Tampa Bay science teachers to get evolution lessons

Via this workshop, “Controversial Issues in the Science Classroom,” at USF Tampa next week. Given all the political involvement, they probably need all the help they can get.

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Kenny B]

Diann,
Science is concerned with observing the world and explaining how things are or came to be through observable, repeatable, and measurable evidence. God and the act of creation cannot be measured in a repeatable, observable experiment because God is outside the boundaries of our knowledge and experience and cannot be constrained or limited in this fashion. The phenomena related to the observation of God in the world is strictly anecdotal. Therefore the study of God and the various thoughts on creation does not belong in the Science classroom! The study of God would more appropriately be studied in a Philosophy or Theology classroom. The study of Religion and religious ideation is a Social Studies discipline and is rightly studied in World History, Anthropology, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Theology, etc.

Since the observation of God is confined to anecdotal evidence and God cannot be measured or constrained, then the the study of Creation as depicted in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and of God is a matter of faith. As a believer in God, a follower of Jesus Christ, and a strict adherence to the Separation of Church and State, I think that the instruction of Faith issues more appropriately belongs in the confines of the Church, family, and or Religious based schools, not the Public School system.

[Science not religion]

diann,
The other side is presented. In religion class. This is about science teachers. Do try to keep up.

[DUH]

What's even scarier is that diann may be a teacher herself.....wow ...and this is the type of person the state wants to waste money on to send to the trainings......

hum possibly screen them for commitment to the STATE Science standards which is their job to follow not a choice in changing them due to personal beliefs.....

remember secular .....it's the law.

[Dean Kagawa]

Hey Diann - I have noticed you totally sidestepped any questions/issues about how you reconcile SCIENCE with creationism - you are so clueless about science - bottom line is creationism is PHILOSOPHY and has NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE class. I know, I know - its SO frustrating when the FACTS DON'T agree with YOUR BELIEFS. Like the FACT that scientists recently found some 1.5 million year old footprints. I know that doesn't agree with your BELIEFS, but you can't make the facts go away.

For everyone else - the scary thing about this discussion is its relevance to the Scopes Monkey Trial back in the 1920's. I am going to do more reading on it, but there are lots of references when you Google it. Unfortunately, we really haven't progressed too far in almost 100 years - its a little scary. Diann, don't waste your time googling this subject, because it deals with those pesky FACTS again.

Still feel sorry for the poor science teachers.

[Pat Connolly]

"Is the current trend to provide evidence of global warning and upcoming "green curriculums" to our public school students based on science?"
Global climate change is an appropriate topic for science in that it can be addressed/explored using the methods of science. Much of the background information (effects of various gases on radiation transfer, effects of albedo, etc.) about the science of GCC is well-established. Much of the evidence of climate changes (gas concentration in ice core samples, distribution of plants, etc.) is also based on well-established science. The interpretation of all of the science has, however, to a certain extent been overshadowed/compromised by
many with political/economic agendas of both extremes. The unsettled question is not really "Is global climate changing?" but rather "What effects do man's actions have on that change?" The environmental science suggests the hypothesis that man's accelerating production of greenhouse gases could lead to a rise in average global temperature, which could lead to other specific predictable consequences. I suppose we could take the position that this is an untested hypothesis and that the science is unsettled in the details of the process, so let's allow the 'experiment' we're currently conducting by our actions to continue and look at the results of that experiment in 20, 50, 100 years. The problem with this position is that the results of this experiment might be "no, the Earth is more resilient and we are too insignificant to make an impact", but it might be "yes, we can cause significant changes to our climate which are harmful to our existence." Prudence dictates that we delay this 'experiment' as much as possible until we know more. In much the same way, I may not know if that foul-smelling, bubbling vial of liquid is poisonous, but I will not perform the experiment of drinking it to find out. Some who would oppose this kind of caution as "excessive" use the same kind of Cartesian logic as justification for belief in God.

"Is the showing of Farenheit 911 using a real scientific model to develop a faith?"
While I am aware of this movie, I have never seen it, nor am I aware of it being used in any science class. From what I know of the movie, the only possible use of it in a science class is as an example of a misuse of science to advance a certain political agenda, as only certain (somewhat fantastical and highly conjectural) explanations are explored, while other (more plausible) explanations are ignored. But one wouldn't need to show the movie to make that point.

"Are laws of science based on a consensus of scientist?"
No and yes. Laws of science are based on the behavior of matter and energy and are not dependent on our knowledge or acceptance of them. The concept of Snell's Law, relating to the way light refracts when passing from one medium to another, existed long before Snell. But our recognition and acceptance of these laws is based, at least partially, on a consensus of scientists. One of the basic principles of scientific experimentation is that experiments must be replicable. Before a new law or fact is accepted it is rigorously tested by more than just the people making the claim. When several years ago a team of scientists claimed to have produced "cold fusion", scientists around the world attempted to replicate the results. Flaws in the original experiment were discovered, and the claimed results were not accepted by the scientific community. The more revolutionary a claimed new discovery is, the more that claim is examined and the greater the burden of proof before old, established ideas are supplanted by new ones. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (a quote attributed to Carl Sagan and based on similar statements from Truzzi, Hume, and Laplace) is a fundamental idea in science.

[FSM]

"Fahrenheit 911" is not reported to be a movie about science, but I wouldn't know as I haven't seen it. Not for the science
classroom.

As far as global warming, I wouldn't show "Inconvenient Truth" either as it is flawed scientifically. Not for the the science classroom.

Any films on creationism or intelligent design are not based on science. Not for the science classroom.

[Faith Based Power And Influence]

To Pat, FSM et al:

Maybe you guys can help me out.

Is the current trend to provide evidence of global warning and upcoming "green curriculums" to our public school students based on science?

Is the showing of Farenheit 911 using a real scientific model to develop a faith?

Are laws of science based on a consensus of scientist?

[diann]

Pat and the peanut gallery-the only thing God planted in this universe as a detractor is winners and losers-you decide of which category you fit into. Evolution and creationism (not universal design) are two sides of the same coin. Enjoy the rest of your evening, my prayers are with you.

[Pat Connolly]

"Predict is to foretell as hypothesize is to assume. Both of these processes are relevant to science."[diann, The Gradebook blog, July 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM]
What does this mean and how does it relate to what should be taught in a SCIENCE class?

First of all, you must use the terms as they are used within the discipline in question. Until and unless you understand the use of these terms in SCIENCE and agree to use these terms properly and to use the methods of SCIENCE to argue for whatever alternate explanation you wish, you have no basis for demanding that such an alternate explanation be taught in a SCIENCE class.

It sounds as if you would like to see Creationism presented as an alternative to classical evolution in an explanation of the origin of species in a SCIENCE class. Fine, I challenge you to tell us how Creationism (or Intelligent Design, if that's easier for you) fits into a SCIENCE classroom. Can you present from Creationism a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis (not a faith-based assumption) which makes testable predictions (not mystical foretellings) which have been verified by observable evidence?

Is it possible that God created the Universe and everything in it in their present forms about 8000 (or whatever number you choose to believe) years ago, gave us senses to observe the world around us and minds to think and reason about what we observe, and then planted false evidence in the Universe to test our faith? Certainly. But such an assumption is based on faith and does not belong in a SCIENCE class, as it denies its own testability.

[FSM]

diann
You say: "Just present both sides of science." Creationism is NOT science - so it's not a side.

And you say: "Not willing to explore the sciences to the full extent and being closed minded is of no benefit to any of us." Creationism is NOT science - it's not closed minded to not explore it on a science class.

Reread Mr. Connolly's post, he explained quite well why creationism has NO place being taught in a science
class.

You obviously are not following your own advice and are not thinking critically.

[diann]

I really feel it is worthwhile to broaden our thinking, as others do, and many of them scientists. Not all is learned through observation; we must make inferences. Not willing to explore the sciences to the full extent and being closed minded is of no benefit to any of us.

[Drew Smith]

Critical thinkers recognize that ideas that have zero supporting evidence require no serious consideration whatsoever. Therefore, there is no need to give serious consideration to "creationism". There is no "other side" to the issue, because the "other side" (to evolution) lacks any supporting evidence.

[FSM]

Diann,

My life came from my father's sperm and my mother's egg uniting - not from pond scum. Are you an alien?

[diann]

Pat
Predict is to foretell as hypothesize is to assume. Both of these processes are relevant to science.

[Pat Connolly]

diann,
Please understand that we are discussing what should be taught in a SCIENCE class. SCIENCE is a certain way of looking at the world around us and attempting to explain what we observe.
One of the cornerstones of SCIENCE is that hypotheses (potential explanations) must be predictive and testable. Predictive means that we say, "If this hypothesis is true, we would expect to see this result." Testable means that when we observe either experiments we do in the lab (like dropping steel balls or using a particle accelerator) or experiments the universe is doing all around us (like planets orbiting the Sun or the fossil records in the Earth) we ask, "Does this result happen?"
Hypotheses which have had their predictions verified by repeated testing are then considered either SCIENTIFIC LAWS or SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, depending on their scope. A law generally refers to a single phenomenon, such as Snell's Law about the refraction of light or the Law of Natural Selection about the way traits are or are not passed on to future generations. A theory generally refers to an over-arching construct which links together various laws and observations into a coherent system, such as the wave theory of light or the Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution.
Critical thinking about SCIENCE means you discuss the evidence (or lack thereof) both supporting and not supporting laws and theories, and the limitations of these laws and theories. You admit that there may be other, NON-SCIENTIFIC, explanations for what we observe, but the NON-SCIENTIFIC nature of these alternate explanations (Genesis-based literal creationism, Earth Mother, turtles on the backs of turtles, "intelligent" design, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.) means that they shouldn't be taught in our SCIENCE classes.
Your most recent post brings up a variety of other interesting questions. When does life begin? Do our lives have meaning? Do we have free will, which you seem to accept as a given truth? These are questions which are outside the realm of SCIENCE and therefore do not belong in a SCIENCE classroom. By the way, do you apply your idea that you "don't need someone or group to make those decisions for me or shoving their views down my throat" to other controversial issues in our society, or only to issues which threaten YOUR beliefs?

[diann]

Just where does science originate from? Where do all things go back to? Do you actually think your life began as that single celled organism called pond scum and your life was a total accident and has no meaning? Sad. There is another side that should be considered. We all have been given free will and the opportunity to decide for ourselves. I don't need someone or group to make those decisions for me or shoving their views down my throat. Just present both sides of science.

[Ivorygirl]

Diann
You can give that workshop.

I would love to attend,now what scientific evidence for creationism will we hear about?

Thats right, there isn't any, sure would be a short workshop.

[FSM]

Diann
You can give that workshop.

[diann]

It appears a little bias to me since evolution is so controversial what about its polar opposite? First and center, the students need both sides of the issue presented to them. It is a shame that creationism was shot down. And we what our students to be critical thinkers ready for the 21st century?

[FSM]

Why wasn't I invited?