Get Schooled

By jim d

May 13, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Laura,

We might try teaching science!

Not too long ago people were wanting to place labels on science books here in Ga,. Around the country even today there is much controversy about what should be taught as science.

I Personally believe that until we are able to distinguish the difference between faith and science we will struggle to get kids excited about either.

By Camille

May 13, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

I think that one of the biggest things is to get them interested and keep their interest at a young age. My oldest son is age 10. His love of science began at around 2 with his fascination with dinosaurs, which expanded to animals and nature, and now to science in general. However, when he was in public school, there wasn’t really much being taught with regards to science that allowed this interest to really grow. With this current school year he has been at a private school. I noticed that within the first month, he had become extremely excited about his science class. Well, then I met his teacher. He is a young gentleman that is sort of on the hyper side, but he has a passion for science that gets the kids excited about what they are learning. Because of this interaction and experience, my son has decided that he wants to be scientist when he’s older. This, I think, is what is missing at the elementary level of public schools. At the public school that my son was attending, there were no science projects, lab experiments, museum field trips, or even the capability of just going outside to view things in their natural surroundings. It’s possible that my son could have received a similar experience during the middle or high school years, but I think that creating a love of science (or whatever other field) at a young age allows for better possibilities.

And, before anyone asks, yes, I do take him to science museums, the zoo, aquarium, etc., those places that I know will expand upon this interest. So, I am doing my part as a parent to feed into his interests. However, science was definitely not my strongest subject in school, so this is where I need the educational system to assist me in helping him to reach his goals. And, my post is definitely not an attempt to start a private vs public school debate, I just wanted to point out the differences as I have experienced them.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

jim:

Intelligent Design is as valid science as Darwinian Evolution, and Darwinian Evolution is just as much a religion as Christianity.

By mad_russian

May 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this

To be simple, allow us to teach science without wanting to play with every aspect that makes us uncomfortable. Ninety-nine percent of people who deny evolution can’t even define it correctly.

Next, provide the necessary funding to allow science teachers (such as myself) the ability to purchase and develop science programs that students will enjoy. Science is a hands-on subject, not a lecture-only subject. Luckily, grants have helped to develop a decent hands-on curriculum (I still spend about $1500 per year of my own money) and working as a fellow at Ga. Tech has helped me to develop more effective lessons.

Finally, have some courage and do away with standardized testing to determine achievement. Teaching to a test is just a bad idea.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

Laura:

One issue is that for the past couple of decades, the “Creative” side of the brain has been rammed down everyone’s throats, while the “Logic” side of the brain has gotten very little attention in K-12 academia.

Guess which one a scientist needs more of?

By lyncoln

May 13, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

I would say ditch the ‘cookie cutter’ type of lab experiments.

I know that isn’t practical because it’s an enormous burden on the teachers, but that’s what I would prefer. Science labs from K-12 followed the routine of: reading directions, following directions, seeing if my results were the same as the expected results, affirming that chemistry/physics/whatever actually did exactly what it was supposed to.

It was boring. Of course the acid will register an acidic pH. If it didn’t I’d be terrified that the universe was coming to an end.

Unfortunately many of the labs in college were the same way. Follow the instructions, measure the results and discover that (gasp!) the results were exactly the same as the results everyone else got.

My favorite lab class was the first digital design lab for electronic circuits at GaTech. First you did cookie cutter stuff to explain how a basic circuit functioned. Then you were tasked with using everything you knew to build a more complex circuit that would require a use of the basic circuit you just learned about and probably stuff you learned every previous week that semester. It was the most satisfying science lab I ever took because I actually got to think for myself and do something. Not just reaffirm the fact that I can follow directions.

By Lisa B.

May 13, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Education these days is driven by “the Test.” In primary school, the focus is reading, because 3rd graders must pass the reading CRCT to be promoted. After that math joins reading as significant, because 5th and 8th graders must pass both reading and math to be promoted. Whether or not schools make AYP depends on reading a math scores, not Science. Science is very important, but one can’t blame schools for focusing all their energy on what it takes to make AYP. The federal government dictated this. Schools are just trying hop through the hoops.

By jim d

May 13, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

And to be quite frank, I realize that nothing I say on this topic will persuade anyone to my thinking on the subject nor will anything you say change how someone else thinks.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Jeff, please tell me your ID comment was sarcastic. Please? PLEASE?!?!

By hsteach

May 13, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

“Intelligent Design is as valid science as Darwinian Evolution”

I used to chuckle at your posts. Now I just shake my head. You come across as a complete idiot. I know the folks where you used to teach are glad that they sent you packing. You have heard of the scientific method haven’t you?

