Re: paleonet Moral Values Means Anti-Science

[Christopher Baldwin <BALDWIN@xxxxxxxx>]

The issue here is simply one of just what institution is giving the 
degree(s). If the US Military is giving some sort of degree then they 
may influence the actual thinking and actual content (I doubt they will 
get much in the way of meaningful academic accreditation.) In contrast, 
if the teaching is for some educational organization like a university 
(I used to teach for the University of Maryland on an air base in the 
UK) then the "norms" of legit science should hold, tempered perhaps by 
an extra dose of sensitivity and care. I never felt that I was boxed in 
teaching an Environmental Geology course.

Chris Baldwin

Todd A. Radenbaugh wrote:

>Dear colleagues, 
>
>Lisa Parks concerns are important in that US policy does influence
>science and education and how we can do our jobs.
>For example see the Oct 8th issue of the e-Skeptic
>(http://skeptic.com/eskeptic10-08-04.html).  
>
>In terms of paleontology, there are university education programs under
>the control of the military.  Although most of us would agree that in
>our classroom the teaching of evolution and critical thinking skills are
>essential in an academic environment, should this also apply to the
>military?   
>
>During the past year I have served as a geology and environmental
>science educator for US soldiers stationed overseas.  During this time,
>I have encountered both institutional and student resistance to standard
>evolution and geologic time lectures, much more then when teaching in
>Saskatchewan, Washington, DC, or even North Carolina.     One major
>issue I encountered concerns the military approach to learning, which
>generally does not make a distinction between education and
>training.  Thus, critical thinking skills are not institutionally
>promoted, and evolution can be easily rejected as a topic if it
>conflicts with faith.  Further, I rarely came across educators who still
>actively encourage critical thinking in the classroom.  The main reason
>cited is that it just too difficult given the current circumstances, but
>old timers claim that this was not the case 10 years ago.   
>In terms of evolution, although there is no military policy against
>teaching the theory, the system does not promote it.  However, the
>military actively encourages the teaching of many sacred scriptures and
>religious cultures (primarily Christian but others as well).  Such
>policies can be a positive aspect and comfort for soldiers in hostile
>locations.  However, there are the preachers that actively reinforce
>unscientific creeds such as creationism or intelligent design theory, as
>well as views that promote service without questioning authority in the
>guise of education.  Often the top officials take these preachers
>message more seriously then those of the university professors.   
>
>These unscientific creeds and views may make good soldiers, but is it
>really what we should be teaching soldiers, who generally spend less
>then four years in military service and want a standard university
>education?  Although there are many university courses offered on most
>US military bases, few deal with physical sciences and the scientific
>method (and even fewer on Middle Eastern history, politics, language, or
>culture). The reason for this, in my opinion, is politics.  As US
>military personnel are increasingly becoming the front-line ambassadors
>in many countries, we must ask if this is a mindset that should be
>promoted.   
>
>Sincerely,
>Todd A. Radenbaugh
>
>
>  
>