I was just turned on to this recent issue of the McGill Journal of Education which has the theme of teaching evolution. It's a must-read for science educators, with articles by UM's own Randy Moore, Robert Pennock, Branch of the NCSE, and Eugenie Scott, and it's all good. I have to call particular attention the article by Massimo Pigliucci, "The evolution-creation wars: why teaching more science just is not enough", mainly because, as I was reading it, I was finding it a little freaky, like he's been reading my mind, or maybe I've been subconsciously catching Pigliucci's psychic emanations. I think I just need to tell everyone to do exactly what this guy says.
Or maybe it's just that he's validating what I've been trying to do for the last several years. I push the public outreach business all the time — that our college classrooms are hitting the problem too late and with too narrow an audience, and we need to reach beyond that. I've also been hacking our introductory biology class rather radically, a course that's being taught for the first time this semester (if I'm a little frazzled, that's part of the reason why — I've been building a new course from the ground up all this term), and I'm already implementing many of Pigliucci's recommendations.
His conclusion is a bit long and he throws out a hodge-podge of ideas in no particular order, but here are his main points in bold, with a few comments from me.
-
Scientists must come down from the ivory tower! I, of course, agree, but we also have to be realistic about this: there are no practical rewards in place for this at most universities. Public outreach falls under "service outside the university", and is not considered particularly important in tenure and promotion decisions. Right now, public outreach costs the individual time and money, with little reward.
-
Hiring practices in universities must be changed.. Another controversial suggestion from Pigliucci, but one that I've heard off and on for a long time. Most universities currently have one model for how faculty should be assessed, and it's research-centered. We should recognize teaching faculty, not as second-class citizens, but as a central part of the university's mission. He also singles out another strategy to break out of the uniform faculty mold:
Another good model is currently represented by Richard Dawkins at Oxford
University. He chairs a (privately funded) position in the "public under-
standing of science." What a concept! Imagine somebody being paid in a
university for the sole purpose of explaining to the public what that university
is doing.Great idea, but again, in universities that are straining their budgets now, it would be a hard sell to convince them to brave a new kind of position like that.
-
There must be mandatory continuing education for teachers. He's referring to public school teachers, and yes, that would be a good idea. It would help the teachers, and I would hope would get them enthused about the science if they aren't already, but also it would be a way to correct those huge numbers of creationist science teachers (see Randy Moore's article for more on that).
-
Training in teaching must be provided to university faculty and graduate assistants. My first year in grad school, we fresh new students were simply parceled out to courses that need TAs. I remember being assigned a cell biology lab my first term, and genetics my second, and no, I'd never stood up in front of a class and taught anything before. After my first year, I landed a genetics training grant and didn't have to teach again. I did two post-docs, all research, no teaching. Then I got my first professorial job, and I not only have to teach, I have to design the whole course. This is typical. Most of us are thrown cold and unprepared into the job of teaching, which is genuinely disrespectful to the discipline.
-
Schools and universities should institute truly interdisciplinary courses and curricula. I'm all for that, too, and I'll mention the fact that UMM's honors program strongly emphasizes interdisciplinary work as qualification for being part of the program. My new course also seems to baffle my students a little bit because the first month was almost all history and philosophy.
-
The textbooks must be rewritten. Biology textbooks aren't really good learning tools — they are amazingly useful reference works. I don't know that they should be rewritten, but they should be treated as what they are, and books with a better integrative narrative should supplement them. It's why I chose a different kind of text for my course.
-
The lecture format should be greatly deemphasized. That's harder than it sounds. I'm currently committed to spending at least a third of my class time in discussion, but letting the students do the work isn't as easy as it sounds, especially when you've got the simultaneous goal of getting a lot of information across to them in a limited time. But discussion is better for understanding, so it has to be done.
-
"Canned" hands-on activities stipulating predetermined outcomes must be replaced with open-ended inquiry exercises. I do this in my upper level courses, but it's often difficult in introductory courses, where there's a wider range of student ability.
-
More emphasis should be placed on the how of science, rather than merely on the what. This is also part of the next suggestion…
-
We must teach critical thinking to all students. I've been in (and taught) too many introductory courses where the class is an exercise in rote learning, rather than thinking. I think it's more important for beginning biologists to master the art of comprehending what they are doing, rather than being able to rattle off lists.
-
Students' writing and communication skills must be improved. OK, this one makes me feel guilty. The one thing I had to cut from my new course was writing: I've got over 80 students, I'm writing all new lectures, and I have no TA help (not that you'd want to use TAs for grading writing), and I couldn't possibly handle student essay writing on top of it all. I console myself with the fact that our curriculum does have a strong writing component in subsequent courses.
-
The use of information technology must engage the student's brain, not bypass it. Normally, I try to take advantage of any teaching technology I can, and it's in my plans in subsequent semesters to expand online resources and activities…but again, time constraints limit it right now.
-
Teachers should use controversial subject matter as a stimulus to thinking, not shy away from them. Yes! And teaching evolution provides plenty of opportunity for that. I've been hammering on ID creationism for the past week, and the most promising thing I've heard is reports from students that they're arguing about this stuff in the dorms, outside of class. Good for them!
-
Academics should organize community days. As you might expect from the fellow who started the whole Darwin Days on campus thing. We're going to be doing some Darwin Day stuff next year in particular, and I think Cafe Scientifique is another example of a way to recruit community involvement.
That's the short summary — if you teach science, though, you definitely must go read the whole thing.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Personally, I think that a critical thinking class should be mandatory for all university students.
I think we sometimes forget that critical thinking is something we learn- it doesn't come fully formed at birth.
Yes, science should be hands-on. And especially biology. Nothing substitutes for hours in the field and hours in the lab. So let me add my own recommendation:
Focus introductory courses as much as practical on local flora and fauna.
While I really enjoyed my undergraduate biology courses, one thing I recall is that most of the example species, both in the lab and in texts and notes, were ones I never saw, except living in the school's aquariums, and the dissection specimens handed out. I understand that there are some classic study examples. There likely aren't any cephalopods local to Morris. But if most species studied are remote, that misses a great opportunity to keep students interested in biology, by having students learn about the life around them, that they will continue to see after the course is done. In most cases, before looking at something in the lab, take students to the field to collect it. If you're teaching about animal behavior, focus on local species, that they can go observe directly.
Students should feel that their introductory biology courses are about their world, not about some exotic world.