By jim d

May 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately hsteach, too many people believe that miracles serve as evidence of God’s existence. (ID)

I prefer to follow Einsteins belief that “it is the absence of miracles that reflects divine providence.” “The fact that the world is comprehensible, that it follows laws, is worthy of awe.”

Science to me is simply the study of those laws. It attempts to neither prove or disprove the existance of a devine power. For it can not, but then neither can faith.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this

Back to the topic at hand, here in the real world, science is hard. I would argue that reading and math skills are as important if not more important than rote knowledge of science.

To be a successful scientist, you have to be able to read the scientific literature, comprehend it and think critically about it. This means realizing that no experiment is perfect, there are alternate explanations and that all journals are not created equal.

You also have to have “good hands” to be a good bench scientist. You have to know the literature to understand the questions you’re asking, how to address them, and what your experimental results mean. You also have to be physically able to do the experiments, which, believe me, can involve a great deal of finesse (and sometimes voodoo, prayers and large amounts of cursing).

Finally, you have to be able to interpret your results, generate models to explain them, and write up your data in a way that other scientists can understand it and see the value of it.

So science is hard. It can be even harder if you’re female. There’s still a LOT of gender bias.

But if you really love it, it’s SO much fun and every day is an adventure. I think that’s what we’re failing to convey to students. Kids need to see that science is really cool and really exciting. There’s controversy and arguments and every day is something new.

By HS Teacher Too

May 13, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

LJ and Lyncoln, do you think some of the problems you discuss would be alleviated by ability grouping for science classes? I am embarassed to say that I don’t know if they do that now (tech, CP, etc.) other than to segregate the AP classes from the non-AP.

Not to play an old tune, but my high school had a hybrid model traditional and block schedule day. We had 8 class periods, but certain sujects met for two back-to-back periods every other day. That meant that science classes could get in a full 90-minute lab pretty regularly (and indeed, we did labs ALL the time). (Side note: It wasn’t just science classes that benefitted from the double-periods; other subjects did as well — and half-year courses would meet every other day for the full year, so something like phys. ed. meant you were at least theoretically active for the full year.)

It boils back down to the dumbing down of the Georgia curriculum, bowing to the “we have no tech classes” mentality, the mile-wide, inch-deep curriculua we offer, the self-esteem-over-acurate-grading, the parental (sorry, jim d, but it’s not all parents) over-involvement harassing teachers for higher grades, the motivation for the previous that stems from the HOPE … there are so many reasons for the lack of rigor in today’s schools, but here is another place we may lament its absence.

By catlady

May 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Laura can you find out if the CRCT results (the initial, fail list) is released all at once or in bits and pieces by county? A neighboring county gave them to teachers yesterday, but my county says they have not gotten the results….

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

This year, I taught an exchange student from Germany. I also taught a student whose family moved here from Vietnam. In addition, I have taught students from India, from parts of Europe, etc.

I have asked them what’s the difference between how science is taught there vs. how it is taught in the US. They all respond the same.

They say that in their Country, science is taught always by lecture. They do not have any demonstrations or labs or “hands on” anything.

In the US, we try to make science “fun” and for some reason have been lead to believe that “hands on” makes learning better.

However, the US always gets beat out on science scores compared to other parts of the world that does nothing but lecture about science.

What does this tell you?

By jim d

May 13, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

HS teach too

” parental over-involvement”

that may be an evolutionary thing!

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Someone care to explain how DE is NOT a religion?

Hint:

Definition of dogma: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b: a code of such tenets c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

Care to explain how genetic mutation causes a LOSS of information, or how genetic mutations generally result in crippling or even killing the organism?

DE has holes you could fit entire STARS in, and yet it is clinged to with a dogmatic fervor that is normally associated only with Islamic terrorists.

By jim d

May 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

OH MY Jeff!!

I’m afraid you left yourself wide open on this one. LOL

“Care to explain how genetic mutation causes a LOSS of information,”

By sciteach

May 13, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

I am a SCIENCE teacher with a master’s degree in science ed and I occasionally read this blog… Yesterday, I made a comment not realizing that someone regularly uses the extremely original name “teach”- I am not, however, the person that people accused of trying to ruin your stupid blog by stealing other people’s names… The point I was trying to make, I will repeat: The same handful of people are on here everyday griping about the same issues over and over for hours at a time. If any of you were actually teachers, you wouldn’t have the free time to sit online b#tching all day! If you are a teacher- GET BACK TO WORK! Have any of you ever tried to get off your arss and tutor a child or volunteer at your local school!!??!!?? You people really do suck! Sitting around complaining, trying to sound intellectual like you have all the answers as you hide behind your computer screen- meanwhile none of you are doing a single thing to actually help the situation. GET A FREAKING LIFE, PEOPLE!! Now, I’m going back to making science cool for my students as I have for the past 10 years with no help from you, LOSERS!!

