Teachers sucking up to Darwin

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 15, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Biology teachers think understanding faith, teaching evolution not mutually exclusive

No, they wouldn’t. Their faith is Darwin = jobs and facts don’t matter:

Critics of evolution often take advantage of a teacher’s limited understanding of evolution to foster doubt in the science and make the science seem less settled than it actually is, according to Berkman, who worked with Eric Plutzer, professor of political science and academic director at the Survey Research Center. These critics need only a slight opening to sow that doubt, he added.

“You don’t have to necessarily prove an alternate theory, you just have to shed sufficient doubt on the prevailing scientific consensus,” said Berkman. “This is not an original idea. A variety of people and groups use the strategy of enabling doubt, in terms of doubting evolution, or climate change, or even, in the past, with tobacco research.”

Although many religious denominations now accept the compatibility between religious faith and the science of evolution, students from the non-religious schools often revealed that they experienced tension between the two, according to the researchers, who released their findings in the March issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, which is online now.

How about teach something useful instead, despite the risks. Teach human beings to think.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Critics of evolution often take advantage of a teacher's limited understanding of evolution to foster doubt in the science and make the science seem less settled than it actually is, according to Berkman
Teachers here are being warned that their students might take advantage of their 'limited understanding of evolution' and end up fostering doubt about the science. As mentioned above, if evolution had the level of certainty that is claimed for it by its defenders, students simply wouldn't be able to challenge the facts.
Seversky: And that is a problem, how, exactly? You’re quite prepared to accept a god who’s motives and methods you admit you don’t understand and for whom there’s even less evidence.
Here you equate evolution with religious faith. In government schools in the US, however, one subject is required and the other forbidden. For theists, God is the ground and source of rationality itself. God is necessary - evolution is not.
I am worried about the public schools. I think they are underfunded and undervalued and deserve far more support than they are ever likely to get from conservatives. Unlike faith schools they have to take on the most disadvantaged in society. They can’t cherry-pick the best students.
I think many faith schools serve the most disadvantaged.
The first Nativity School was opened in 1971 by the Society of Jesus in the lower east side of Manhattan with the mission of providing high quality education to at-risk, middle school age boys who had the potential to succeed academically, but who had no alternative to their troubled local public school. This combined NativityMiguel Network (www.nativitymiguelschools.org) currently has 64 schools around the country, educating 4,200 at risk students in 27 states. Over 90% of the students who enter the NativityMiguel program end up graduating. Of these, ninety-two percent (92%) go on to graduate from high school, as compared to the national rate for African-American and Latino students of 55%. Of those who graduated from high school, ninety-six percent (96%) enrolled in a two or four-year college this fall. And they are successful there as well. http://www.nativityrochester.org/index.cfm/about-npa/nativitymiguel-network/
In my opinion, many government schools create disadvantaged families and thus perpetuate the cycle of poverty.Silver Asiatic_{March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky, The fact that there is an organized world full of consistent rules, begging for an explanation as to why, is pretty darn good evidence that we have a organized world full of rules. I wonder how you miss that each day.phoodoo_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

ayearningforpublius @ 7
You will see that religion and prayer were part and parcel of public and school life for some 175 years prior to your progressive capture and re-write of American history in the 1960s.
What was part and parcel of school life, until the Supreme Court finally put a stop to it, was compulsory prayer. You and yours can pray when and where you want. What you don't get to do is force me and mine to join in when we don't share your beliefs.
Look at Benjamin Franklin’s call to prayer at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Look up what actually happened to Franklin's call to prayer rather than just accepting Barton's distortion.
Ask yourself why was the Bible and prayer an accepted part of America for 175 years following the founding in 1787.
Ask yourself why it took a 188 years for blacks to finally get the inalienable rights they'd been promised in the Declaration of Independence. Maybe it took that long for enough Americans to stand up and insist that the country do the right thing.
We each choose the history of our own nation; some of use choose the history beginning with the founding and the founders – and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence … and others choose a history beginning in the 1960s or even later with the election of George W. Bush and the “savior” who followed him in order to correct the wrongs and evils of this nation.
Barton can write whatever fantasy version of American history he likes but don't expect the rest of us to buy it on his say-so. He's already had one book pulled from the shelves by the publisher because of serious inaccuracies. He claimed that in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson had written that the wall of separation was "one-sided", that it was intended only to prevent government meddling in religion. There is no such language in the letter. Either Barton is an incompetent historian or he's a bald-faced liar. As for the Constitutional Convention, yes, Franklin tabled a motion for a call to prayer. It never even came to a vote because of an almost complete lack of interest - and money. There were no formal morning prayers at the opening of each session It's all in the minutes. Any competent historian would know that. Again, Barton is either incompetent or a liar. In a radio interview, Barton claimed that the clause in Article II of the constitution which stipulates that only a born citizen of the United States can become President was lifted verbatim from Deuteronomy 17:15. This is the relevant clause from Article II:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This is Deuteronomy 17:15
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
I rest my case.Seversky_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

“for whom there’s even less evidence” Yes Seversky, the ‘appearance of design’, (Dawkins pg.1 The Blind Watchmaker), that is all around us is merely an illusion, even though atheists have not one shred of evidence that unguided material processes can produce that ‘appearance of design’!""" BA, don't you understand? We are supposed to take their word about this even though they have no evidence that design is only the appearance of design. Wow ,I can't believe I was so brainwashed to have been an evolutionist, that is until I decided to think for myselfwallstreeter43_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

"for whom there’s even less evidence" Yes Seversky, the 'appearance of design', (Dawkins pg.1 The Blind Watchmaker), that is all around us is merely an illusion, even though atheists have not one shred of evidence that unguided material processes can produce that 'appearance of design'!bornagain77_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

But it does confess a key point: That we are being asked to accept something we do not understand.
And that is a problem, how, exactly? You're quite prepared to accept a god who's motives and methods you admit you don't understand and for whom there's even less evidence.Seversky_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

"But it does confess a key point: That we are being asked to accept something we do not understand." Love the comment. Apparently not asked just to accept it, but teach it as well, without adequate understanding. I will bet we could also extend that comment to include research, experiment, hypothesize, (which are all good and well, but here is the unscientific agenda driven truth of the matter that irritates so many thinking well informed individuals)and actually proclaim significantly unsubstantiated conjecture as "scientifically" empirically demonstrated truth.bpragmatic_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

"Critics of evolution often take advantage of a teacher’s limited understanding of evolution..." If evolution were an open-and-shut case, then such a strategy would invariably fail, because even a limited understanding would be enough to demolish any rebuttal. But it does confess a key point: That we are being asked to accept something we do not understand.EvilSnack_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

"Critics of evolution often take advantage of a teacher’s limited understanding.." No, we merely demolish the so called evidence (s) for evolution and allow the kids the chance, currently unavailable, to process the data, from both sides, and make up their own minds. The fact the so called evidence isn't strong isn't our problem it is yours. If you have the evidence put up or shut up.humbled_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 3 "And you’ll have to do a lot better than David Barton as a credible authority on anything." As a matter of fact, Barton himself does a lot better than citing "David Barton" in citing credible authority. If you actually watch the videos and listen to Barton you will see that he cites American founders such as George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Jay and others. You will see that religion and prayer were part and parcel of public and school life for some 175 years prior to your progressive capture and re-write of American history in the 1960s. Do a search/study on the statements and actions of our founding fathers with respect to faith, in particular the Christian religion. Look at Benjamin Franklin's call to prayer at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Look at the inauguration of George Washington as our first president, and the gathering at St. Paul's chapel immediately after the inauguration - a gathering for prayer which included the new president and the congress. Do a search/study on all of the officially sanctioned religious activity and words of virtually all presidents up to and including 44. Ask yourself why was the Bible and prayer an accepted part of America for 175 years following the founding in 1787. We each choose the history of our own nation; some of use choose the history beginning with the founding and the founders - and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence ... and others choose a history beginning in the 1960s or even later with the election of George W. Bush and the "savior" who followed him in order to correct the wrongs and evils of this nation. And Tony Perkins probably has a sounder understanding of American history, including Thomas Jefferson than do you.ayearningforpublius_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

