| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
How many scientists gave their imput to the Alabama State Board of Education?
Was every geologist/paleontologist in your state away at the GSA meeting?
My guess is that damned few of the people who should have voiced their opinion
bothered to do anything about the creationists.
Too often it is impossible to get the scientific community (especially
academics) to fight creationist nonsense. Most scientists do not realize
what a tremendous political threat the creationists still pose to science
education. The attitude of most is that the truth will win out and that
such ignorant people will not influence any educated people. Thus, when
the creationists try to water-down science texts no one shows up to oppose
them. In my own experience, no one else will answer creationist letters-to-
the-editor in my community except me; even though there are many others more
qualified to do so. Such apathy must change if we want a scientifically
literate public.
Several years ago I started a statewide paleontological society here in
Kentucky aimed at educating the public about paleontology and getting the
academic community involved in science education. I have had only mixed
success with getting help from the faculty at the University of Kentucky.
On the positive side, the Kentucky Geological Survey allows us to use their
excellent facilities for our meetings; and several Kentucky Survey personel
as well as several Department of Geological Sciences faculty have given us
quality presentations concerning their work. On the other hand, it is almost
impossible for us to get our meeting anouncements posted on the Geological
Sciences bulletin board (where undergraduate students would see it). Most
geological sciences faculty have never attended one of our meetings. Our
school newspaper covers every creationist crackpot that shows up on campus,
but they are too busy to do a story on us. I have tried repeatedly,with
people whose research and teaching load concern paleontology, to recruit
faculty from the biology and anthropologydepartments all to no avail. You
would think that the people who teach evolutionary biology at this university
would have an interest in educating the public, but they simply don't care
about anything but tenure.
I fear that the result of a creationist campaign here in Kentucky would
be the same as that in Alabama. If no one will stand up to these clowns they
will win by default.
Dan
Dan Phelps jfcost00@ukcc.uky.edu
Ask me how to join
The Kentucky Paleontological Society!
(\__/) .~ ~. ))
/O O ./ .' DANIEL J. PHELPS
{O__, \ { JFCOST00@UKCC.UKY.EDU
/ . . ) \ LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY
|-| '-' \ } ))
.( _( )_.'
'---.~_ _ _& SOMETHING SEEMS SQUIRRELLY AROUND HERE!
*****************************************************************
On Fri, 10 Nov 1995 17:56:23 -0600 (CST) you said:
>After returning home to Alabama from this year's GSA in New Orleans, I
>was confronted with a decision made by the Alabama State Board of
>Education concerning the adoption of new Biology textbooks for the next
>six years. Controversy had arisen in the committee earlier this Fall
>when they considered these books for adoption because of the inclusion of
>the 'E-word'. Yesterday the State Board of Education decided to adopt a
>"Disclaimer" that will be placed in the front of EVERY Biology textbook
>that is used within the State. It will tell students that "no idea of
>the origin of life can be proven fact." The text of the disclaimer follows:
>
> This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists
>present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such
>as plants, animals and humans.
> No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any
>statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
> The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution
>describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for
>example, may "evolve" into gray moths). This process is microevolution,
>which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refere
>to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into
>birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and
>should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven
>belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.
> There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are
>not mentioned in your textbook including:
> * Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil
>record (known as the "Cambrian Explosion")?
> * Why have no new major groups of living things appeard in the fossil
>record for a long time?
> * Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms
>in the fossil record?
> * How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and
>complex set of "instructions" for building a living body?
> _Study hard and keep an open mind_. Someday, you may contribute to the
>theories of how living things appeared on earth.
>
>In the Montgomery Advertiser's article it goes on to say (and this was
>shown on the television news last evening leaving me very disconcerted)
>that the Govenor [Hon. Fob James] "was taught some evolution theory as a
>boy, but he believes that God created humans. 'They say (evolution) was
>just a notion, and no more than a theory,' he said. 'And if one wanted
>to know something about the origin of life you might want to look at
>Genesis and you can get the whole story, period.' The govenor's remarks
>prompted sustained applause [at the Board meeting]. He went on to
>demonstrate a picture display of evolution he remembered from a school
>book. The govenor lumbered across the front of the auditorium bent at
>the waist and dragging his arms to mimic a monkey, gradually standing
>upright as he moved across the room [this was shown on the news]. As he
>was leaving the meeting, Gov. James said there was no question in his
>mind about the origin of human life. 'I think people came from God -
>Adam and Eve. Everybody ought to know that.'"
>
>There are many points to note about this resurgence of creationist push
>into public education (too many for this posting). It is self-evident
>that those behind the development and adoption of the disclaimer don't
>understand science. I don't think that anyone wouldn't agree with the
>concept that evolution is a theory in the strictest sense, because there
>is no absolute predictability to raise this theory above this hierarchical
>level. But, I know for a fact that the teachers here do not understand
>this relationship - that a theory is a hypothesis proven time and time
>again by data. The multiple testing and validation of a hypothesis allows
>us to raise it to a theory. There is a big misconception in the lay
>population that the word theory equates to hypothesis. Those in favor of
>the disclaimer can't use the phrase "the hypothesis of evolution" because
>the scientific community has adopted it at the level of theory. In this
>sense, the poorly worded disclaimer above has mixed the issues and if the
>teachers can understand this hierarchical relationship and teach this to
>the students, then the students will understand that the concepts of
>evolution are valid and repeatable. Yes, we can't predict the way in
>which the evolutionary scheme will move next, but we know that there will
>be change and there is demonstrable change in the fossil record.
>
>The second point appears to be related to the way in which evolution is
>acceptable. It's alright if you discuss microevolutionary processes, but
>once we move to the larger scale changes, it's not alright. It's almost
>as if the State Board of Education wants the students to learn some of
>the evidence for biotic change (maybe so they can score well on the
>standardized tests that everyone must take to enter college), but question
>other parts of the concept that conflict with religous beliefs.
>
>The remarks and actions of the govenor have brought the South full-circle
>to the Scopes Trial in the 1920's. Unfortunately, this is how evolution
>is understood by the average person. "We didn't evolve from no monkey"
>is the stance of the religous right and as this group lobbies,
>influences politicians (who themselves are ignorant of science [recall
>that the government estimates that only 5% of the US population are
>scientifically literate]) and elects representatives who believe the same
>as they (a litmus test), this can only deteriorate the scientific
>education of our forthcoming generations. This comes at a time when we
>need more educated people to deal with an ever-increasing complex world.
>
>++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++
>Robert A. Gastaldo
>Alumni Professor of Geology
>Auburn University, AL 36849
>
>"It was a time when everyone was chasing the bluebird of education.
>Those who did not get into the Aviation Institute took their documents to
>the Veterinary Institute. Those who were refused at the
>Chemical-Technical Institutes became paleontologists."
> A. Solzhenitsyn
> The First Circle
>++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++/\++++++++++
Partial index: