Friday, February 3, 2012
Red State Update Tennessee: Where Evolution Is Optional
Posted by Jonathan Meador on Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM
While it might be something of a misnomer to say that Tennesseans have opted out of the evolutionary process altogether (maybe), it's far more accurate to say that, as far as school learnin' goes, Tennesseans don't take kindly to the idea that human beings are descended from our extinct simian cousins.
In fact, we don't really take to it at all because it's not mandatory to learn in the first place in the state's school system.
Indeed, that evolution is only taught in high school biology classes as an elective is just one factor contributing to Tennessee's recent "D" grade from the obviously liberal and elitist Thomas B. Fordham Institute, whose "State of State Science Standards 2012" report found all manner of flaws with the dissemination of scientific methodology and information in the Volunteer State's classrooms.
American science performance is lagging as the economy becomes increasingly high tech, but our current science standards are doing little to solve the problem. Reviewers evaluated science standards for every state for this report and their findings were deeply troubling: The majority of states earned Ds or Fs for their standards in this crucial subject, with only six jurisdictions receiving As....
The Tennessee science standards are clearly written—but their linguistic clarity too often is undermined by statements that are so broad they starve the passages of meaning. To make matters more confusing, Tennessee offers a bewildering array of high school courses. Taken together, these drawbacks make it impossible to infer what a student in the Volunteer State will know (or at least be expected to know) upon graduation.
Confused as a monkey with a monolith? Scientific American breaks the results down (bold emphasis Pith's):
What exactly is going wrong? The study’s lead authors identified four main factors: an undermining of evolution, vague goals, not enough guidance for teachers on how to integrate the history of science and the concept of scientific inquiry into their lessons, and not enough math instruction.Let’s take these one by one. For evolution, the report points out that eight anti-evolution bills were introduced in six state legislatures last year. This year, two similar bills were pre-filed in New Hampshire and one in Indiana. ”And these tactics are far more subtle than they once were,” write the authors. “Missouri, for example, has asterisked all ‘controversial’ evolution content in the standards and relegated it to a voluntary curriculum that will not be assessed … Tennessee includes evolution only in an elective high school course (not the basic high school biology course).” Maryland, according to the report, includes evolution content but “explicitly excludes” crucial points about evolution from its state-wide tests.
Adding insult to injury, the usual rogue's gallery of mass societal dysfunction (aka the Deep South) scored as well or better than Tennessee, according to this depressing map.
Readers also liked…
Comments (29)
Showing 1-29 of 29
like
dislike
Waging war on public education, keeping our children poorly prepared for critical thinking, deliberately tamping down intellectual curiosity, encouraging suspicion of the "elite" (i.e., the educated), willful ignorance imbedded into the minds of youth by religious fundamentalists, making sure "different" is demonized and feared--all of this ensures "black and white" simplistic thinking, a subservient working class, and the continued power and political/economic dominance of the real "elites," the super wealthy and their mouthpieces in the ultra-right wing media, especially FOX and the talk radio blowhards. There is method in the anti-pulic education madness of the far right wing.
I went to high school in TN back in the 90's and I remember my biology teacher stating that we would be skipping the chapter on evolution. I see we haven't evolved much since then.
I have never heard anyone wage war on public education. Now, many do respond to the failures of public education and they are legion. What is generally wanted is a blank check, but the posters here got that long ago and there is little to show for it. Simple Christian folks who do not believe in evolution are hardly the problem, in fact if you taught the world was created in 7 days the public schools would still be failing. It is our culture and the stifling bureauracy of the public school system that need to be addressed.
Does anyone seriously think people want to spend thousands sending their children to private schools? Yet they do and pay with little complaint the 10K a year in taxes spent per child in MNPS. I think it reasonable to say no more taxes. Also, there is a littl taint of hatred here for the right wing, the Christians, those whose morals guide them in a different direction. One need only read some of the posts here. Bigotry?
It's hard to teach evolution to kids in schools when one's state keeps electing those who have not themselves evolved sufficiently to understand what the word "teach" means.
I loath the right wing. More than a little taint of it too. A great taint. Loathsome. With great loathing. And lo, there was a great loathing across the land, and the people did comment against one another with malice and spite, eschewing all manner of decency and decorum. (That's my favorite part, the eschewing part.) When does the name calling begin? I didn't miss it did I?
This is a wonderful exploration of the nature of our political positions and our broken discourse. It is brilliant. For all the blow hards on either side (that's me too) - this makes sense.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/jonathan-hai…
Tennessee may not have opt out of the evolutionary process; that's not to say that it hasn't opted in the de-evolutionary process. Any day now, I expect the so-called "science" of Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler to be fully re-litigated in the circuit courts of the state.
"Also, there is a littl taint of hatred here for the right wing, the Christians, those whose morals guide them in a different direction."
John does what a lot of "conservatives" of late do. They always have to include "right-wing" or "conservative" when they are saying "Christians." Because you obviously can't be liberal politically and be a real Christian. It's a sly way of making their politics sound more moral than everyone else. Always saying "family-values" is another one. And if you question it, you're committing "bigotry."
And by the way, for guys like John, it is apparently impossible to be religious and still believe in evolution. You ever wonder why Quechua Indians living high up in the Andes have larger lungs than everyone else? I'm sure you have John. It just may be that those people evolved higher-capacity lungs after living for generations at high altitude. There is nothing anti-Christian in believing that. When you say that that can't be the case, you are essentially putting God in a box. That's the problem I have with "right-wing" Christians (John's words). They are the people who can't square science with their limited, narrow interpretation of who God is.
Thank you smoothybobo for your well thought out, polite, rational thoughts. I must confess that the feeling is not mutual. Sorry. We are to learn to love those who hate us. "do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith" "love your enemies, bless those who curse you"
Chris, no one I've talked to argues against micro evolution. The reason many might be accused of arguing against it is when they don't understand that it's being distinguished from Darwinian evolution in the conversation. In other cases, they might have never learned about micro evolution because they slept through the class or something. Haven't all of us forgotten things we learned in high school?
The limited, narrow interpretation I have from the Bible is that God created the entire universe and is thus greater than all of it. If believing that He is greater than the universe is limited and narrow, then I'm there. I believe Him when He tells me in the Bible that He is not the author of confusion and He sent His Son to die for the sins of all mankind living before and after his death. If He did that then there is no other valid religion since that one sacrifice covered all sins forever and the Bible tells me there is no other sacrifice available to remove sins and unite us with God again.
Our main request for a long time is to have alternate theories presented beside it so the kids could engage in true science in comparing theories rather than having macro evolution poured in their head as if there were no other options to study.
I would personally love to hear anyone writing here supporting the Darwinian evolution side in a debate with friends of mine. It would be totally facinating and enlightening.
Perry, I find it interesting that this one issue, darwinism, commands so much attention. It has nothing to do with 99.8% of the jobs out there (ignoring for the moment paleontologists and a couple of other occupations.) We want major emphsis on the hard sciences such as math, chemistry, physics, etc. We want intensive study in language so that future adults can communicate better. We want discipline. We want morality. We want the types of school many had before the 1970's. We don't get this in public schools. We get fluff.
Back to darwinism. What we hear is that it's an established scientific fact. If it was, then the word "theory" would not be attached to it. Science cannot have anything else presented beside it because it is so weak. It has to be forced in by itself in order to not be discarded by the astute student. Again, this is a tiny part of biology that has nothing to do with developing competent adults that can build industry in this country.
"The limited, narrow interpretation I have from the Bible is that God created the entire universe and is thus greater than all of it. If believing that He is greater than the universe is limited and narrow, then I'm there."
Strideraa, why does believing that mean you can't believe in macro evolution? I still don't get that. Believing in evolution, micro or macro, does not preclude a Deity creating the universe. There is nothing in the Old or New Testaments that say "God created everything around 4,000 b.c., and nothing has changed since then." Darwin himself was not an atheist and grappled with these things himself.
The last I heard about evolution is that life on Earth began as algae in a lagoon in Australia. Petrified stumps of that algae, the oldest know source of life still remain. It's hard to believe that we're descended from those stumps and it's also hard to believe that life couldn't have developed from more than one source. The bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth; that is hard to believe because God gave us brains to think with. But it's not hard to believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings able to receive and benefit from the word of God. Science says that it all started with a big bang. Thousands of years ago Moses wrote that it all began when God said, "Let there be light." Quite a coincidence. What's a poor teacher to do?
gast needs another nap. Another nap and electroshock therapy.
Evolution and Christianity are not contradictory unless one holds to an exceedingly inerrantist view of the Old Testament. If some Christians have been resistant to the evidence in favor of evolution, it has more than a little to do with those who wanted to use Darwin to 'prove' that Christianity is false.
It seems reasonable that if Christians can live with the compatibility of evolution and Christianity, then evolutionists can also.
