Your students are reporting to us that you are offering a non-scientific alternative to how plant and animal species evolved on earth. Many of them are quite disconcerted with what seems to be a blatant attempt to subvert scientific fact and theory with unfounded speculation, mythology and beliefs. Since we have not personally heard your presentations we cannot accurately judge what you are, in fact, presenting or what your approach to teaching science is. If there is even a whiff of creationism or intelligent design being offered as a legitimate alternative to science in your classes then that would go against the basis of the recent Dover decision in Pennsylvania (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005, Judge John E. Jones presiding).
If you feel that you are being wrongly characterized and that what we have had reported to us is in any way off the mark we invite you to contact us and perhaps we can sit down and discuss the situation. In addition, we hereby offer our services as guest speakers to your classes to present a valid exposition of evolutionary science. What we usually start with is a discussion of what constitutes a theory and why theories are what science is built upon.
If you have never visited our store we hereby extend a special invitation. As you may have heard we give discounts to teachers when they are buying for the classroom and, of course, we have your district’s tax exempt number on file so we do not charge sales tax. Our own daughter is an alumnus of Park Hill High School and during her time there she got a good founding in science and eventually became a geneticist. Now, we are told that in your classroom the students are being told that there is proof that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs (we would like the opportunity to present to your class(es) that there is no such proof).
We will be initiating a discussion on our Science Blog on this subject and, of course, everyone is invited to comment. As patrons of the Park Hill district we are quite concerned about what we consider to be a startling revelation about, at least, one part of this award-winning district. If any of what we have heard is true we will work tirelessly to do what we can to correct and reverse it. The Park Hill students deserve to be taught science and how science works.
We would like to give you an opportunity to respond to our concerns, or if appropriate to have your peers and supervisors respond. For now we have only contacted you about this matter, and we hope you will take the opportunity to discuss this with us soon.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Comments? Please!
22 comments:
Now, we are told that in your classroom the students are being told that there is proof that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs
This teacher is an idiot and he or she needs to be fired immediately.
Intelligent design and creationism are appropriate topics for literary, religion, or mythology courses however have no place in a science classroom.
To assert that "intelligent design" is valid science is to teach that one's personal beliefs can be substituted for scientific observations.
I hope that this issue is cleared up so that science students in Platte County will recieve the kind of rigorous training that they will need to compete as the scientists, inventors, and engineers of tommorrow.
This is linked (http://www.boarddocs.com/mo/parkhill/Board.nsf/Public?OpenFrameSet&14821042112053313Nav=|&NodeID=73)from the Park Hill Schol District's web site as Park Hill Policy Manuel dated 09/14/06 and is titled: Teaching about Religion. It appears to be a proposed policy article and may not yet be an actual policy:
"According to the laws of the State of Missouri, no sectarian doctrine shall be advocated or inculcated in any of the public schools, but the holy scriptures of all religions, without note of or comment, may be used therein as references.
Sectarian beliefs may be described and discussed in classrooms at all grade levels, but the purpose of the public schools is to encourage recognition and respect, not to instill belief."
Here is what the current policy of the Park Hill School District has to say about so-called "controversial" issues:
The presentation and discussion of controversial issues in the classroom should be on an informative basis. Professional staff members have the responsibility to treat controversial topics as impartially and as objectively as possible in the following ways:
1. Explore the possibility of alternative and/or divergent positions and options.
2. Determine the degree and extent of consideration given to a specific issue based on knowledge, maturity and competence of the student and class.
3. Ensure that an accurate, factual and balanced presentation of materials is readily available for the student.
4. Help students to be tolerant of arguments in opposition to each individual’s prejudices and biases and to cultivate a habit of delaying decisions until all available facts have been considered.
This can found at: http://www.boarddocs.com/mo/parkhill/Board.nsf/Public?OpenFrameSet&14821042112053313Nav=|&NodeID=73
Given that the teacher seens to be ignoring the "factual" aspects of both creationism and the theory of natural selection (evolution) it seems he is in violation of the district's policy.
The accusation has often been made that creationism is not scientific. And evolutionism, of course, is. After all, today it’s common to believe that most scientists are evolutionists. So, is evolutionary thinking responsible for all the great scientific advances, or can creationists take the credit?
Ironically, every major branch of science: astronomy, chemistry, microbiology, etc., was established upon the work of creationists. In fact, today’s evolutionists are merely standing on an entire mountain of work built by creationists. While the evolutionist assumes his theory is true in spite of “trivial” elements of science (such as the first two laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s gas laws, and biogenesis), the creationist understands that science was established by God, and thus seeks to follow the clues in God’s creation that help him better understand the natural world. To a creationist, science and the Bible were both authored by God: he therefore has no problem accepting the scientific method of observation to further validate that which he takes on faith.
The early scientists—whose ranks include the likes of Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Robert Boyle—believed in an intelligent Designer/Creator who laid down not only laws of conduct for humanity, but also for nature. With this common understanding in mind, they then set about to identify and explore these laws of nature. This search resulted in the revolution of scientific information we now enjoy and the establishment of the major branches of scientific understanding. So the idea that creationists are not scientific is absurd. It mocks the great heritage of creationists that modern science harks back to—and upon whose work modern science now rests. Evolutionists allow evolutionism to govern their exploration of the natural world to the detriment of science, while creationists continue to merely demonstrate how the God of the Bible is also the true Architect of what we call science.
"This teacher is an idiot and he or she needs to be fired immediately."
Free speech only if you agree with me? Anyone who has a different view should be fired? Welcome to China. One side I am not on is that of hate of either side.
Nice balanced post about creationist fathers of science BTW.
Let the scientific method rule, test all theories under pure testable repeatable science.
The theory of how the material of the universe [dirt:)] began is so far out there that it can only be taken on faith, there is no science to make time/material out of nothing. Where you put your faith is a personal decision.
I don't mind the debate, but the attempts of control through ridicule and intimidation must not be allowed.
Comment to Anonymous at No. 6 (are you the same as No. 5?). First, Anonymous commenting really is the way to go when you want to stand up and be counted for your views, isn't it? I salute you, sir, or madame, on your moral fortitude.
Second, there's this little gem:
(Quote from Comment 2)""This teacher is an idiot and he or she needs to be fired immediately.""
Your response?
"Free speech only if you agree with me? Anyone who has a different view should be fired? Welcome to China. One side I am not on is that of hate of either side."
I'd urge you to look at context: the teacher is teaching that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. All paleontologists (and let me stress that again: all paleontologists) would agree that the assertion that dinosaurs and humans co-existed is an absurd nonsense statement. There is not a single article to that effect published and peer reviewed anywhere in the literature. Even assuming the earliest of anthropoid ape relations, we'd still miss by roughly sixty million years.
It's not a "free speech" issue, as Creationists and IDists and "cdesign proponentsists" like to make it out to be. It's simply wrong, and if the teacher is teaching high school students in my community that this sort of thing is true, then it needs to be stopped. It's not just that the teacher is an idiot - they may not be. The problem is that they are supposed to be teaching science, and they are instead muddling the minds of children with this nonsense.
Also, apart from your attack on China (I know it's fashionable to hate or fear the Chinese in some circles, but honestly, does that belong here?), which might just be economic frustration welling up, no one is talking about "hating" either side. You know what I and many others of my stripe hate? Dishonesty. And, by extension, those who adopt it as their tool of choice in attempting to further their agenda.
You further say "let the scientific method rule". It already has. Thousands of times. For more than a hundred years. Try reading some real books about paleontology and evolution, instead of books published by Regnery and the ICR and Answers in Genesis. Nothing claimed by creationists, or ID supporters, is predicitive or testable or repeatable. You've seen papers that indicate otherwise? Post the citations. You won't, though, because you can't, because there aren't any.
I have to confess that I don't understand your remark "there is no science to make time/material out of nothing"... you've apparently now strayed into cosmology. No one has ever suggested that time has been "made from nothing", and that has nothing to do with the teaching of evolution anyway. As to dirt / material, we know that heavy elements are synthesised from lighter ones in supernovae, and that that is where the elements that occur in nature come from - is that what you're wondering about? Good books abound on that subject too.
You "don't mind the debate"? That's rather generous of you, but we're already having the debate, so why not come and play in the big kids' pool instead of paddling around in the shallow, foetid waters of superstition? Science, you see, is all about debate. And people who bring credible evidence to the table are already a part of the debate. That's how we move forward. You decry ridicule and intimidation? I would agree with you. So stop doing it.
Creationists rightly see science as antithetical to their world view, and, rather than trying to build up evidence in support of their position (because there isn't any), prefer to either decry the "unfairness" and demand equal time for their non-theory of "magic man done it", resort to empty sophistries, or bring out the sort of nasty ad hominem attacks that we see repeatedly when this topic comes up.
At the end of the day, this teacher is doing a disservice to the students with whose education he is entrusted. If he or she doesn't feel as though it is within their ethical ability to teach science according to the standards decided by the district, then it's time for them to find another subject to teach. Do schools still offer classes in "the bible as literature"? That might be a good place to start.
The Arabs and the Chinese were practicing the endeavors that later came to be science long before most Western societies started practicing bathing as a somewhat regular occurrence. These forbearers were doing what the relatively ignorant Judeo-Christian West would not recognize as science for centuries before. We get astronomy, algebra (al-jabr) and chemistry (alchemy) from the Arabs and Chinese. Isaac Newton was the last of the acknowledged alchemists. If we had settled for the science of Newton, and the other early pioneers, they would never have been considered pioneers and we would still be trying to create the philosopher’s stone. The Moors brought the foundations of modern science to Europe in 400 bce.
Creationism and intelligent design is no more science than is intelligent falling (where angels are said to be responsible for pushing objects to the earth) or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s biogenetic-based speculation that inherent in all matter is a drive to higher consciousness. Indeed, creationism and intelligent design aren’t even scientific theories. To be considered a theory any, otherwise speculative opinion, must meet four criteria. A scientific theory must:
(1) be predictive,
(2) it must be retrodictive,
(3) it must be falsifiable,
(4) and, it is not capable of being proved.
It is unfortunate that the majority of the public is unaware of these criteria. Statements such as, “It’s only a theory,” and “It can’t be proved,” are heard time and again about the Theory of Natural Selection (= Theory of Evolution). Additionally, far too many people equate evolution and natural selection with randomness when, in fact, there is little that is random about it.
Creationism and intelligent design fail to meet requirement #3, above. To be falsifiable means that one must be able to think of a rational, natural (= not supernatural) and testable way to disprove the theory. I have yet heard of a way to disprove a supreme being whether he, she or it is a god, gods, God, the Raelians or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If there is no way to disprove it, then it isn’t a scientific theory…end of debate.
==JFK==
Back to the original post. You say that if there is even a "whiff" of intelligent design/creationism in park hill high school you will get it out.
I believe that if a student brings it up or asks questions or says he doesn't believe it that they are legally able to discuss it and talk about what is fact and what is fiction.
So what are you going to do? pass a law that says students are not allowed to ask questions?
There are plenty of comments made by evolutionists that are lies. and the way they write the science books say "The earth IS this old. you DID come from a puddle of slime on a rock being pored on with rain. you ARE stupid, there IS NO creator" and similar stuff.
The THEORY of evolution is treated as the fact of evolution in most books because no one will question it if it looks like a fact.
Evolution by no means is fact, creation might not be right either, but they are both theories. Respectable theories.
Creation might not be classified as a scientific theory because of how a scientific theory is defined (must have a way to be discredited essentially)
Evolution says that the universe started with a big bang,
creation says the universe was created by God.
Evolution says how do we know there is a God but they fail to explain how the big bang managed to happen. all it says is that a super dense particle blew up one day.
Creationism is something that requires faith, something that few scientists of today have. They require proof, visual proof. sometimes you just have to sit back and trust God.
Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. The word Theory is used differently in science than in most other fields. Look it up. And finally, if I was in Algebra and I asked a question about the proper use of semi colons, what would the teacher say? Clearly you don't know much about Evolution, because it is completely different from the big bang. You need to do some research.
Lets get a couple of things straight. Natural selection and, therefore, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the Big Bang. People who think the two are related are unschooled and both subjects, biology and cosmology, are obviously beyond their ken.
If scientists sat back and trusted in the plethora of gods to which their personal social, racial and ethnic upbringing was subjected then we would never have had this wonderful medium by which we are teaching and you are learning.
I do have faith that no matter how much evidence is presented that some will never "see the light" and prefer to remain ignorant. Additionally, many will prefer to lead an unexamined life and to never allow their faith to be challenged. They will never gaze into the well of knowledge for fear that what their senses acquire and their rational minds synthesize will lead them to a better understanding of the world around them.
==JFK==
"Creationism is something that requires faith, something that few scientists of today have. They require proof, visual proof. sometimes you just have to sit back and trust God."
I don't see what this statement has to do with the scientific method.
To "sit back and trust God" is not a convincing argument to advance I.D. (Creationism) as a scientific theory.
All of these "anonymous" commenters are becoming difficult to sort out... would you please consider taking a moment to adopt another name? Something catchy would be nice... ;-)
Here's one question, though, that needs a quick answer:
Quote:
"So what are you going to do? pass a law that says students are not allowed to ask questions?"
I'll make you a deal: theological questions can be posed in theological settings, ie; churches, synogogues, mosques, and temples. But if you want to ask a question about science, and it's a question based on the real evidence, then that belongs in science class.
Students must be encouraged to ask questions. They must be actively involved in learning. And they must know when something is a question that belongs in a public school, and when it belongs elsewhere. Stephen Jay Gould took a lot of flack for calling this idea "non-overlapping magisteria", but it's better than nothing.
If a student needs help sorting out the nexus between what they must learn and understand to function in and contribute to the civilised world, as opposed to what they must learn to stay in good standing with their particular variant of the old sky god cults, then perhaps they should ask their parents, their teachers, and their shamans, vicars, rabbis, or whatever else - on their own time. It's almost certainly not a matter for classroom discussion, even if it's thoughtfully handled.
This, however, really isn't the job of a teacher. Nor is it the job of a teacher to proselytise: that's the whole problem here. The courts have decided that religious views don't belong in public schools. That is where the matter stands, and that is where it should rest.
If a student in a science class when learning about evolution gets up and says "but at church my sunday school teacher said that God created the universe and everything in it, are you saying this is not true?"
are you saying that they shouldnt be able to ask that in school, but they should only ask the opposite in church like
"pastor. my science teacher says we came from a puddle of slime"
i dont get why students are limited on the questions they ask... School is a place to learn, its like your saying. dont go there. its illegal.
and by the way. you say the big bang has nothing to do with it. We are talking about origins. where did we come from. you say we came from monkeys which ultimately came from a puddle of slime on a rock being rained on. where did that come from? when you get down to it you say it came from the big bang creating the earth, that rock, whatever made the slime.
They very much relate when you get down to "where did it start" that is your ultimate answer.
its almost like evolutionists are afraid to go there.
how can the big bang be real but its impossible that a God created the universe.
how did the big bang come to happen
how did God come to happen
both are tough questions.
So you say the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution? So the Big Bang theory is mainly this. There was an explosion. The dust particles from that compacted together tightly due to gravity and that resulted in planets and stars. There was a particular planet called Earth that cooled down and it rained and rained and in that water was a chemical soup that came together by chance to create small organisms that "evolved" to other organisms eventually leading up to humans. So you don't believe that? So the big bang has nothing to do with evolution? Then how'd it start? What did you observe to prove your hypothesis?
If Creationism is not allowed to be taught because it's not "real science" then evolution shouldn't be either because according to the scientific method, it's not real science either.
Now to the legal side of the matter, from what I gather, a student asked a question and the teacher answered. The first amendment right protects the school because the discussion about creationism was student initiated, not teacher initiated. Also, since when does answering an student's question mean that the entire school is going to be in trouble?
Let me get this straight
you say
"If scientists sat back and trusted in the plethora of gods to which their personal social, racial and ethnic upbringing was subjected then we would never have had this wonderful medium by which we are teaching and you are learning."
Are you saying that by being an athiest it makes your science, ethics, and social life better and more pure?
When i say God i dont mean a pile of greek gods that SCIENTISTS named planets after. im talking about God, the God of the Old Testament of the Bible with a capital G. The ancient greek gods .etc have no merit. no reason to believe they exist.
My God has evidence. The Bible. Prophecies of the Bible have come true. It never contradicts its self and has plenty of scientifically true things in it. You can just go outside and look and see the trees, the sky, the dirt, this kind of thing doesnt just happen by chance, there has to be some reason. Some creator. Look at our amazing universe. Its something that is much too complicated to explain with a big bang. Look at even the human eye ball. That its self is amazing and must require a creator. stuff like that doesnt just happen.
My God has more merit than your stupid explosion. No one was there to write about the explosion while it happened.
God creating the universe is the equivelent of the big bang in the athiest/evolution story. If you say that the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. then God creating the earth has nothing to do with us being here. so if we cut out that part of the story we are left with creation saying that man has always been here. and evolution saying we evolved from slime. Now looking at it that way. which sounds better. We were here or we evolved from slime.
Allow me a little clarification. The classroom in question was not one in which some students asked a question about evolution, it was one in which the teached told them that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. So, this is not about stiffling student's questions, under most circumstances that should never be done.
==JFK==
Now to help the unschooled with another issue they seem to always have. Theories of cosmology have nothing to do with the Theory of Natural Selection because Wallace and Darwin did not offer up any theory as to how life began. They only offered a theory on how life changed.
Darwin and Wallace were naturalists, not astronomers or cosmologists. They had no special knowledge of how the universe began.
As for evolving from monkeys I'll never understand where that comes from. That is not a factor in the Theory of Natural Selection. What is a factor is that monkeys and humans all evolved from a common ancestor.
If you're going to play with the in Science's backyard, at least make an attempt tio understand the rules.
==JFK==
To "Anonymous said...let me get this straight":
Subverting the subject of the debate may work with the folks you debate, but it does not work in the world of the rational. To wit: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
Please stick to the subject of a public school teacher teaching that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
==JFK==
Quote:
The THEORY of evolution is treated as the fact of evolution in most books because no one will question it if it looks like a fact.
Response:
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. Look up the scientific definition of "theory," and you will find evolutionary theory is indeed a theory, whereas creationism isn't even a testable hypothesis.
Play the laughter, Pause the memories, Stop the pain, Rewind the happiness.
Your article is very interesting please visit my site too gofastek.com. God Bless :)
Post a Comment