And our reason #10561 for homeschooling is ... [drrrrumroll]
The missing link
Scientist discovers that evolution is missing from Arkansas classrooms.
[..] “Bob” is a geologist and a teacher at a science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts. [..] Teachers at his facility are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution) with the kids. They are permitted to use the word “adaptation” but only to refer to a current characteristic of an organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term “natural selection.” Bob feared that not being able to use evolutionary terms and ideas to answer his students’ questions would lead to reinforcement of their misconceptions.
But Bob’s personal issue was more specific, and the prohibition more insidious. In his words, “I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old.” [..]
The explanation that had been given to Bob by his supervisors was that their science facility is in a delicate position and must avoid irritating some religious fundamentalists who may have their fingers on the purse strings of various school districts. Apparently his supervisors feared that teachers or parents might be offended if Bob taught their children about the age of rocks and that it would result in another school district pulling out of their program. Let me get it straight.
As early as 1925
Scopes Monkey trial tested in court the Butler Act, an unconstitutional law which forbade "public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals".
The case generated an overwhelming publicity, but in the end the anti-evolutionists won, and the teaching of the evolutionary theory was against the law in Tennessee for another 40 years.
Butler Act was repelled as unconstitutional in Tennessee in the 60-ies, and finally US Supreme Court in Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 suled all such bans as unconstitutional, on the grounds that their primary purpose is RELIGIOUS (thank you very much!).
Nevertheless, the state of Alabama continues to use the
disclaimer stickers warning students against accepting evolution as a fact, and encouraging them to "keep an open mind". Other similar efforts to introduce pseudo-scientific concepts in science curriculums abound in
other states, including Arkansas, as described in the article.
I find a few things seriously wrong with the picture. Pick your winner, and I'll tell you mine.
For one, it is disturbing that teaching a scientific concept became a loaded political issue. And then we wonder why kids do poorly in math and science.
Further, it is very disconcerting when evolution is denied and sidelined on the basis of "free speech" and "fair and balanced approach", and argument commonly envoqued by anti-evolutionists. Essentially, this gives equal weight and meaning to the concepts of evolution and creationism / intelligent design. This demonstrates their complete and total lack of understanding of what evolutionary theory they are so afraid of, is really about. Come to think of it, it is patently absurd that a court, local or Supreme, is considered competent to judge right or wrong in this situation. Western legalism in action.
The truth is that the theory of evolution is not a FACT, and never have been considered as fact by scientists. It is just what it is -- a THEORY. It came a long way since Darwin's time, and have been thouroughly revised based on our modern knowledge of genes and mutations. And yes, it doesn't explain everything.
However, evolutionary theory is the only SCIENTIFIC theory of the origin and development of life that we have. 'Scientific' means that it follows scientific research process, from hypothesis through experiment/observation to conclusions.
Creationism and a recently popular wishy-washy concept of 'intelligent design' are NOT scientific. Their basis lies in the belief in the God-creator, or a similar conviction, which must be taken a priori in good faith, and cannot possibly be confirmed or refuted.
And yet, this fundamental differences between science and non-science are blurred regularly, even by
the new Pope, no less.
Additionally, what bothered me in the original article is the overwhelming complicity of silence around the issue and obvious pattern of intimidation of teachers. Scary as all get out.
Finally, IMO the winner is an obnoxiously obvious implication of "the money trail". Quoting the original article:
[..] directors agreed that “in a perfect world” they could, and would, teach evolution and deep time. However, back in the real world, they defended their stance on the prohibition of the “e-word,” reasoning that it would take too long to teach the concept of evolution effectively (especially if they had to defuse any objections) and expressing concern for the well-being of their facility. Their program depends upon public support and continued patronage of the region’s school districts, which they felt could be threatened by any political blowback from an unwanted evolution controversy.
With regard to Bob’s geologic time scale issue, the program director likened it to a game of Russian roulette. He admitted that probably very few students would have a real problem with a discussion about time on the order of millions of years, but that it might only take one child’s parents to cause major problems. He spun a scenario of a student’s returning home with stories beginning with “Millions of years ago …” that could set a fundamentalist parent on a veritable witch hunt, first gathering support of like-minded parents and then showing up at school board meetings until the district pulled out of the science program to avoid conflict. He added that this might cause a ripple effect, other districts following suit, leading to the demise of the program. [..]Again, this is not about TRUTH, or calling apples 'apples' and oranges 'oranges'. It is about the fact that whoever pays the piper orders the tune.
Unfortunately, I have observed a few examples of this same thing in my own community.
One was when a local library, a brand new facility with a coffee bar and a video/dvd collection to rival that of Netflix, informed me that they are charging a buck for each interlibrary loan, because -- get this -- they need money, and people in the community said in a survey that they just don't value this particular service. To reflect that, the library mission statement is that they are first "providers of popular culture resourses", and only after that "are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge". Apparently, my minority status of someone who actually visits the library to get BOOKS, comes with a price tag.
Another one happened just recently, when a superintendant of a local school district spoke to moms in the playgroup we attend, and consistently referred to us parents as their -- get this -- 'customers'!! Yes, we are customers (we, not even our children), consumers of the service they provide. Aside from education, parents apparently need a plain old baby-sitting service. The number of parents who want full-day kindergarten has doubled in the past five years; such parents are now a majority. And the school system is on its toes to meet the need, notwithstanding lack of research that would confirm any benefits of full day K for an average child.
No reason to wonder why our kids' education is so poor. Money is not an issue, otherwise schools wouldn't spend $50K+ on putting together the Cats musical -- kid you not, read it in the Wall Street Journal today.
Kids learn what we want them to learn, no more, no less. So, to see the responsible party, one only has to look in the mirror.
Evolutionintelligent designnewseducation