And yet the studies author, Michael Berkman, a professor of political science, thinks that he is qualified to comment on the validity of evolution. I wonder where he got that idea?phoodoo_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

1 SeverskyMarch 15, 2015 at 12:40 pm Teach students to think critically about science, certainly, but not just science. Teach them to think critically about their faith as well. What concerns me is that children of religious families who are being educated in faith schools or being home-schooled are not getting that kind of training.
Says who? That's just a bald unfounded assertion. It looks like an argument from ignorance.cantor_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

pushing the usual atheistic Ad hominems aside, its funny no one, including Jefferson, noticed that the 'separation of church and state' included the state making prayer in school illegal for 150 years. In fact, Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=90 Funny kind of separation that Jefferson championed, Of note, Barton addresses the 'only the best students go to private Christian schools' objection in the video I referenced, and shows it to be fallacious As well, the family research video analyses the Jefferson letter to the Baptists in full starting at around the 26 minute mark of the lecture and shows how the 'separation' phrase in the letter has been twisted out of overall contextbornagain77_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

I am worried about the public schools. I think they are underfunded and undervalued and deserve far more support than they are ever likely to get from conservatives. Unlike faith schools they have to take on the most disadvantaged in society. They can't cherry-pick the best students. And you'll have to do a lot better than David Barton as a credible authority on anything. As for the Establishment Clause, are you seriously touting Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council as a greater authority than Thomas Jefferson?
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
-- Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jan 1 1802 The purpose of the clause is quite clearly to prohibit the establishment of a state church and, as a corollary, to prevent any one church gaining ascendancy over all others thereby guaranteeing the rights of all from encroachment by the government or anyone else.Seversky_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

as to: "What concerns me is that children of religious families who are being educated in faith schools or being home-schooled are not getting that kind of training." It seems, academically speaking, 'faith schools' are doing quite well, and it is the public schools that you should be worried about:
What Happened When the Praying Stopped? April 6, 2008 Excerpt: How did the removal of voluntary prayer from the schools of the United States (in 1963) affect our nation as a whole?,,, Figure 1 shows how drastically the actual knowledge of high school students began to drop at an accelerating rate after 1962. Barton notes in his report that the upturn in SAT scores since 1981 is due to the increase in private Christian educational facilities which began to flourish at that time. Statistics have proven that students from private Christian schools showed higher academic achievement and higher test scores. http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0124_When_America_stopped.html What Happened When the Voluntary Prayer Was Removed From Schools In 1963? David Barton - starting at 5:37 minute mark of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LiudwVNTUWA#t=338 and continuing through the first few minutes of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zo5L4f57H4
The last graph on the following site shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963.
AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html
If anyone doubts those sobering numbers cited by David Barton in the preceding, here is the raw data on crime statistics for America from 1960 to 2013:
United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in the violent crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Quote, Verse and Music:
"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.,,, All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer." – Sir Isaac Newton - Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard - p241 John 13:13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am." Jeremy Camp - Beautiful One https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bYEVI_jIYAs#t=120
Supplemental notes
First Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Fallacy Of The Doctrine Of Separation of Church and State - video http://empowerliberty.com/videos/wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state-myth-reality-results
bornagain77_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

How about teach something useful instead, despite the risks. Teach human beings to think.
I couldn't agree more. Teach students to think critically about science, certainly, but not just science. Teach them to think critically about their faith as well. What concerns me is that children of religious families who are being educated in faith schools or being home-schooled are not getting that kind of training.Seversky_{March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply