Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Science Education

  • More on Communicating Science

    Carl Zimmer has more on The Loom about communication and evolution, with an interview with Randy Olson, director of the movie A Flock of Dodos. I believe he has some good suggestions about communication, but I also believe we are still missing the largest issue. I don’t think that a nation that is addicted to information that is presented quickly, and requires little effort to comprehend is going to be able to understand the issues involved in science. That would be OK if people without any understanding of the issues were not trying to make decisions about it.

    PZ Meyers has already made some good notes over on Pharyngula.

    Those whose primary role is to communicate with the public should look at the suggestions here. But again, I don’t believe that those involved in scientific research and even in classroom teaching (beyond a few basic courses that are almost identical to the popular media) should have to be concerned about these types of things. They should take notice, however, of the fact that they are not well qualified to communicate with the general public. A number of scientists have gone out to debate with creationists who should have stayed in their labs.

    But that is not the primary problem with this debate. I believe that the primary problem is that we have an issue that can be expressed well by one-liners on one side, but requires serious study on the other. It is much easier to understand that “God did it and we don’t know how” than it is to deal with biological issues. Even at the gross amateur level (which is where I am), evolution is simply more complicated than creationism. Creationists will tend to win debates for this one reason alone.

    There is indeed a need for some good publicity work. There are major public misunderstandings that can be dealt with through some good publicity. Projects such as the Clergy Letter and Evolution Sunday help let people know that this is not an issue that divides between people of faith and the “infidels” (however defined), but rather that people of faith are involved in large numbers on the evolutionary side.

    I’m afraid that I sense a certain condescension from the media savvy communicators. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I’m glad that scientists are principally gifted at dealing with complex scientific information. And just to keep beating my regular drum–solid education is what we need.

  • Who Needs to Change?

    Carl Zimmer, on The Loom, writes about A Flock of Dodos, and comments on scientists who are portrayed in the movie as “inarticulate and high-handed.” Zimmer expands on this topic in a very balanced way, I think, but I question what is expected of scientists in terms of public relations.

    I know well from my own field that those who do the best work in their field are often not the best people to present it to the uneducated. If you expect all scientists to learn to speak publicly like Kenneth Miller, then many of them are going to have to take time away from research and from teaching other people to be good scientists.

    I know I harp on this topic, but the bottom line here has to be education, especially science education, starting from elementary school. Most people, and most politicians claim that education is our priority in this country, but the actual state of education doesn’t reflect a high priority. Scientists would be able to communicate scientific ideas much more easily if the public was conversant with basic scientific concepts.

    Of course, in a democracy, we need to educate the public in order to get the funding and the standards for the needed education, but that is a task for all of us, not just those in the scientific disciplines. I certainly hope this task can be accomplished.

    (See my previous essay, Make Education a Priority.)

  • Wesley Elsberry Profile

    There’s an excellent profile on Wesley Elsberry on the Daily Kos who is both a Christian (United Methodist) and a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. He works for the National Center for Science Education. This article makes a number of excellent points regarding the need for quality science education.

    I recommend this excellent article. As a Christian Bible teacher, I come to this from a slightly different perspective, but I feel a certain frustration because so many make the assumption that as an active and committed Christian I must also accept young earth creationism. A few folks are so kind as to allow for old earth creationism, but it is again taken as a given by many that I must accept intelligent design–surely I believe that God designed the universe! But the fact is that ID doesn’t prove that at all, and that there are many Christians all across the spectrum who see the difficulties with it.

  • Education and Funding in Escambia County

    I apologize to any readers outside of this area, but the following blog entry deals with the politics of Escambia County, and to a lesser extent to Florida politics in a more general way. I know that others do have similar problems in their counties and states, so you might be interested in this just a bit, but the focus is local.

    My step-son James was a student at Tate High School in Escambia County, Florida before he passed away in September 2004. (His Deeds Keep Following Him). One of his greatest sources of pride and joy was his participation in the Tate Band. This was what took up his time and energy day in and day out. He had planned to try to go to college on a band scholarship. His motivation for everything else he did at school came through the passion he had for the band.

    My wife, Jody, and I have continued to keep in touch with the Tate Marching Band (Showband of the South) and to support them as we can. We still get the newsletter, and the current edition reminds us that Escambia County Superintendent of Schools Jim Paul has proposed that the school day be cut from seven periods to six. I was already aware of this, and was considering writing something about it, but the band newsletter article motivated me to get the job done sooner. It is programs like band and sports, sometimes called extra-curricular activities, that will be most hit by the reduction in the school day.

    But academics will be hit by this move as well in two ways:

    1. Directly through eliminating programs and classes, especially electives
    2. Indirectly through removing some of the balance in students’ lives and some of their motivations

    The reason for this proposal is simple, and I have to sympathize with Superintendent Paul as he tries to solve the problems with which he has been presented. Escambia County teachers are much more poorly paid than those in neighboring counties (Unlikely group queries 6-period plan). If he is to improve teacher pay, the money will have to come from somewhere else. Right now, that “somewhere else” appears to be school buildings and the extra hour in the school day.

    In the past, Escambia County voters have been very reluctant to approve taxes as additional support to our schools. Our primary funding comes from the sales tax, and is distributed by the state according to some mildly complext formulas. (You can get more information on how this works from Education News You Can Use (School Funding Data), provided by the Florida School Board Association.

    Some facts you might want to notice there include these:

    • Florida ranks 29th in teacher salaries. We should note that Escambia County is not one of the highest paid counties in the state.
    • Florida ranks 49th in citizen spending on education.
    • Florida ranks 43rd in student : teacher ratio

    So we are not spending an extraordinarily large amount of money on education in the state of Florida, in fact, we seem to be going backward. I recommend reviewing the following page from the National Education Association site, Good News about Public Schools in Florida. Look at the source studies as well to see where they got this information. There are obviously some good things going on, but there are also problems.

    I’d rate declining spending on education as a problem. I stated my own views on the problem in a prior essay, Make Education a Priority. I know that the trend today amongst voters and politicians is to cut taxes and to cut spending, but I’m going to swim against the current on this particular point. There are things that can be cut and should be cut. The simple solution, and in my view the cowardly solution, is to cut spending and taxes across the board.

    Let me illustrate. During our son James’s illness, we had to watch our spending. Since my wife and I were self-employed we had to make a decision as to some things that would be cut, and some things that wouldn’t. We quickly agreed that those things that were part of the process of generating income should not be cut. It didn’t take lengthy thought or discussion, because it’s too obvious. We needed to continue to generate income.

    In government spending, the equivalent decision is the one between infrastructure spending and other items. If you cut on infrastructure spending you will pay for it over the long term. Notice in the items on the NEA page cited above that many of Florida’s school buildings are deteriorating. That’s an obvious issue of infrastructure spending. But I would argue that education as a whole is a matter of infrastructure spending. If we educate and motivate our kids we are contributing to the future economic power of our county and our state. We will be reducing the number of inmates for our prisons, and recipients for our welfare rolls. Both of these will make our economic condition better. Unfortunately we seem to prefer to put a bandaid on the cut, rather than avoiding the knife. We’re more willing to put people in jail than to prevent them from getting there in the first place.

    Yes, I do believe education is a silver bullet. This means well-balanced education that motivates kids, instills community values in them, and prepares them for a productive life. Will simply making education available suffice? Absolutely not! We need to uphold high standards of discipline, academic accomplishment, and community involvement. I’m glad to see that Florida schools are cited for high standards. I hope we make them higher.

    So what do we do?

    Write to your school board members, school superintendents, and also your representatives in the state legislature. When you write, let them know specifically what you want to accomplish, and let them know you understand the cost and are willing to stand up and help with paying the bill as well. We can write the school superintendent as often as we want, and fill his files (or his wastebasket) with letters telling him how we want schools to stay open or the school day to be seven rather than six hours, but if he doesn’t somehow get the money, we may simply be urging him to accomplish the impossible.

    My wife and I are going to write these officials–the school board member from our district, the superintendent, our representative and senator in Tallahassee, and our governor urging them to support education. We will tell them we aren’t interested in words. Practically every politician out there claims that education is a priority. But as I have told church leaders who are wringing their hands about the failure of church projects, you can tell the real priorities by looking at the spending and the personal presence of the people involved.

    Politicians will try to claim they can provide the highest quality education without any additional taxes. They do that because that is the popular thing. The politician who tells you the truth–quality costs money–gets in trouble. You should ask them precisely from where the money is going to come and how they are going to make it work. And don’t be misled by those who believe simply putting money into the schools will solve the problem. We need adequate resources with accountability.

    As citizens we need to be involved, and we need to be involved for the long term. We not only need to work for and vote for the candidate who promises to do more when running for office, we also need to be there to work for the finances and to defend the politician who has the courage to admit that the finances are necessary. We also need to be there for the politician who has the courage to increase accountability.

    For those of you in Escambia County, use the following web site to find your school board member and contact information:

    To look up contact information for your superintendent and school board members: Escambia County School District.

    For Florida state senate: Find Your Legislators.

    For the Florida House: Florida House of Representatives – Representatives.

    Florida Governor (Jeb Bush): Contact Governor Bush.

  • YOU Teach Your Children

    There are plenty of comments on the Dover decision going around right now. I’d like to recommend just a couple of them, though these are only examples of many good comments. Both provide some good links to more information.

    I believe that the result of this trial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. There was little doubt that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement was essentially a religious movement, and there was no doubt at all that there was no theory of ID, certainly not one that was ready for the High School science classroom. We need to teach basic science, well-established science in our high schools, and we have very little time to accomplish that. New ideas need to establish themselves, go through the rigor of scientific debate, and gain a consensus before they become part of the public school curriculum.

    But I want to address another issue. Many people who share my Christian faith are concerned tonight because they feel that religion is under attack. Those who accept one or another of the views involving special creation feel that their children can attend public school only at the risk of their faith. “Godless evolution” has won the day, and they don’t even get a hearing, not even a tiny disclaimer. I could tell them how well evolution is established as a scientific theory, and I would be right. I could tell them how bad an idea it is to trust religious education to the government, and I believe that’s a good point. I could point out the evil things that have taken place when government took distortions of faith and applied them by force, and that would be valid as well.

    But none of those things are likely to move that fairly large group of people right now. I think it’s unfortunate that more dialogue and education does not take place in this area. More people need to realize how many people of faith, such as myself, and how many church leaders do not see a conflict between evolution and faith.

    Let me suggest something that I think should strike home, not only for those opposed to the decision, but also for all other people of faith who support it. We need to look at reforming religious education. In our churches we have a substantial amount of time available in which to educate our children, to supplement the education that they receive in public schools or even in private schools. In many churches in my area we have Sunday School, one or two youth meetings per week, and a Wednesday night teaching program. That’s a great deal of time. Right now, we’re using most of that time to tell a few stories and make them feel good.

    Parents have even more time. They can get involved in helping their children with homework. If you believe that there is a place where faith needs to be introduced into the study of science, you have the power to do it. At the same time as you’re doing it, you will be spending more time with your children, building your bond with them, and increasing the chance that they will become productive citizens. I have some ideas of what should be taught, but even if what you teach is repugnant to me, you have a right and even a duty to take the time and effort to teach it.

    It’s very simple.

    You want your children taught intelligent design? Get with your church’s education program and get some programs on it. I teach such a program for those who hold to a theistic view of evolution through Pacesetters Bible School, and I have produced a tract on the subject called God the Creator. Those who object to any form of evolution will not like my programs, but there’s no shortage of folks willing to teach other viewpoints.

    You want your children to pray? Student led prayer is legal right now. Teach your children to pray–that is, after all, a function of parents and churches–and then release them to work and lead in their own way. You really aren’t prevented from any of this. (I teach this one too. See my book I Want to Pray! co-authored with Rev. Perry Dalton.)

    You see, I don’t think the courts are taking away your right to educate your children about your faith. Not at all! What they are taking away is your right to be lazy and to expect somebody else to do your job, whether you are a religious educator or a parent.

    So get out there, get active, and exercise the rights you have.

  • The Clergy Project

    Wesley Elsberry, on The Panda’s Thumb reports that the Clergy Project is nearning its goal of 10,000 signatures. As I write this, I see that it has attained that goal. I encourage all of my clergy friends to sign this document. It is not only protecting the teaching of science; it is protecting religious education as well. I encourage all of my friends and readers who are not clergy to pass this on to any clergy they know and urge them to sign it.

    But now a quick note: You won’t find my signature here. Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, I am not clergy. I am not ordained. I am a writer and religious educator. I received my MA degree at a seminary (actually the graduate school granted it, but the classes were taken at a seminary). I study and teach Biblical languages and Biblical studies, but I’m not an ordained minister, and thus don’t qualify as “clergy.”