You need to do your homework. Look at Tennessee's science standards for yourself and you'll see that evolution is included in Biology I, which is a required course with a state standardized test. The link to the standards are here: http://www.tn.gov/education/ci/sci/doc/SCI…
See for yourself.
The Ford Foundation clearly made a mistake, which makes me wonder what else in the report is inaccurate. I'll be waiting to see if they make a public retraction or just ignore it.
"Tennessee: Where Evolution Is Optional "
No, I think if you want to evolve into some other life form, you are perfectly free to do so.
In fifty years or so there should be, barring disease or war, about 13,000,000,000 (lotta zeroes there)people on the planet. By that time fossil based fuels should be in dire supply and to compensate the population will shift towards the warmer lattitudes where most will learn to love tofu because fresh meat will be too expensive for the masses. Unless there are new sources of energy the world will be dependent on hydro-electric, nuclear, and solar based power. Humans will need to prepare and adjust. My opening suggestion: Mayor Dean, opt for electric trolleys, not fuel driven buses because in ten to twenty years the cost of fuel will be so outrageous that people will wonder why you ever even considered buses instead of trolleys. See? Evolution. (Evilution: New word to describe our ongoing moral decline. You're welcome.)
"Our main request for a long time is to have alternate theories presented beside it so the kids could engage in true science in comparing theories rather than having macro evolution poured in their head as if there were no other options to study. "
My main request is that science should be taught in science classes, not "alternate theories" that are not in fact based in any way on the scientific method, but in fact are political/religiously based and inspired. Or can we teach the "alternate theory" as put forth in Navajo cosmology? There is no requirement that students believe in Darwinian evolution in any science class. Just that they understand it, and also understand that it is the only currently scientifically accepted explanation.
Packrat,
I can agree with you as long as the instruction specifies that nothing in evolutionary research proves that there is not a God.
On a different scientific subject, would you agree that the Judeo-Christian explanation of the creation has as much validity as the Big Bang from the perspective of where did the material for the Bang come from? "Let there be Light" sounds very big and bangy to me.
Mark, from a mythic/metaphorical view, it does sound kind of like that. Of course, in Genesis, there are two different creation stories.
Even an atheist evolutionary scientist would not make the assertion that evolutionary research "proves" there is no God. He/she would be more likely to frame the statement like this: there is no scientific proof of God.
Then again, that's why they call it faith.
And just to clarify, darwin's theory of evolution is a completely different subject from the physics of the Big Bang theory. Evolution doesn't touch on the subject of the beginning of time/matter/space in any way.
I think we can all agree that the Genesis stories of creation are not to be taken literally as a historical/scientific record.
Packrat, scientifically, everything started with the Big Bang, though Darwin didn't have the knowledge of it at the time. Billions of years ago all matter in the universe coalesced into a space smaller than a pinhead. Does that sound possible? Then something happened: there was an explosive expansion, and in that first instant, evidently the speed of light was surpassed by the expansion (proving Einstein wrong, but nobody has said anything about this contradiction). Hydrogen gas, somehow not burned by the Big Bang, formed stars and, by fusion, began producing energy and light and other matter as a byproduct. Eventually some stars, running out of fuel, began dying and exploding and in the process produced the matter that formed our planets which, through some magical process, allowed living organisms to create themselves and evolve into Darwin, and later, commentators writing in The Scene. That's the scientific version of evolution and everything else as I understand it. The biblical version is a lot simpler and makes as much, if not more, sense.
"The biblical version is a lot simpler and makes as much, if not more, sense."
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think there's a serious lack of respect for God the Creator contained in that statement.
Packrat I beg to differ. There is an alternate theory. Have you ever checked out the info on intelligent design? Not ignored it because that's what the politically correct wants us to so. Have you taken time to try to prove it wrong? Darwin would laugh at anyone that still tried to defend his theory. He said his theory wouldn't be valid without finding massive numbers of transition species. Instead we find an explosion of new species at various intervals. This cannot be explained by anything other than creation. Please take some time and demonstrate through this study the flaws you can find in the theory. I'm anxiously waiting.
Chris Allen, there is no evidence when studying this in the Hebrew language that he was speaking of anything but 24hr days. If God is able to instantly create the entire universe the He is able to instantly create all the animals in their adult form without resorting to any macro evolution. He is also able to create a world that shows aging which he also did for all the animals and for Adam and Eve. The results of a worldwide flood would also produce much of the aging we see.