Another psychic coincidence - just this morning I was reading the end of chapter 8 of Massimo Pigliucci's excellent 2002 book "Denying Evolution" where he originally published all these points. As I read them I wanted to send a copy to the president of the university where I work.
Thanks for the post.
Dr. Pigliucci is a great writer and communicator about science and just about anything else he writes about.
University is too late - there should be an explicit critical thinking class in high school! After geometry would be good timing - all those proofs form a nice start. Such a broad application would have helped with the current subprime mess, and may be even elevate the political discourse beyond sound bytes.
Marc: I agree. University would be a start though.
Good article. The university where I teach (Indiana University -Purdue University at Indianapolis) is making strides toward some of the points that Pigliucci makes. My own undergraduate course in statistics, for example, is partly designed to teach rational thinking, not just statistical technique. Every semester I can almost see new brain areas lighting up right through their skulls as they see how probabilistic the universe is, and how how it is to identify "truth". IUPUI also has a program of "Preparing Future Faculty", which teaches how to teach. Alas, this is optional. And the university is not about to change the culture of research-first, although one of my departments is in the technology area, where teaching is emphasized far more than research.
Most of the remaining recommendations are up to individual faculty to implement. "Writing Across the Curriculum" was a special project of my own mentor, but since his departure it has not been pursued in our department. I tend to teach some controversies in my stats class, but only within the context of how firmly we can know certain things, and how uninformed people may misunderstand statistical findings. Ours is a commuter campus, which limits how much group work a class can do, so I ask for very little of it, even though I know it produces excellent results.
I'm a little surprised to see how jubilant you are over this article, PZ. Although I can see how Pigliucci writes with commendable clarity and force, most of the points Pigliucci presents were already in circulation twenty years ago - academics are too isolated, science teaching is just memorizing factoids, great researchers are usually poor teachers, TAs are less than optimal, and on and on. Anyone who has been through grad school typically knows these things viscerally. One of the great shocks that thesis-writing graduate students encounter is just how little time advisors give to the poor, inexperienced neophyte researcher. It's not arrogance that causes this, but the fact that advisors are not rewarded for good advising, but for good research from their own labs. It's a wonder we produce competent grad students at all.
One thing I didn't know until I read it in Pigliucci's article is the positive correlation between educational level and non-religious paranormal belief. As he notes, that does seem indicative. I wasn't aware that science majors often have no coursework at all aimed at teaching how to think. My own graduate work was in a hybrid area, not in science per se, so I'm rather taken aback by that statement.
I'm not certain how you are getting college students who haven't been taught critical thinking skills. I teach all of my students, regardless of the content area, how to evaluate and critically examine the subject they are supposed to be thinking about, not just memorization, facts, etc.
I see a significant problem with this:
There must be mandatory continuing education for teachers. He's referring to public school teachers, and yes, that would be a good idea. It would help the teachers, and I would hope would get them enthused about the science if they aren't already, but also it would be a way to correct those huge numbers of creationist science teachers (see Randy Moore's article for more on that).
While I agree and have been continuing my education throughout my life, I have to ask. Who is going to pay for this? Also, if you require teachers to do it, and that they have to pay for it, where are you going to obtain teachers? The K-12 teacher is already woefully underpaid and expected to continue in their education as it is, to mandate even further education without some sort of incentive isn't going to bring more people into science education.
Somewhat separate from the recommendations in the OP... I think that evolution should be taught, explicitly, in any biological science class--absolutely including subjects like psychology, sociology, and political science! Each of these has as its subject matter Human Beings, which are biological creatures, and thus each must be grounded in biology (yes, which is grounded in chemistry, then physics...). In my introductory psychology classes, we visit and revisit evolution several times during a semester; it underlies neurology, it underlies learning (operant conditioning is selection by consequences, just as natural selection is!), it underlies motivation, emotion, sensation, perception... the only parts of psychology that do not depend on evolution are the pseudoscientific bullshit areas like psychoanalysis and Rogerian humanism!
It is absolutely imperative that students of psychology be taught evolution; the field does not make sense without it. (And parts of the field, regrettably, don't make sense anyway...because they ignore it.)
I had a student a few years ago, from Kansas. After a day's lecture (class size of 270) on evolution and the nervous system, she approached me and told me that this was the very first time she had ever had anyone explain evolution to her. She was from Kansas, and was taught creationism, and agreed with it since it was so obviously better than that evil satanic Evilution... She thanked me for explaining it, and went on her way. Months later, I was stunned to receive an email from her; she had transferred back to Kansas (to be with family, and the culture change was too immense), but was writing specifically to thank me for opening her eyes, and for doing so with respect for her background... She was reading Darwin's Origin Of Species, and loving it.
Anyway... Evolution should be taught wherever it is needed. But I firmly believe that we currently underestimate the number of places where it is needed.
Ha, I just finished "Denying Evolution" too. It's really a great book. It doesn't actually discuss biology that much but it's the best book I've read on the subject. (Though IANAB.) It's clearly because he's a philosopher too.
I fully agree with the ideas developed by Dr. Pigliucci in his paper. Teaching evolution should be a part of teaching how Science works - a very important knowledge for thinking citizens!
Great article, and a topic that's been a lot on my mind lately. What's the purpose of education, and how do young people learn...
Perhaps on this one change has to happen from the top. That is, the higher-ed schools should promote activities that go beyond the walls of the institutions.
In my place of work, there's absolutely no benefit career-wise for anyone to go outside for civic engagement, or public outreach. Writing a book is a better strategy for promotion and accolades.
Also, so many colleges now offer almost 50% of their undergrad courses though adjuncts. I happen to think adjuncts can be a lot better than some old-timers in TEACHING, but they get pittiful pay, not much support, and since all of them have to teach at multiple schools they cannot give indiviualized attention to students. Never mind about other activities...
I think for the amount in tuition today students pay today, they're cheated out of a good education. Things improve in grad school, but how many Americans go to grad school?
We definitely need a better educated and familiar-with-science public. It's for the benefit of all.
Re: teaching postdocs, these things do exist (in chemistry anyway). I know Princeton has a program, as does Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. I've heard good things, to the extent that I'm considering applying to one.
PZ, thank you SO MUCH for posting this. I'm working on a paper for my Educational Inquiry class aimed at assessing secondary public school teacher attitudes of teaching evolution. These papers are going to be a great addition to my lit review!
By the way, you probably already know this, but Rob Pennock is the coolest guy ever. We are at the same university, and I got to talk to him last year when I was looking to leave my Ph.D. program (I've since started another). He was wearing a Hawaiian shirt and sandals. It was awesome.
The number one reason I quit college 15 years ago was due to courses being taught by TAs. You are spending thousands of dollars to be taught by someone just a few years older and who can't teach (or speak the language.)
Yoshi, I understand your frustration, but I don't agree with your statement... there are plenty of fantastic TAs out there (I was one of them... taught Developmental Bio and Comparative Anatomy for 5 years, and loved every minute of it - so did my students). Also, how do you think professors learn how to teach? They have to start somewhere. Give 'em a break.
Definitely a beautiful list of ideas.
As an undergrad, I would have to put forwards a few of my own that I believe are decent stopgaps, until the system can be fixed, that students who fancy getting themselves dragged into the whole academic life can take part in to try not to become part of the problem.
Firstly, developing your own skills;
Attend talks, any talks, many talks. Get to conferences, both from your local lecturers/professors/teachers/researchers and from anyone who visits. Attend any conference or event you get a discount to go to. Watch the talks both for the science (or whatever the talk may be on if you are feeling diverse) and for the speaker. Remember what makes a good talk good and a bad talk bad. Use these yourself.
Give talks, any talks, many talks. Join societies and clubs that involve debate or presentations on any scale and to any groups. Learn to build your own speaking style and put together talks and presentations quickly and efficiently. Learn to feel and work your audience and get your ideas over efficiently and powerfully. If nothing else, find half interested people from outside your subject and try to explain things to them. Just share ideas and learn how to shape them to fit into others skulls.
Give something back to the youngsters. My university runs a range of schemes designed to fast track students into teaching jobs, most aiming at younger students at primary or secondary school. It also offers a scheme where third and fourth year students assist lower years with their weekly problem questions in a semi-formal environment. Learning not just how to solve a problem but guide another through that problem is a powerful learning tool, and a valuable lifeline for lower years.
Write, obsessively. If you read something interesting, take a fun class or have a sudden rush of understanding regarding your subject, put it into your own words. Practice explaining concepts and ideas either online or just for your own reference. They make for great ideas if you have to give a talk at a later point, and can let you check your own understanding and avoid false epiphanies that hide true understanding.
Form fluid study groups. Groups of five or six are normally big enough to work through most problems - you will likely have enough variation in the personal skillsets to get through anything there - but keeping links to other groups and swapping ideas between them helps stop stagnation and can offer that critical point to get past a sticky point. It also helps you keep from staying in closed social groups, which can kill internal subject social events quickly. Not saying that any of this has to be formal, but if you find yourself studying with the same group all the time, try studying in an area you know you can find others working on similar things so you can share and explore a wider range of ideas.
I've been hammering on ID creationism for the past week, and the most promising thing I've heard is reports from students that they're arguing about this stuff in the dorms, outside of class. Good for them!
W.T.F.?!
They are supposed to be sneaking into the washroom, having a smoke, and gossiping.
Kids these days. They have no ambition.
Today I was substitute teaching in a biology class, and while the students were busy watching a movie, I noticed that there was a list of books on the teacher's desk with a note from the librarian explaining that they had a little money and wanted to expand the library's Life Sciences section and asking which books he would like to add.
There was a little doodle next to an item on the list - it was a book that apparently the teacher himself had written (about plants) with a handwritten note from the librarian: "This guy's a quack! =b" But then on the next page a book by Jonathan Wells was listed, and the teacher had written. "Oh please no - this guy really IS a quack!"
It made my day a little bit.
Hey, PZ, from a McGill student! I'm giddy to see that you read and enjoyed this edition of our Journal of Education - it's a great article, and one day when I teach science I will take it to heart.
Much love from Montreal,
Kristen
I am not a science educator but I followed through with the suggestion to read the opinion piece by Pigliucci all 22 pages. He lays out some of the problems and says we need more science education but not the standard kind. After going into some studies he did at the University of Tennessee and a little about split-brain studies on "how the brain learns or refuses to learn" he suggests the things that PZ goes into above.
Way down on page 20 he has this to say which PZ does not mention.
"Finally, there is also - unfortunately - the very real concern that many science teachers are creationists themselves. This seems to me to fall into the same category of teachers' training mentioned above. We must require that
teachers know the subject matter they are to present, and that they intend to teach science according to currently accepted knowledge. This is not a matter of respecting individual teachers' religious beliefs: if you believe that
the earth is 10,000 years old, then you really do not understand, at a deep level, geology, physics, and biology. Consequently, you simply should not be teaching science. It is up to university-level teaching programs, as well
as to the people setting hiring procedures, to make sure that unqualified individuals are not responsible for teaching our children."
It sounds to me like he is asking for a litmus test for all science educators, if you are a creationist you are not even qualified to teach. So it is apparently up to the universities to make sure to weed them out. Can you see where this thinking might alarm a few folks?
This is the kind of stuff that keeps the science and religion war going.
OK, selfish request coming up. I'm about to start on a community wide committee that is to help steer the K-12 of our district over the coming years. Looking for the broad strokes at this point to get us started on the right path.
Selfishly (yea I'm repeating myself), I want to know that my children will graduate with the skills necessary to make it in any college (provided they are so skilled/inclined). I do find it disconcerting when I hear (anecdotally) that some kids with high GPA's really aren't ready for challenging college. Also, I realize that we need to provide an education to all in our community and not just the high achievers.
Keeping in mind that many of the community members that will be on this committee will be of the crowd that feels that teachers are overpaid, taxes are too high, and that we should be happy if our kids can just get a job at Wallmart, my work will be cut out for me.
I don't expect to see a strong anti-science/pro ID contingent but I cant be sure. For everyone that is interested in having some immediate impact in setting direction in K-12 planning, here is your opportunity. Too the extent that you want to email me directly and not post, feel free. richard.pflughoeft@gmail.com .
Thanks in advance.
rmp
rmp wrote
First of all, kudos to you for volunteering to help make a difference. I strongly agree that a good education is critical to all members of our society.
I wish I could help you and I don't know that I can. If the focus is on K-12 students, then I don't think I have much to offer as to how one can suddenly spark an interest in learning to an 18-year old person.
So I guess I'd recommend one might want to get them ready for the adult world by teaching them the basics of survival. One particular area of learning that strikes me as critical could be called the "magic of compounding interest". Particularly when one looks at it from an alternate perspective of the "hell of compound debt". In other words, teaching the kids to forego instant gratification and pay-off the monthly credit card bill (with its outrageous compounding interest) would be a worthy effort. Another idea for survival might be focused on how to avoid identity theft.
Ah, Evolution, ya gotta love it....just a brief 10K years earlier and the tips might be focused on how to plan your next move based on quarry spoor or avoiding lions in the night.
On this point Sweden is ahead of you:
An advert went round this week for a lecturer's job in Uppsala, and it stipulated that the successful applicant had to have training in pedagogy, and if they didn't they could only be hired for 2 years (to be extended if they got training in that time).
Bob
Louise Van Court wrote:
For one, you distort Dr. Pigliucci's position: He doesn't address whether a creationist is qualified to teach, just whether a creationist is qualified to teach SCIENCE. So the "litmus test" Dr. Pigliucci recommends is nothing more controversial than requiring that someone must actually know the science if they are to be considered qualified to teach it. As Pigliucci rightly points out, anyone who sincerely believes that the Earth is 10,000 years old is committed to willfully misunderstanding and ignoring vast swathes of incredibly well-established knowledge in physics, chemistry and geology as well as biology. One cannot ignore and misunderstand the science and simultaneously know the science.
Pigliucci's suggestion is in no way a political "litmus test." It's more akin to requiring that someone be able to pass a basic arithmetic test before they can get a job as a bookkeeper. If anything, he was a little too generous in aiming his criticism primarily at Young Earth Creationists, since Old Earth Creationism and Creationism In A Cheap Tuxedo (i.e. Intelligent Design) also require willfully ignoring and distorting vast swathes of well-established science - albeit the swathes are not quite so vast as in Y.E.C.
Of course, even the perfectly reasonable requirement that science teachers actually know science will alarm "some folks" - but I should think the only people who would be alarmed are those who are trying to undermine science education by substituting their own religious dogma. They are the ones keeping the science and religion wars going, Ms. Van Court, and the fact that you imply otherwise suggests that you are either a creationist troll or a bit dim - but I repeat myself.
Personally, I think that a critical thinking class should be mandatory for all university students.
Way too late. Start in kindergarten, if not sooner.
[[Pharyngula has an interesting post on teaching science. Although it seems directed at a university classroom many of the things mentioned are things we can do with our homeschooled kids to ensure the university professors hands won't be quite so full.]]
On your first & second points:
McGill also has an Office for Science and Society, directed by Dr. Joe Schwarcz .. a pretty popular figure with his own radio show, etc... on top of his teaching position at McGill.
Why wait until university to introduce thinking skills? Critical thinking should be taught in all elementary schools as one of the progressive goals that's presented each year with increasing sophistication.
Re John B's comment, here's the link for the Office for Science and Society, which spends some effort to debunk pseudoscience and gullible thinking.
I put "teachable moments" in all my classes. I never sacrifice the chance to bring science into their everyday lives, using TV news and advertisements. We recently did a critique of the Dannon "Activia" brand of yogurt and discussed whether it was any better than other yogurts. The students had a great time, learned about the intestine, aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, opportunistic infections from overuse of antibiotics, vitamin K production by intestinal bacteria. It was a great moment. Then we went on to the scheduled work for the day.
SG
Just a pronunciation note for those who don't speak Italian: -gl- is pronounced -ly- (and every letter is pronounced) so Pigliucci is not "Pig-ly-ooch-ee" but "Pilyooch-chee".
A friend of mine, who is from Naples, says it is "Pee-ooch-ee".
On teaching critical thinking:
One of my favorite professors has a semi-horrendous reputation for writing "terrible, unreasonable tests." I went into his Ecology class with slight dread, but as it turns out he is a really great teacher that puts a strong emphasis on critical thinking and the scientific method. He wants to teach about science, and does a great job of explaining information but what he really wants students to gain is a feel for how to do science.
Some people are freaked out when they take their first exam from him and realize it involves more than regurgitating facts (he always has a "design an experiment on X, using all the steps of the scientific method" essay question). But I really felt like I was a much stronger critical thinker and had a MUCH better grasp on the process of conducting research after his class, and plan on taking as many of his upper level courses as possible before I graduate. The point I'm attempting to make is that it's sad that some students are so disoriented when asked to do actual thinking as opposed to memorizing, I'm glad that teaching critical thinking was featured in that article, thanks for the link!
Louise Van Court http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/threats_against_university_…
sed "By the way I am an ID proponent."
Not surprising then that she wants unqualified science teachers in the public schools.
Read Moore's article in the same collection, analyzing a survey that shows about 25% of science teachers actively teach creationism in science class.
To G Felis #25
If a person completes satisfactorily all the course work, testing, student teaching etc. to qualify as a science educator, do you think a university or an employer should still ask or attempt to find out about his/her personal beliefs prior to granting teaching credentials or before hiring him/her to teach? Would it be legal to do so?
I did read the complete Pigliucci piece and responded to it. I don't like the way he is phrasing the paragraph I referred to. He should distinguish the difference between what is taught in the classroom and having the right to one's personal beliefs outside the classroom. It is a slippery slope.
G Felis:
You are correct, of course, but here's is what scares me:
In some (too many) areas such as where I grew up (rural, red-state America) the school boards are locally elected, and are often the church-going, creationist type. They will often only hire a teacher that is not going to step on their beliefs. So, go to many small rural schools, and you will find that the science teachers are either creationist, or will not teach things like evolution properly out of fear of reprisal.
How do we correct this problem (I'm asking in general not directly to you)?
This is part of the reason I am in exile and not teaching science.
To Louise Van Court:
In my experience, I have found very few creationists who will honestly teach what should be taught without at best tinting it with their own beliefs, and and worse openly teaching creation as factual.
This is where it crosses the line from personal freedom to incopetance.
Yoshi,
I agree with LM. I started out in teaching as a graduate lecturer. I decided not to continue working towards my Phd because I didn't want to be out of the classroom for the additional 2 or 3 years it would take.
I don't teach science, primarily history and political science, but I do teach controversy. When talking about the scientific revolution and the geocentrism versus heliocentrism conflict, I ask them if they can think of similar controversies between religion and science today. When discussing the ability of elected bodies to pass unconstitutional laws we discuss Dover, including a discussion about the "merits" of ID to which I reply that the judge was asked to evaluate its merits as science, etc. etc. etc.
The kids in my classes joke by the end that all I know how to say is, "what do you think (of that)?" and "why?"
sorry, fingers trying to go too fast:
This is where it crosses the line from personal freedom to INCOMPETENCE.
Many here are promoting 'critical thinking', but creationists also claim to endorse this idea. What does it actually mean? It's not sufficient to simply criticize, one's thoughts should be logically consistent and rational. Perhaps 'logical thinking' would be a better goal.
Thank you, PZ, for the article and the links to the McGill Journal of Education. I haven't read the Journal yet, but I will.
My career is in information technology, and I'm about PZ's age. As I left my first half-century behind, I began to consider what I want to do when I retire. Or "retire." I've been considering writing free-lance articles on science, partly inspired by PZ and the commenters here. It would be science education, just not in a classroom.
The only hurdles I need to clear are that I don't know how to write, and I don't know science. I guess that's what the next 15 years or so are for.
I'd like to write so that the science is accurate, informative and memorable as well as understandable. I'd like my writing to attract lay people who wouldn't ordinarily be interested in science. (Krulwich, Tyson and of course Sagain come to mind as models.) I've pondered the possibility of "peer-reviewed journalism," where articles for the public at large would be reviewed for accuracy by scientists, but I'm not sure whether that's practical or even worthy.
Louise Van Court #35
"If a person completes satisfactorily all the course work, testing, student teaching etc. to qualify as a science educator, do you think a university or an employer should still ask or attempt to find out about his/her personal beliefs prior to granting teaching credentials or before hiring him/her to teach? Would it be legal to do so?"
Pigliuicci's point of course is that science teachers should not be able to satisfactorily complete testing if they are a creationist, because creationists believe things that are just wrong, from a scientific point of view. If this is not the case, then the testing needs to be changed. This is a basic competency test, much the same as a physical aptness test for the military, or a coding test for a programmer, and is most definately not illegal.
PZ Myers:
Sorry, but I disagree. I found American "Introduction to Biology" college undergraduate textbooks to be excellent for learning about genetics, heredity and evolution.
That said, they're not very good for proving that evolution happens. For explaining how, yes, they're excellent. But their section on evidence is pitiful. Darwin did it best.
Lauds to PZ for distilling these ideas. I couldn't agree more, but ask if the fix is really tenable. I have spend over two decades in academia (gag, has it really been *that* long?) and have attended and/or taught at half a dozen different types of institutions: a state university, a technical college, a private university, and an ivy-league university, among others. These institutions have uniformly lost sight of the purpose of education--an expensive but necessary investment in building the future. Instead they have promoted Splashy Whizbang Research as their prime goal, relegating education to a minor priority if not dismissing it altogether. The result has been a surge of wretched science in my fields (geology, geochemistry, and paleontology), a skyrocketing dropout rate, and graduates unable to write coherently or do even basic math, let alone think critically. In some of these places, it has been years since introductory courses were last taught--apparently they are not lucrative for the college. In some of these places, excessively senior professors huddle fossilized in their offices while undergraduate and graduate programs wither on the vine. The tenure process has increased to a decade or more, meaning that young professors are forced to scramble for years to meet ever escalating requirements--30+ papers per year in one of these fine institutions--using up their best teaching years burning out writing endless grant proposals. Good teachers arrive, but never make tenure; the best professors are turned into itinerant labor. Sadly, in each of these colleges, tenured professors were caught up in an array of sordid scandals--including trackside betting with grant funds, theft of student research, and child pornography--in place of teaching. This list is all first-hand, personal experience; and I've heard of worse. It's too late for the American university system; no force on Earth can breathe life back into this corpse.
There is hope, however. Most recently, I have been teaching at a two-year community college in the DC area. I am very encouraged about what I've seen there. Good professors, good administrators, a good focus on education, and most impressively, good students make this our last best hope for a well-educated future. When I walked into my first day at work there and asked around to find out at what level introductory courses were being taught at, I was given a fantastic and encouraging piece of advice: "Challenge them." So, now, as a professor of historical geology, I can now don my hobnailed boots and trample ID into the dirt all semester long with impunity and without interference.
The students seem to enjoy the carnage, and their critical thinking emerges when they start trying to take part in it. Very encouraging indeed.
Even outside of countries where creationist science teachers can be found, it would be great. Much of what I was taught in biology at school was 50 years out of date. Not 30, not 40, 50. At least.
(This is, unsurprisingly, totally different to what happens in the universities. In molecular biology at least, the professors put stuff into their lectures that was published the semester before.)
Over here, biology schoolbooks are good learning tools and amazingly bad reference works. That's because they, too, are several decades out of date and invariably written by school teachers -- often failed ones (as in "those that can't, teach").
I do hope he mentions that in his lectures.
You see, you're intitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts... To be a creationist requires 1) ignorance about facts and 2) ignorance about the scientific method. You cannot "complete[...] satisfactorily all the course work, testing, student teaching etc." if you are ignorant about all that. It's simply not feasible.
By making the government do its duty of ensuring that everyone has the right to good education. In other words, by abolishing the micro-local school boards. Do they exist anywhere outside the USA?
Community days : not a bad idea...
Here in Paris (France) we have a "science weekend" each year, with open doors in many labs and institutions. You can go and visit a particle physics lab, but I prefer to spend an afternoon at the Natural History Museum. There, you can hear the ever charming Christian de Muizon talk about his works. A few years ago, he told us of his discovery of Odobenocetops (the strange dolphin with a walrus-like head and asymmetrical tusks, that appeared in the "Chased by Sea Monsters" BBC documentary). This year he's cleaning the almost complete skeleton of a Dorudon, and next summer it will surely be featured in a great exhibition about cetaceans, alongside Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and others. I can't wait...
"I've been hammering on ID creationism for the past week,"
Have you made any attempt to understand ID? Have you encouraged your students to be skeptical and look for short-comings in Darwinism? Have you explained to your students that ID is compatible with evolution?
No, I didn't think so. You're just hammering out the old materialist ideology. Darwinism must be accepted without question and there is no need for evidence. Because it must be true.
Tell me, realpc, what specific, falsifiable predictions does ID make? In my class, we have talked about irreducible complexity...how an example of something that is irreducibly complex (the eye, the hand, the flagellum) has historically *always* turned out to be reducible.
OF COURSE I tell my students to be skeptical and to try to poke holes in "Darwinism"; if they do so successfully, they will have made themselves famous, rich, and the new authority on the block, the one all the later students try to poke holes in.
And no, I have not told them ID is compatible with evolution. I have this little problem; I cannot bring myself to lie to my students.
But please...enlighten me. Where is the evidence you are so confident in? I would be more than grateful to you, and I promise to share it with my classes.
PZ,
In reference to his point on mandatory teacher education, I have worked as a teacher in both Texas and Minnesota and they both require continuing education. In Texas it is 225 hours of continuing education every 5 years, I think Minnesota is about the same.
This does not always take the form of college courses, it also includes workshops through the district, speakers brought in by a district (or cooperative districts), or through teacher organizations.
As to the qualifications of teachers-- I can think of just one type of YEC who should be entitled to teach biology (or geology or physics or...). It's a vanishingly rare breed: The Gosse type. Gosse believed in a literal reading of Genesis, but (as a professional naturalist) he also accepted that there was a coherent (though false) past that was the subject matter for geology & paleontology. As a science teacher, someone of that stripe could teach the standard scientific account without blushing or temporizing-- after all, it's a real, coherent aspect of the creation that is being described, even if it's a sort of second-class truth. (There's an echo here of the much earlier Christian Averroism, which was branded as a 'two-truth' view, combining Aristotle's eternal world with a Christian creation.) Any other kind of YEC must, as several have said, systematically distort and misunderstand the science.
Anyone else having trouble reading this PDF under Linux using Evince? Most of the text is blank for me unless I highlight it.
I am a high school science teacher. My tests are considered "hard" because I expect the kids to take what they are supposed to have learned and draw conclusions.
Problem is, they have never been expected to think. From what I have seen of their other classes, they do a bunch of stuff, just going through the motions. When they fail tests, they do extra credit. One of my honors students once asked me if she could do extra credit after failing an exam. I asked her if she would like to be represented by an attorney who got his degree by bringing in boxes of tissue. (Yes, sorry, but many teachers give academic extra credit for donations of supplies.)
To get to the main subject, high school, is too late to instill critical thinking. Kids need be told, in a lighthearted way, things that are obviously false so they can realize that they need to evaluate the things they are being told. What I mean is to say to a four year old playing with his dog "What a pretty cat you have." Make a game of it.
Think of the obviously false things all kids are taught, which none question. Columbus proved the Earth was round. Uh, no, he crossed the Atlantic and came back. That would be possible with a flat Earth. Ask them what it would take to prove the Earth is really round. How do they know it is?
Unfortunately, the scariest thing is that elementary teachers are least prepared for critical thinking themselves. While I was still working part time in a grocery store, an elementary teacher bought three different kinds of chocolate cookies and told me "We're going to do a science experiment tomorrow." The "experiment" was to find out which brand of cookies had the most chips. Just because they could twist some kind of statement about chocolate chips in cookies into an if-then statement, she thought that was a hypothesis. I guess that explains why so many of the proposed science fair hypotheses sound like "If I measure it, I will be able to tell how long it is."
Solution? Nobody gets to teach any subject at any level without a year of physics, a years of calculus, a year of biology, a year of chemistry, ........ IOW, learn something, not just "how to teach."
And continuing education for teachers is usually a joke. Any dimwit can get through these courses with an A with a blindfold on. Just a bunch of busy work to make somebody look good on paper.
Sorry about the length. This really touched a nerve.
BaldApe, as I prep for my K-12 planning committee (it's one of those community involved vision processes), you've certainly given me something to bring to the party. Thanks.
My wife has been taking classes in education off and on for several years. For the most part, it is her considered opinion that they are a bunch of crap. Dog trainers are taught more about learning theory than are students in programs of "education". "Research" in education is often more about using very small sample groups (tens of subjects) to "prove" that one hypothesis is correct, rather than open ended investigations to decide which of several competing hypotheses are more effective.
So, while in theory I would agree that teaching professors how to teach is an excellent notion, making them take existing "education" classes is probably not the best way to do this.
It seems to me that an even briefer summary would be: universities should devote more resource per student on science courses. For instance, rather than having one professor teaching 80 students for an entire course, have 2 or 3. It would allow each one of them to devote more time to the students (whether in discussion groups, tutorials or simply in terms of the student being able to go to the professor to ask questions.
This is a political message as much as anything else: teaching is as important a function of universities as research, and should be funded accordingly.
I certainly agree that controversial subject matter should be used as it does provide a stimulus for discussion, independent thinking, decision making and all aspects of providing the "learning experience" that we seek to provide but rarely achieve.
The greatest injustice that is endured is teaching evolution to the exclusion of its antitheses. Most students cannot address the controversy because they have only heard one side. What controversy?
Science should be taught in a science classroom and it doesn't come prelabeled as Creation science or evolutionary science. Science is science. If it supports Creation or ID, fine, if evolution, that's OK, too. Since when is it a quality education when tainted with bias or censorship or by proselytizing?
The most rewarding experience in my classroom was when scientific concepts supportive of Creation and ID, including "irreducible complexity" were introduced. It ignited enthusiastic responses, awakened previously apathetic students and proved the value of allowing the scientific method to be employed. It encouraged critical thinking It was a win/win for the students (and the teacher).
Ronald L. Cote posted:
. . . scientific concepts supportive of Creation and ID . . .
So, what were these, then, exactly?
Were they just rehashed "creation science" arguments a la Pandas and People, or were they genuine science?
Incidentally, Ronald, irreducible complexity has been shown (a) to be a prediction of evolutionary theory (published circa 1920, I believe); and (b) to offer no support for ID / creationism (all of Behe's examples have been shown to be reducible; and Behe's exclusion in Darwin's Black Box of what he termed "indirect" evolutionary paths was a deliberate exclusion of one of the commonest mechanisms of evolution).
Nigel, I could not be so naive as to present scientific concepts supportive of creation/ID in a blog. Can you do so supportive of evolution? Like many other applied scientists, I have come full circle from evolutionist to creationist. It didn't happen by labeling all science supportive of creation as pseudoscience or creation science in order to throw the baby out with the dishwater. It took an honest assessment of the weight of the evidence and drawing a conclusion from that. Isn't that what scientists worth their salt are supposed to do? Seems not, as many select what feeds their preconceptions and then heap condemnation on the rest. Are you guilty?
As to reducibility, do you mean that in the simple case of a mousetrap, it is so because you can use the wooden base for firewood, the spring to hang out clothes and the wire to fashion into a fish hook? My friend that is not reducibility in that the purpose of the trap is to kill mice. Removing any part for other uses does not reduce its efficacy, it destroys its ability to perform its intended function, altogether.
More basic is the question of why evolutionists are so reluctant to accept any science in contradiction and accept any cockamamy balderdash that comes down the pike like Lucy, Archeoraptor, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man etc., ad nauseum.
There's a world of truth out there but it's up to each of us to find it. It means taking the blinders off!
Ronald L. Cote said: Nigel, I could not be so naive as to present scientific concepts supportive of creation/ID in a blog.
So in other words.. "No, I don't actually have any evidence in favor of Creationism / Creation Science / IDC / Whatever-the-hucksters-decide-to-call-it-next; instead all I have is delusional fantasies that wouldn't pass muster for actual science after even a second of scrutiny. I am so embarrassed by the shoddiness of the lies in support of IDC, that I refuse to try to defend them against people who are competent to critique them... it is far safer to present them as science to kids who don't yet know better."
Ronald L. Cote said: Like many other applied scientists, ...
No, I suspect that "many" in this case refers to just you, and the echo-chamber of your IDC (being charitable) co-dupes. BTW, I'd like to see your publication record; it's been years since I paged through Pub-Med, maybe you could point me towards your papers?
Ronald L. Cote said: ..., I have come full circle from evolutionist to creationist. It didn't happen by labeling all science supportive of creation as pseudoscience or creation science in order to throw the baby out with the dishwater. It took an honest assessment of the weight of the evidence and drawing a conclusion from that. Isn't that what scientists worth their salt are supposed to do?
Wow! Nigel JUST ASKED for the evidence, and you refused to provide it! Now you are vainly posturing as some sort of icon of balanced, impartial reason--in the same breath where you practically admit to having no actual evidence.
Ronald L. Cote said: As to reducibility, do you mean that in the simple case of a mousetrap, it is so because you can use the wooden base for firewood, the spring to hang out clothes and the wire to fashion into a fish hook? My friend that is not reducibility in that the purpose of the trap is to kill mice. Removing any part for other uses does not reduce its efficacy, it destroys its ability to perform its intended function, altogether.
Ah, yes - the raw material of learning, ignorance! Let me educate you. Behe's example of the mousetrap as an IC system has been long debunked (it seems his analogies are almost as bad as his "science") and a whole series of reduced complexity mousetraps discovered. Here's a link.
Ronald L. Cote said: More basic is the question of why evolutionists are so reluctant to accept any science in contradiction and accept any cockamamy balderdash that comes down the pike like Lucy, Archeoraptor, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man etc., ad nauseum.
No, more basic is the question "In the last 300 years creationists went from representing 100% of biological theory to representing less than 1%; why are those last ones holding on to an obviously failed hypothesis? Is it because their book sales are so lucrative?" Oh, nice list BTW, other than Archeoraptor I'd think you cribbed this from Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" which is good for a laugh - but little else. Science asks the tough questions, and even the best hypotheses and theories have scientists constantly hammering at them in an effort to find flaws; this is how scientists find interesting questions to examine, and obtain both fame (publications) and fortune (grant money). A neat side effect is that the surviving bits make for a very robust basis for knowledge. Cockamamy balderdash doesn't withstand this scrutiny for long, but it sure flourishes in Creation Science / IDC, where questioning dogma is not tolerated!
From an editor of MJE 42 No. 2...
The creationist ads, in fact all ads, have now been removed.
Cheers,
Jason
Nigel, you sure have a knack for misinterpreting statements. Why don't you present all of the supportive evidence for evolution in a blog?
BY "many" I meant "many" having worked side by side with many scientists in a multitude of disciplines. As to publications, I have none, zilch, nada because if you had an inkling of the world of scientific endeavor, you would realize that producing papers was not the purpose of R&D. It's purpose was to produce utilitarian products for mankind, not toot one's horn. That is left to academia in order to justify their existence and qualify for grants
The raw material of your ignorance hardly qualifies you to educate me. Please justify your statistic of 100% to 1%. Maybe you have published a paper on this?You stated, "even the best hypotheses and theories have scientists constantly hammering at them in an effort to find flaws; this is how scientists find interesting questions to examine". It certainly seems that evolutionists are supremely guilty of ignoring any evidentiary documentation that exposes flaws in their myth and the reality is that they are not gaining ground and not increasing followers even when they have a lock on teaching it in public schools.
As Soren Lovtrup aptly stated it, " I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science". Just think, you can claim to be a part in the deceit!
It's never stopped you before.
Wonder if Ron is a YEC.
Does he have issues with geologists, archeologists, physicists and astronomers too?
Yes, he is. He was naive enough to defend it elsewhere on ScienceBlogs a few months ago. I'd imagine his newfound reticence has something to do with the fact that he keeps losing such debates badly - which in turn is due to his use of some of the most stunningly idiotic arguments in history.
Nigel and others, no need for further speculation, Ron is a YEC but only because its antithesis can not withstand scrutiny.
The Big Bang is the process by which matter was organized into the galaxies, stars, earth, sun, moon and planets. This is what is referred to as cosmic evolution.
The most descriptive explanation found of the Big Bang follows: Approximately 13 to 15 billion years ago (now reported to be about 13.7 billion years) all matter was concentrated in an object the size of a period on a page. This speck was spinning at tremendous speed. This matter was at a temperature of a hundred thousand million degrees centigrade. (Not exactly conducive to life support) In a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, this matter exploded. When this occurred, pieces from this small speck inflated, spinning off and forming the earth, sun, moon, stars and planets.
YECS believe that the earth is relatively young and no more than 10,000 years old. They offer several arguments that are in opposition to the theory of the Big Bang. They do not believe that the Big Bang ever occurred, but rather, believe that the earth, sun, moon, stars and planets were created by God. One argument used is based on the law of Physics called the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This law states that pieces spinning off from a spinning object will spin in the same direction as the object from which it detached. An example is a rock in the tire of a car will spin in the same direction as the tire rotation when it detaches. This follows that all bodies in the galaxy must be spinning in the same direction. This is not the case with the planets Pluto, Uranus, Venus and six moons which rotate counter to the rotation of other planets. This is evidence that these planets did not originate from the Big Bang because they violate this physical law.
The rocks retrieved by astronauts from the moon are further profound evidence. These rocks were found to be of different mineral composition and of different ages from those on earth. These are convincing arguments that the earth and the moon have different origins and that the moon never was a part of matter from the Big Bang.
A recent news article stated that scientists have recently determined that the earth is older than previously believed. Experts now believe that the earth became a major planetary body 10 million years after the birth of the sun. If this is so, then scientific discovery itself demonstrates that the earth was not formed from the Big Bang. This also is reason to cast doubt as to the validity of that theory.
Another point of consideration is that the combination of extreme heat and pressure along with a tremendous explosion are not conducive to the generation of life. These forces, individually destructive, would, combined, be catastrophic and would eliminate all possibilities for survival of any type of life or life forming elements.
Apart from the human incomprehension of how all matter in the universe could possibly be compressed into an object so small, the question remains where did the concentrated mass come from?
And so , belief in a young earth is not, like evos belief, a blind belief in a fairy tale to accommodate atheistic dogma.
Much ado has been made on my statements that it is impossible to provide all scientific evidence for creation in a blog. Of course, this is misconstrued to mean that such evidence does not exist. Another common and ignorant ploy. Why don't you accept the challenge, get all your evo heads together and submit all substantive evidence proving evolution in a blog. Let's put the shoe on the other foot!
And then, Martin M, in his brilliant statement, claims that in others of my blogs, I have lost all debates. Which have I lost? Be specific and who is the judge and jury to have decided on who won or lost? Are you the guru with this power?
Although I enjoy blogging with intelligent, open minded folks, this is becoming tedious in having to endure the same nonsense over and over again of deceit, denials and broad unsubstantiated accusations. If this is the extent of your abilities, give it up as you only weaken your cause.
It would be so refreshing to discuss intelligently individual aspects of both concepts and learn from each other's perspectives. These blogs get stupider by the moment.
More precisely, all matter in the observable Universe was concentrated in a volume considerably smaller than a period on a page.
Wrong. No spinning involved. That's something Kent Hovind just made up out of thin air.
Well, there was nothing alive, was there?
No, the Universe expanded as a whole.
You're missing out almost all of the important details. You talk as if all celestial bodies were formed right away. The early Universe basically consisted of Hydrogen, Helium and small quantities of other light elements. From those, the first stars formed, and nuclear fusion within those stars led to the formation of heavier elements. It wasn't until the first generation of stars died that heavier elements were available for planetary formation. Our Sun is a third generation star, about 4.5 billion years old. We're relative newcomers here.
Wrong. It states that, absent external torques, the total angular momentum of a system is conserved. Bodies in space exert torques on one another through gravity and collisions, and so are able to exchange angular momentum.
This is all just stunningly wrong. Stand up, turn around, and sit back down. Were your version of physics correct, you wouldn't have been able to do so. You were able to do so because you exerted a torque with your feet, allowing you to change your angular momentum. And the planets can have their angular momentum changed too, so long as the total is conserved in any interaction.
This is high school physics you're getting totally wrong, incidentally.
And, as I told you last time we discussed this, nothing in modern science requires the Earth and the Moon to be of identical compositions, or of identical age.
Wow, you really do think that all matter in the Universe was present at the Big Bang in its current form. No. Matter can change from one form to another. This we call physics and chemistry.
No, it doesn't. Neither Sun nor Earth were formed immediately after the Big Bang. You're arguing against your own misconception of what modern science states.
And you're doing so because you haven't taken the time to study what modern science states for yourself. You've just swallowed the creationist version hook, line and sinker and are content to repeat it without actually understanding it.
What? You haven't demonstrated this at all! Even if everything else you've said up until this point were exactly correct, it would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of YEC. You can't show that the Earth is young by showing that some arguments for an old Earth are bad. You don't get to claim victory by default. You need positive evidence for a young Earth. You've presented none.
I was specific. I linked to one example.
Creationists really have no sense of irony, do they?
Martin M., There should be a subsidiary of the National Center for Science Education (what an oxymoron that is)called the "Big Broom, Lumpy Rug" Society. It would gather all the denials, fraud, lies, deceits, gaps and other strongholds of evolution into one central repository. This cesspool of misinformation could have its own "peer reviewed" magazine and would provide some continuity so that evos could start getting their act together instead of having people like you spew your own brand of fraud and deceit. This is my last blog. Keep on evoluting!
Ah, what a surprise. You're a liar and a coward, Ronald, and you know it.
MartinM, Congratulations with your phenomenal exhibition of your mastery of the fine art of denial. If it doesn't fit your delusion, then it's a simple matter to just deny it! I was fully expecting that as you were exhibiting your severe frustration that it was only a matter of time before using the usual, predictable evol tactic of name calling. And sure enough, there it is, showing your ignorance to the world in print. When all else fails, attack the character of the individual. While cathartic, it shows what you are made of but why should anything more be expected of someone descended from apes??
Congratulations with your phenomenal exhibition of your mastery of the fine art of denial.
no, no - it's congratulations to YOU Ron, for your excellent example of projection.
Holy crap. I put three links to Talk.Origins in a post and it gets held for review - and THAT gets through?!?
Martin,M, True to your kind and predictable of evols, you came through with flying colors. More name calling and denials, denials, denials. You have no shame in just declaring every statement to be wrong as if this changes anything. The Big Broom and Lumpy Rug are at it again.
By the way, if all objects in space are spinning, they must have to do so in compliance with the law of angular momentum, not Kent Hovind. Are you one of the aliens that are claimed to have had a part in evol? You can't be from this one!
Even outside of countries where creationist science teachers can be found, it would be great. Much of what I was taught in biology at school was 50 years out of date. Not 30, not 40, 50. At least.
(This is, unsurprisingly, totally different to what happens in the universities. In molecular biology at least, the professors put stuff into their lectures that was published the semester before.)
Over here, biology schoolbooks are good learning tools and amazingly bad reference works. That's because they, too, are several decades out of date and invariably written by school teachers -- often failed ones (as in "those that can't, teach").
I do hope he mentions that in his lectures.
You see, you're intitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts... To be a creationist requires 1) ignorance about facts and 2) ignorance about the scientific method. You cannot "complete[...] satisfactorily all the course work, testing, student teaching etc." if you are ignorant about all that. It's simply not feasible.
By making the government do its duty of ensuring that everyone has the right to good education. In other words, by abolishing the micro-local school boards. Do they exist anywhere outside the USA?
Just lurking to see who posted what on an eleven month old thread ^. Discovered that Ronald Cote is a fucktard.