    Why is this so important?

    Both “creation” and “intelligent design” are essentially religious or theological doctrines. They are not science. Things are not necessarily bad because they aren’t science, but they should not be taking up time in the science classroom. Further, we should be very concerned if science teachers, chosen and employed by the government, trained to teach science are instead asked to teach religion.

    Often Christians look at separation of church and state as a barrier to sharing their faith and even to living their lives as Christians. Separation of church and state is not about keeping you from being a Christian. It’s not even about keeping our leaders from being Christians, leading Christian (or better Christ-like) lives, and even testifying to their faith. It’s about keeping the government from promoting religion. We, as Christians, should want to keep the government out of the business of promoting religion.

    Let me give two major reasons. First, the government tends to get things wrong many times. If I let the government prescribe prayer for my child in school, I have no guarantee that this prayer will be appropriate, in accordance with my beliefs, or in accordance with what I want my child to be taught. That’s my selfish reason for keeping the government out of it. Let me teach my child spiritual things. Let me choose a church, synagogue or other organization to teach my child about religion. Second, for me as a Christian, religion cannot be forced. When we place a person in authority in front of our child, someone who represents the state, however indirectly, we tend to imply a force of law to their faith. I believe that is damaging. Spirituality needs to be voluntary. Separation of church and state has given us that. This means, in addition, that we Christians, as the majority, need to be sensitive to the pressure we put on those in the minority, such as Jews, Muslims, or those who reject religion entirely when we attach our spiritual beliefs to the power of the government. I don’t believe we do ourselves any favors by doing so either.

    But what if you disagree with what is taught in the classroom? No problem! If you are willing to get involved with your children, you have much more influence on them than the school does in any case. Get them some books on your point of view. Let them learn your beliefs from them.

    Why can’t your child pray during those school hours? Actually, your child can pray. If you teach your children to pray, they can be involved in prayer and religious activity throughout the school. Student led prayer and student led religious activities are protected forms of free speech. Here the law forces us to do what we should have done anyhow–educate our children, and then trust them to lead.

    Keeping science the subject of the science classroom will be good for both science and religion.

  • God’s Wrath and ID Rejecters

    Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God’s wrath

    Robertson is just too easy a target, but I do want to take this opportunity to point out that the situation in Dover is a bit more complicated than acceptance or rejection of God.

    For example, I’m a Christian who believes that the entire universe and everything in it was designed by God. Nonetheless I don’t think anyone has established a scientific basis for detecting more and less design in specific pieces of the universe. My theology, in fact, suggests that one should not find that God is less present in one part of the universe than in another. But that isn’t my reason for opposing the teaching of ID in the high school science classroom. Rather, my concern is that consensus science, the stuff that’s accepted broadly in the scientific community should be taught. Further, I think that theology should not be taught in public school, and indeed shouldn’t be taught by the biology teachers. So I certainly accept God, I believe God is the designer, but I don’t believe it should be the task of public schools to teach this.

    There are, however, a number of other positions that would also reject the position of the Dover school board, and still not reject God. Some believe that ID might well be science, it might well be developed into a valid scientific theory and be accepted by scientists, and thus become a valid topic for the high school science curriculum. If so, great. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but then I’m not a scientist, and I’m also not a prophet. Others might believe that ID is a fine theory, but that due to a strong commitment to separation of church and state might still object to it becoming a topic in science classes. I know quite a number of people who believe in young earth creation and would nonetheless reject its inclusion in public school curricula. Why? They believe that freedom of religion depends on keeping government out of it, and so they would reject including something religious in the public school curriculum.

    But there is a further problem here. Robertson seems to feel that God’s wrath will fall on the people who disagree with him. There is no reason to believe that he is right. In fact, there is no evidence that various places he has condemned have been any more subject to God’s wrath than other places he hasn’t noticed. That’s not a big surprise.

    I suspect, however, that some Christians will try to excuse what Robertson said as excessive rhetoric. I don’t think it is excessive rhetoric; it’s a dangerous belief, and it’s coming to be the belief of many conservative Christians. Again, I don’t want to attack conservative Christians in general. There are plenty of conservative Christians who take the love of Jesus seriously. I don’t think they’re better or worse than other people as a group. But they are being fed a line about creation, evolution, and intelligent design that tends to make all those who reject ID into some kind of nasty, dangerous people.

    At a minimum, Christians who talk about this issue need to make it clear that folks can disagree without bringing down the wrath of God.

    Don’t worry Dover. God can still hear your prayers. Keep right on voting your consciences and your good sense, which was given to you also as part of God’s design.

  • Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals – New York Times

    Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals – New York Times

    Intelligently designing voters designed a new school board. Though many votes were close, the sweep was apparently universal. I’m very pleased to see that the voters can make an intelligent decision like this. It is my hope that this becomes an example for the rest of the country.

    The whole community, especially parents, needs to get involved in the process of education. We pay big attention to presidential races, but often very little attention to school board races. Turnout is low, and people with very questionable ideas and programs can get elected without most of their constituents even being aware of it.

    That’s not the fault of the politicians, folks. It’s the fault of constituents who don’t research about their candidates and make their choice on election day.

    See some more of my views on education and politics in Make Education a Priority.

  • Making Science Standards

    Two members of the committe that produced the current science standards in Minnesota have written a summary of the process for the Florida Citizens for Science blog. The Minnesota experience is of interest to Floridians, because Cheri Pierson Yecke has been made our K-12 Chancellor.

    I recommend that Floridians read this summary and ask yourselves just what it is you want taught in the science classroom. This is not a free speech issue, as some have claimed. The issue is the prescribed curriculum and the testing standards for science. I would like to suggest that the best means of determining what should be taught in the science classroom is by asking working scientists, and working from a consensus basis, i.e. that we should teach science that is as broadly accepted as possible. There is no need to teach every theory that is available in the High School classroom; there are proper scientific forums in which such things can be discussed, tested, and then perhaps become accepted science.

    Now like it or not, the theory of evolution is broadly accepted and can be properly regarded as consensus science. I think those who advocate intelligent design should have plenty of opportunities to present their ideas, and in fact they do have such opportunities. I recently commented (ID on West Wing) that I have greater problems with the idea that science teachers will be teaching religion. Religion is much more difficult to test for quality and reliability than is science (perhaps I understate this!) and thus it is much more difficult to provide good standards for it.

    Let’s continue to teach science in Florida’s science classrooms.

  • ID on West Wing

    I want to congratulate West Wing on NBC for providing some thoughtful coverage of the ID issue. While scientific and theological articles and books may cover the issue more thoroughly, intelligent handling in the context of a popular TV show helps get the message through the culture.

    Presidential candidate Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits, answers questions indicating that he believes the universe is designed–as a matter of faith, but that he doesn’t want his faith taught in the classroom. In one exchange, an audience member tells him that he wants his children to hear his view in the classroom.

    This latter incident brings up the other side of intelligent design in the classroom. I certainly do not want the science curriculum to be diluted with elements that are not tested science. ID has failed to demonstrate that it is a viable scientific theory. Until it does (an unlikely event), it doesn’t belong in High School science classes. But as a person interested in spiritual matters, and an active, committed Christian, I have an even more disturbing problem with this. Who is going to be teaching religion to the children and young people of my church? When a theological concept is taught in science class, it will have to be taught by science teachers, who are not qualified to teach theology. I find this quite disturbing. Not only are we introducing theology into the science curriculum, but we will almost certainly be introducing incompetent theology there. I doubt that many science teachers are going to be interested in trying to learn to teach theology.

    Of course, as a moderate Christian, I am likely to find some of this theology objectionable. But my more conservative brethren will, I think, find some of it even more objectionable? So why are they advocating the teaching of faith in the science classroom? Simply because this will be a first step. Once you have the precedent set of one religious idea that can be taught in the high school classroom, the next will be much easier. The intention, make no mistake about it, is to get conservative Christian views–the views of only some conservative Christians–introduced into the public school classroom, and enforced on the children of many parents who will disagree.

    So why can’t each of us have “our view” taught in the public school science classroom? First, we don’t all have the same view. To teach “our view” we will have to teach many views. Second, because our faith views are not part of the field of competence of the science teachers, and should not be.

    There is a much better solution. Let’s teach science, consensus science, in the public school science classroom, and leave the teaching of religion to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other private centers of religious education.

    Oh! Wait a minute! That’s what we’re doing now, isn’t it?