent and/or the insane.” More advanced things are handled elsewhere—in the pages of professional science journals, for example. But we are here to talk about the same thing over and over again, because it’s new to someone every day—someone who just doesn’t know the things that we consider obvious and basic. We’re here for that new person—just like the teacher who says the same thing every semester to a different classroom. If we’re going to just write off the creationists as not worth addressing, then we’ll all just sit around like Homer Simpson saying “Everybody’s stupid except me.”

Comment #19677

Posted by steve on March 11, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)

If Tim is right about is the entire purpose of Panda’s Thumb, then no problem. Perhaps I was under the mistaken idea that it was for more than repetitive arguments with creationists. It certainly has been more than this, or i wouldn’t have written what I did.

Comment #19678

Posted by Mike Dunford on March 11, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)

Ed:

I didn’t mean to imply that all university-level students are not eager, attentative, or enthusiastic. Many are, and this becomes more apparent in the upper division classes where the majority of students in the class are interested in the material. There’s just something about the level of enthusiasm seen in the elementary school kids that’s different from what I see at the university level. I think it might be that not as much of the wonder has worn off for the younger kids.

As far as the questions are concerned, I’d honestly be happy if I heard similar questions from students in intro-level bio classes. I might be a bit disappointed if I heard them in upper division classes.

Comment #19679

Posted by Russell on March 11, 2005 07:25 PM (e) (s)

Two thoughts on the wonder level of grade-school vs. university (science) students.

A lot of grade school kids have not yet been hit with the “school as resumé cultivation” idea. They still think they’re there more to learn than to “excel”.

Secondly, a lot of university students in science classes are “pre-med”. And while some of my best friends are MDs…

Comment #19680

Posted by badger3k on March 11, 2005 07:41 PM (e) (s)

Very interesting story, and one that gives me hope.  I am currently looking into an accelerated Teaching course, that would make me a Biology (or Science) teacher starting in the fall.  I’m not sure where I want to focus (4-8/8-12), but hearing of an interest in real science from young children is heartening.

Comment #19681

Posted by Keanus on March 11, 2005 07:54 PM (e) (s)

As an occasional reader of PT and other evolution blogs, I often find the dialogue that develops as interesting as the original posting but I have to confess that I find the presence of our resident trolls rather damaging. I don’t mind those folks, ignorant of biology and evolution who are seeking to understand the two, even if they don’t accept it—they are the folks I think PT is trying to reach—but I find the active presence of John Davidson, DaveScot, Floyd Lee, DonkeyKong and a few others to be repetitive and wholly unenlightening. In fact whenever they show up in a new thread, they try to dominate it, causing it to disintegrate into a rehash of the same trite nonsense, and the discourse deteriorates into a silly rhetorical exercise in who can score the most points. There is no exchange. There is no learning. There is no respect. They just co-opt PT for their own propaganda. Bah! Ethically they are the same as hijackers, taking over something that isn’t theirs to take and destroying it for everyone. 

When I first began reading PT, about six to ten months ago, I followed the threads into which they injected themselves, assuming they would have something original and of value that would elicit constructive dialogue between two opposing views. But I’ve since concluded that their only aim is to disrupt and interfere. Each is like the maladjusted kid who won’t play with his or her peers by the rules but instead wants to run away with the ball or throw it over the fence and then taunt everyone else. I believe PT should respond to ID/creationists constructively when they appear, without derision or belittlement, but when they descend to the boorish behavior of the aforementioned persons (or similarly behaving supporters of evolution), we should ignore them. Inattention, which is the last thing they seek, will eventually drive them away.

Comment #19682

Posted by Keanus on March 11, 2005 07:59 PM (e) (s)

Having added my two cents on trolling and having ignored the point of the thread, I’ll try to post some obervations and thoughts about education, drawn from my years as a science text book editor/publisher, later tonight or tomorrow morning, when I’ve got some free time to jot off some thoughts.

Comment #19687

Posted by NelC on March 11, 2005 08:48 PM (e) (s)

It’s not so much that one loves to feed trolls, as feeling forced by the lameness of some of the remarks to respond. And then one gets drawn into a spiral of lameness, as dumb remark is laid on dumb remark until one gets quite dizzy and loses touch with sanity and good manners.

Really, I think the lesson is to talk to anyone until they get silly or abusive (or snide or smug or whatever) enough to annoy. And then stop. Because at that point it should be obvious that no useful communication will occur.

But it’s idle to pretend that suddenly we’re all going to get sensible and stop feeding the trolls when thereR