By lyncoln

May 13, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

HSTToo:

Yes, I do think that grouping by ability would have some benefit in science. When I worked my way through my Gwinnett HS, I took Honors Bio, Chem, Physics, and Bio II.

I don’t think I had an option for Honors Chem or Honors Physics. In both of the regular level classes the instruction felt slow. I do think that an ‘honors physics’ or ‘honors chemistry’ would have been nice.

Would it had made science more interesting for me? Only if I got to think about the science during class. I don’t take much joy in just memorizing things. I enjoy doing critical thinking and drawing my own conclusions at least some of the time. It’s the application of knowledge that I find most enjoyable.

And a hearty ‘AMEN’ to block schedules. I only wish I could have had 90 minute labs during HS. 50 minutes isn’t enough time to do any interesting science IMO.

Justme:

Yes, international students do test better on knowledge based tests in science (and math and other subjects). The policy question about how to direct science instruction would be, “Which is better: having lots of science knowledge of having hands on experience?” I don’t know the answer, and the answer might be different for someone who wants to be a research scientist vs. someone who will work in an office job away from ‘science’.

I think that science teachers (and other subject teachers) are somewhat forced to make a subject ‘fun’ because of students who arrive at the school not interested in learning and lacking parental guidance pointing that learning is a very important thing for the student. I’m sure that in some schools science could be made as lecture because the students are already dedicated to learning. In other schools a lecture only approach would result in little change because the students don’t care what the teacher says.

For me personally, I would have had more fun actually doing science than merely remembering facts from year to year.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

However, the US always gets beat out on science scores.

I know its not politically correct but that is due to the number of black kids in public schools. Like Set would say “brave new world.”

By local student

May 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

Kids aren’t interested in science because they have such poor reasoning skills. I am amazed at the number of people who can’t follow or explain a rational line of thinking. Ironically, the popularity of blogs like this one is proof. Take a look at the number of folks who vomit out opinions with no basis or thought. It’s just “what they think.” Adults in this country are scientifically illiterate (and proud of it) so why would kids be different?

Someone care to explain how DE is NOT a religion?

Well, at least Jeff is trying to explain himself, even if it is in connection to voodoo like intelligent design. DE seems to be shorthand for Darwinian evolution, which is a buzzword for creationists, not a real science. The concept of genetic variation or natural selection is easily testible. I can breed fruit flies for three weeks and get proof of these concepts myself. However, praying to Jesus to mutate a dog doesn’t provide much evidence for creationism.

If someone shows a testable hypothesis or good evidence for creationism, then they’ll have a start. Phony human/dinosaur footprints don’t count, neither do endless silly attacks on evolution. Creationism is dogma by definition, since it requires acceptance of an untestable concept at the core.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

I do think ability grouping is necessary at the very least for chemistry and physics. There’s too much math involved in both of those subjects to mix kids that can’t handle algebra with those taking AP calc. But that’s just my opinion.

Jeff, just because there’s dogma doesn’t mean that evolution is a religion. Science is based on dogma. Is all of science a religion? You have any peer reviewed research you’d like to cite about ID? And nothing from the Discovery Institute or published in a journal created for the sole purpose of publishing creationist literature is acceptable. And really, “Care to explain how genetic mutation causes a LOSS of information, or how genetic mutations generally result in crippling or even killing the organism?” Ever heard of a deletion? How about a null mutation? Not sure what you mean by the second part. Not sure if you have a point at all. Shrug.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

I either have amnesia or a future me somehow managed to time travel back to 11:47 today and post.

Either way, the 11:47 was not me as I currently know me to exist.

By HS Teacher Too

May 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

I believe the proper spelling is “arse.”

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

lyncoln - But, you partially miss my point. It seems that in other Countries, they don’t even attempt to make science “fun” or any part of school “fun.” It is considered to be more like a job - something that must be done for the benefit of that person (the student). The burden is on the student to learn the material. If the student doesn’t learn, it is the student’s fault.

In the US, things are exactly opposite. The burden is on the teacher. The teacher is expected to make school “fun”. If the student doesn’t learn, it is the teacher’s fault. Teachers put in extra effort and time to try and make “fun” lessons. Students seem to put in less time to learn.

Isn’t school supposed to be where the students do the work? Just a thought.

By high school teacher

May 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Any workout guru will tell you that if you want to have six pack abs, doing 500 crunches each night sn’t going to do the trick; you have to develop the muscles surounding your abs, you have to increase the strength of your back and legs, and you have to do cardio to accompany the strength training.

Similarly, kids won’t perform well in science if they are deficient in math and reading skills. We can’t focus on science alone; the entire curriculum needs an overhaul.

International students compete for their privilege to have an education, which is why they take their schooling so seriously. Comparing our kids to those from other countries is apples and oranges.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

LJ:

Quite simply, real-world mutations are NOT the kind of thing you see in the Marvel Universe (X-Men, etc). The Marvel Universe kind result in information GAINED, and some kind of power expressed. The real world kind result in information LOST, and generally the organism is weakened somehow or killed outright. Take, for example, various things that have been linked to genetic mutations in humans: Down’s Syndrome. Cerebral Palsy. Even - though the science isn’t as clear on these - autism, drug dependencies, and obesity. ALL result in weakening the human, some to the point that the human in question will NEVER participate fully in society. Also, take the example of some of my cousins: Born with multiple birth defects (genetic mutations), without the prominence of modern medicine, two of them in particular would have died within days of being born had they been born even 20 years earlier.

Quite simply, you do not see a genetic mutation that would take two people that can barely walk and have them produce a child that is genetically gifted to run so fast that he sets the world record for 1 mile in under THREE minutes before his 18th birthday. Instead, a genetic mutation in this scenario is MUCH more likely to result in a child that cannot walk at all.

Now, getting back on topic:

As I said earlier, schools today empasize the very things that are the ANTITHESIS of producing scientists. They emphasize creativity over logic, self indulgence over patience, rewarding “effort” over results, and passing a child on through the grades without ever forcing them to learn a single fact.

Get back to the schools of the late 50s/early 60s, and you’ll see quite a few new Homer Hickams arise…

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

local student:

Creationism is dogma by definition, since it requires acceptance of an untestable concept at the core.

Substitute “Evolution” for “Creationism” and you have an equally true statement.

As I said earlier, ID and DE are just as valid as one another, and DE is just as much a religion as Christianity.

Problem is, DE is a religion that the schools are allowed to teach - even though the First Ammendment specifically prohibits this.

And my general point being this: Science does not have the tools to accurately determine which of the two theories is what ACTUALLY happened. Therefore, to be objective one must study and teach BOTH.

I’ve personally got ZERO problems teaching DE, AS LONG AS you spend equal time and fervor teaching ID.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Jeff, Downs is caused by a meiotic non-dysjuntion even, and thus is not a mutation per se but is rather a failure of chromosomal segregation. Cerebral palsy is also not typically genetic in origin. Sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about on either count.

Gain of function mutations do indeed occur. This is a well documented phenomenon. Nobody in their right mind would predict a gain of function mutation to turn someone into a superhero, but it could allow resistance to say certain infections for example, resulting in a more fit individual. Obviously, most genetic mutations that we’re aware of are ones that have negative consequences. Obvious phenotypes are easy to quantify.

Back on topic, not every student can be a good student. Some kids just aren’t very bright (as measured by academic achievement). Some kids are really good at the more traditional tech track type jobs. I think it’s unfortunate that we try to pigeonhole every single student into the CP track. That’s a lot of the problem, IMO.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Okay, Jeff, sure, but the difference is there’s a massive peer reviewed literature about evolution and nothing even close to legit for ID. Teaching ID would be teaching dogma, yes, but not science. Unless you’re prepared to offer up some references, which somehow I doubt, since they don’t exist.

Do you at least accept microevolution? Because that’s something that you can easily demonstrate in a high school science class.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

LJ:

References: See Ben Stein’s No Intelligence Allowed.

Micro-evolution was never in question. That organisms adapt to their environments is beyond contestation.

The question arises over whether an organism can ever become a completely different organism.

As in: We know that we can take a desert fly, put it in an extremely cold environment, and eventually it will adapt to the cold environment. This adaptation may even be considered a different species of fly. But the organism in question will still be a fly. Not a butterfly. Not a spider. Not a hamster. Not a snake. Not a frog. A fly.

Show me a fly that can become a monkey, and you have a case for DE.

By jim d

May 13, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

Ben Stein’s No Intelligence Allowed???????????? LOLROTFFLMGDAO I’ll bet even God himself is smiling a bit aat that one

You gotta be kidding jeff,

consider this:

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses. Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

By local student

May 13, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

Substitute “Evolution” for “Creationism” and you have an equally true statement.

No, Jeff, we can test/observe genetic drift and natural selection. We can’t test/observe “Big Thing Waves Magic Wand And Makes Stuff.”

BTW, what exactly is your definition of evolution? You seem to have a rather—how can I put this politely?—-loose grasp of biology, as you incorporate movies based on Marvel Comics into the science.

And I’m curious as to your response, if you have any, to LJ’s question.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Oh yes, reference an incredibly sketchy “documentary” made by Ben Stein, that by most accounts was terrible. High quality, Jeff. Have you heard about the copyright infrigement issues, deceptive interviewing of scientists and kicking people out of screenings for no apparent reason? If you want to be taken seriously (by me, at least), you’re going to need some peer reviewed studies. That’s just how real science works. Give me a few million years and I’ll work on that fly to monkey thing. What evidence do you have?

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

LJ:

Also note that at one time there was “massive peer reviewed literature” proclaiming that the Earth is the center of the universe, that the Earth is flat, etc.

As in other situations, just because something is popular does not mean it is correct.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

By the way, Jeff, speciation has been extensively described in the scientific literature. I can provide references if you’d like.

Back on topic, science education is difficult because the vast majority of science teachers don’t have an adequate grasp on the way real science works. They can teach the facts adequately, I’m sure, but that typically doesn’t convey the joy of discovery that comes with real bench work. Science isn’t all about memorizing facts. It’s about figuring things out.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

But the peer reviewed literature is based upon the best evidence of the time. Science is not a faith based system. It’s based on what we can observe, which changes and improves over time. I guess you’re still trying to say that you have no evidence?

By JeremiahWright

May 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Why make it cool? It wasn’t cool when I was in school, but I aced it anyway. If you don’t learn it, you fail, whether it’s cool or not. That’s what our school systems and politicians need to say. Quit making excuses.

By HB

May 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I would argue that both creativity and logic are vital to science, as are both effort and results. The idea that any of these are mutually exclusive or even outweigh the others is ridiculous. Creative thought leading to new hypotheses and new ways of thinking about evidence already before us is vital to scientific discovery. So is effort. Often, science is about experimenting with something that fails, learning from the experience, and trying again to get better results.

As for hands-on science, I believe there is a misconception here that its primary purpose is to make learning “fun”. Some demonstrations do have a big, fun “wow” ending — great. Hands-on science activities, though, are really more about the practical application of the scientific method. Students need to have opportunities to develop a hypothesis, design ways to test it, and record and interpret results. Science knowledge is not just about learning pre-established facts. It’s also about learning work through problems scientifically. Fun is just a nice by-product, much like a cynical student being surprised when he/she actually enjoys reading Julius Caesar or A Tale of Two Cities :). Both lecture to learn content and hands-on activities are important to establishing a good, working knowledge and understanding of science.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

LJ:

I’ve already said that speciation - microevolution - is beyond contestation.

HOWEVER, show me a single case of one organism EVER becoming a completly different organism, such as a single cell virus becoming a tapeworm.

Heck, I’d be satisfied if you could prove that random chemicals could somehow combine to form a living organism, since that is at the heart of the question in the first place.

By john

May 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

Where to start with Jeff?

How can you argue with someone whom believes a 900 year old man built a boat that housed two of all animal species in the world?

Jeff has already made up his mind and won’t be swayed by any facts. He prefers the simplicity of thousand year old dogmas since it is much easier than understanding science. Religion is easy, science is hard.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

So Jeff are you suggesting that evolution says a single organism can become an entirely different organism without a reproductive generation? That is not a postulate of any type of evolution I’ve ever heard of. By speciation in my previous post I meant the generation of a new and distinct species, which by necessity involves reproduction. You still haven’t provided any evidence for your side…

By Scholar

May 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Science is cool. If I could turn back the clock I would want to become a research scientist. Think of all the amazing things from nano-technology to custom growing replacement organs that scientists get to dream up. I hope kids realize that scientists wield a lot of power to better people’s lives while securing a great life of their own.

By JeremiahWright

May 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Easy sciteach. I’m afraid for our kids. You sound very angry about your lot in life. Everyone’s frustrated, you know.

Be sure to pass the black young’uns, no matter how they do!

By jim d

May 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

This isn’t jim d, but this is a test to see if I can post his name, along with a bogus email address that I made up in 5 seconds, and have the post show on the blog. I am growing weary of the trolls, so I thought I could contribute to finding a solution to the problem. high school teacher :)

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

LJ:

Actually, the founding tenet of evolution, the N(1) case when talking in terms of mathematical deduction, says that at some point in the distant past there existed a ‘primordial ooze’ of random chemicals. These random chemicals eventually somehow managed to form biologic proteins, and these proteins somehow managed to eventually form single celled living organisms. These single celled organisms eventually became more and more complex and resulted in all life we know - both plant and animal.

So I say take every chemical known to man and put them in a giant tub. Prove that you can even get a single protein in that tub. Do that, and you’ve proven DE. If you cannot, CLEARLY DE is flawed. If DE is flawed, it is not absolute. If DE is not absolute, a new theory must be developed. And another one already has: ID.

Therefore, why would one even consider pushing as Truth an idea that has proven to be flawed? Would it not make more sense to admit “Neither of these theories is Truth, but each represents the best we currently have. Study both.”

By Randolph County Admin.

May 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Don’t get too riled up about Jeff. He didn’t work well with adults, spent his time “surfing the net” instead of teaching, and couldn’t control his classroom. These are the main reasons he was pulled out of the classroom. Looking at a couple of these blogs I see that some things never change.

By local student

May 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

Jeff, a virus is not a cell, nor is it generally considered to be an organism.

Abiogenesis, (how life got here) is a whole different matter.

Please, continue to demonstrate scientific illiteracy at a shocking rate. It’s the best way to convince people creationism is based on absolutely nothing. Heck, I’d be satisfied if you could prove that god made everything just like it is, since that’s at the heart of the matter.

I breathlessly await such proof. That’s right PROOF of your assertions, not rambling demands of bizarre transformations you think are needed to prove evolution.

By the real jim d

May 13, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

“This isn’t jim d, but this is a test to see if I can post his name, along with a bogus email address that I made up in 5 seconds, and have the post show on the blog. I am growing weary of the trolls, so I thought I could contribute to finding a solution to the problem. high school teacher :)”

Then get back to work you lazy knucklehead!

By jim d

May 13, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

May 13, 2008 2:09 PM

May 13, 2008 2:19 PM

Both bogus.

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Randolph County Admin:

A) I highly doubt you are from Randolph. Most of those people have no idea what the AJC is, much less how to access this website.

B) Care to explain Bobby Jenkins’ overt racism in never questioning why black students were allowed to randomly assault white school employees with no repercussions to anyone other than the assaulted?

By high school teacher

May 13, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

Jimd,

I was the 2:09 post. I typed your name and a bogus email address, and the post went through. Obviously, AJC.com needs some work on its filter.

I quickly figured out that you weren’t the one to reply to me at 2:19. Though we might disagree on some issues, I don’t think that you would ever call me a “lazy knucklehead.” :)

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this

I really hate to jump into this part of the discussion, especially because it really has nothing to do with the blog at hand, but….

If you do “buy into” micro evolution, then by logic you must also “buy into” macro evolution. After all, if you were to consider many micro evolution steps in a row, doesn’t that result in macro evolution?

IMHO, Stein and company are selling voodoo science.

By gwinnett educator

May 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

I agree that AJC needs some work on its filter. I used to love reading the blogs (whether I posted or not) but the past few days have been quite difficult.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Jeff, are you just copying out of the creationist playbook? The initial macromolecule is thought to be RNA, not protein. RNA can catalyze its own replication and cleave itself in the absence of protein, making it a much more likely candidate. Evolution is a theory applied to living things. Thus, in the absence of life, it has no relevance. Abiogenesis cannot be proven, as it presumably took more than a day or two and the exact conditions are unknown. That doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur or that some omnipotent being made it so. Even if you want to go down that route, in both creation accounts, the animals predated the humans.

By JeremiahWright

May 13, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

What if we’re all correct? What if God created the universe, and then everything evolved from there? How come no one ever mentions that?

By LJ

May 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

high school teacher, we like to call it propaganda!

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this

Jeremiah:

Actually, that is the theory that I personally subscribe to, which is why I urge the teaching of BOTH DE AND ID.

To everyone:

Note that only those who are proponents of DE have been pushing a SINGLE viewpoint today. I have maintained all along that both DE and ID have holes, and therefore NEITHER should be taught exclusively. Quite simply, science does not presently have the ability to come up with a theory that DOESN’T have holes, and because of this a truly open scientific mind will explore ALL plausible scenarios.

By JeremiahWright

May 13, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

Yes, I believe both should be taught too.

And white people should serve black people!

By LJ

May 13, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Jeff, the problem I have with your last post is that there is scientific evidence supporting evolution. There is none for ID. That is the problem with teaching both. ID can’t be studied using the scientific method. Therefore it has no place in a science curriculum. You say that ID has holes. Does it have any substance? Or is it one big hole?

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I agree that science needs to investigate all plausible scenarios. However, that does not apply to scenarios based on faith. Science is not faith. Religon is faith.

The nature of science is such that we know what we understand to be true - not what we have faith in. Can science be wrong? Of course it can! As we learn more things (through technolgy or whatever) what we understand to be true can most certainly change and/or be modified.

To have faith, you need no evidence. To have faith, you don’t need to understand.

Creationism is based on faith. Faith that there is a supreme being that created each creature, etc. exactly the way it is and things don’t change. If that is your faith, fine. But, it is not science.

We should not confuse or mix the two very separate ways of knowing - faith and science. Teach faith in Church. Teach science in school.

By lyncoln

May 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this

Justme:

I think you might have misunderstood me as well.

I completely agree that the students’ job is to learn at school. As is so often pointed out, more and more students enter school without this fundamental understanding. And that’s why I made my statement that teachers are forced to make their teaching more ‘fun’. I’m not saying that teachers should make every lesson a song and dance number. I’m saying that they have been forced to adapt their work habits to reflect the incoming students and to try and maintain the same level of achievement from year to year.

I would disagree with someone who says teachers should figure out some way to make a subject even more ‘fun’. That’s merely society trying to skip the “school is your job. you must learn” lesson. I personally think the ‘fun’ limit has been reached as far as teaching goes.

I agree with HB on the practical side of hands-on experiments in science. If you want a research scientist, pure knowledge is not the most important thing. You want creativity coupled with an amount of knowledge to produce new and untested ideas and theories. Knowing how to test an idea is something that is poorly taught as lecture topic. That information is better taught through hands on experiment practice.

Unfortunately, some many experiments I did in 50 minute HS classes were: Measure A, Measure B, combine A and B. Notice how A and B turn into C. Measure C to prove that it is C. If it measures incorrectly then you didn’t add A and B together properly.

There was no formation of a hypothesis. There was no unknown. There wasn’t any time spent trying to determine how to combine A and B. Any errors could be attributed to either faulty ingredients or error by the student in following directions.

That’s why I had the other statement that there’s a major policy decision needed when choosing a type of science education.

Are you trying to teach budding research scientists? You probably want to give them hands-on experiments to practice with.

Are you trying to provide the general population with general knowledge about science (like what air is and the basics of electricity)? They you want lectures including facts and the interconnection of facts with each other.

By JeremiahWright

May 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

LJ

The context is “Some people believe in ID and this is how it works.” You don’t state it as fact, just as with ED. You don’t mock and deride. You present both sides. There is a significant number of people on the ID side after all, and kids will encounter them. It’s important they know what ID is all about.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this

JeremiahWright, as I’ve stated numerous times, the problem with ID is that there is no empirical evidence to support such a system of beliefs. I’ve also stated previously that ID can’t be studied using the scientific method. Therefore, what place does it have in the science curriculum?

By Jeff

May 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

LJ:

Finally had a chance today to (briefly) do a Google on “Intelligent Design”.

Here is one of the most objective sites I’ve found on the subject. (the fourth result returned from Google).

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this

lyncoln: For someone to do real cutting edge science, it takes 99.9% of the population more than even a bachelor’s degree. IMHO, during k-12, we need to impart the most basics of science. We should not expect them to be little Newtons or Einsteins.

Do they need to know science facts in k-12? Yes. Do they need to understand how science works in k-12? Yes. Must they do “hands on” experiments to accomplish those? No.

As I mentioned there are MANY Countries around the world that teach science in k-12 without any sort of thing - no labs, no demonstrations, no “hands on activities.” In those Countries, they have great scientists (some would say better than the US) that learned the basics in k-12 and then went to college to learn ‘the rest of the story.’

So then, what is REALLY accomplished in the US when we are forced to do these “hands on” activities in science in k-12? Even you pointed out the reality - very little. Time is wasted doing cook book type experiments where the students learn nothing to very little - but they do have “fun.” If anything, students end up with a horribly wrong view of what science really is all about. They think (for example) that scientists go to work to accomplish step #3 of the scientific method.

I fully realize that turning around this Titanic of science education in the US is all but impossible. But, this is a blog and this is just my humble opinion.

By JeremiahWright

May 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Everyone should watch “No Intelligence Required” by Ben Stein (in theatres now) to get a different point of view.

By LJ

May 13, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Jeff, references to journals like the following: International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature British Journal for the Philosophy of Science are not considered legitimate scientific references. As I said before, creating “journals” to publish your work isn’t considered kosher in the scientific community. The Discovery Institute, while it has a lovely website, is not exactly overflowing with scientific data supporting ID.

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Jeff: You call your web site objective? It is anything but objective.

In the very first sentence, it states that intelligent design is, “a scientific research program.” Are you kidding me? It’s a program?

In the very second sentence, it states, the “theory of intelligent design…..” It’s a theory? Um, NO IT ISN’t. A real scientific theory must be one that is capable of testing. What type of test/experiment can you design to determine if there is a God? Please share!

Heck, in the real scientific community there is current debate that the “String Theory” may not be a real theory because no one can test it’s validity.

It was established in a court of law that ID was born out of creationism.

You web site is nothing more that voodoo science and propaganda. It tries to appear impartial by showing links to other sites, but the wording on the home page makes it more than clear its intention.

By HB

May 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

Sadly, lyncoln, the rushed labs with no time to form hypotheses or investigate error were what I experienced in school, so I agree, we need not only sufficient quantity of hands-on opportunities, but also sufficient quality. Not an easy fix with schedules, etc, but I think we need to work on it.

As for ID, Jeff, the problem isn’t so much that there’s no evidence as that there’s no scientific hypothesis (you know, a starting point?), let alone tested results. To be studied in science, at a minimum, we need a hypothesis that can be tested through observation. The idea that a higher being created the universe: 1) is not testable, and 2) not falsifiable. Therefore, the “theory” should not be presented as science. Rather, it is something to be believed or not, and personally, I believe God created evolution, but I’m not going to try to convince someone that is fact based on observation. It’s based on faith alone, so to each his own, but keep it out of the public school classroom, especially the science classroom!

By LJ

May 13, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

You all may also want to check out http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for a science based approach to things.

By lyncoln

May 13, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Justme:

Sure, research scientists are a very small percentage of the population. In a much broader scale, we do want engineers who can design a solution to much more mundane problems. Basic engineering, etc. are all science and require hands-on work and experimentation to be able to later apply knowledge to new problems.

I think that cookbook experiments aren’t fun. I think they’re dull and boring and waste my time. I find real experiments to be fun and enjoyable and a benefit to science. Ditch the 50 minute cookbook experiments and do some 90 minute - 2 hour real experiments.

I guess we’ll disagree on needing hands-on experince/experiments to understand science. I think it’s a requirement.

By jim d

May 13, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Intersting blog today. I couldn’t help but notice that many have touched on “Theistic evolution”. Another concept that I’d prefer not be taught as science. Think I prefer my religion be taught in church and that science be taught in our schools.

By Sammi

May 13, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this

*I agree with JustMe. In the US, we try to make science [and all subjects] “fun” and for some reason have been led to believe that “hands on” makes learning better As long as we contintue to have to ENTICE students….to make lessons FUN..we are going to come out with the short end of the stick. School was not meant to be FUN.

School is and should be WORK, Study, Effort,exertion…and there sometimes is satisfaction/fun that happens to come as a by product of the work and effort and concentration. As one Middle school Science teacher would often point out us, [her colleagues]: We are emphasizing this “HandsOn HYpe” because half of the students CANNOT read the Science text…much less understand it.n If we keep this up, our country will be sorely lacking in students who will pursue any science as a career, because they will not be able compete with those private school students and those from other countries whose science educations have been comprehensive.

By Lee

May 13, 2008 8:27 PM | Link to this

Playing Devil’s Advocate here (pardon the pun)…

If God created the Heaven and Earth, which includes the concept of Evolution of the species >>>>>

Where did God come from?

If there is no God, where did all the stuff that comprises the universe come from?

Ya’ll think on that a while. Makes my head hurt.

By Thank you sciteach

May 13, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Sciteach!

And the thing is:

1)Many have horrible grammar; 2)Many here are on school time; 3)Many are using classroom computers!

Poor students!

By Tony

May 13, 2008 9:49 PM | Link to this

What turns kids off to science? Many underqualified science teachers require too much memorization of nit-picking information. This stymies the idea of inquiry by declaring there is a set body of knowledge called “science” with only right and wrong answers. In early grades, teachers know so little about science and math that we are dangerously close to condemning students to scientific illiteracy such as has been demonstrated in the remarks of this blog today.

Much of “science” is also spanked out of children by the time they are five years old. Don’t touch that, don’t play in the water, don’t play in the mud, leave the rocks alone, that’s dirty put it down, … Exploring nature is one of the best ways to entice children to enjoy science because it is all around them!

Schools destroy the love of science, as I said, by turning the courses into regurgitation cesspools of meaningless factoids. Our high school graduation test for science, if fairly analyzed, would demonstrate our system’s penchant for factoids over understanding. For instance, biological knowledge that is tested requires students to know the phases of meitosis, the difference between angiosperms and gymnosperms, and other trivial details. The test includes trivial details from three major courses in the sciences, some of the details being covered in seventh grade. Teachers must spend time drilling constantly on these things rather than spending time on true knowledge building.

Teachers so devoted to the content they teach drive students away because they do not care about the students. They do not impart any life to the content they teach. They are only interest in disseminating the details of their own knowledge. This disconnected approach alienates students very quickly.

Last, the push to make everyone equal is killing our schools. Not everyone is headed to a career in science and requiring all students to take four sciences to graduate will further harm our students. Some students are headed towards literary careers, some to science, some to trades, some to arts and music, and still others to athletics. The one-size-fits-all answers pushed down from on high must stop, then we can begin to restore interest to what we teach.

By luvs2teach

May 13, 2008 10:14 PM | Link to this

Leaving science class out of it, and just looking at science as an area of interest, science suffers from a serious PR problem - an activity I alwasy do at the atrt of every year is ask my kids to draw a picture of a scientist. Invariably they draw a guy with glasses dressed in a lab coat - usually either bald or long, crazy hair.

Stereotype much?

Scientists are wacky, near-sighted, poorly dressed geeks…no wonder no one want to emulate them.

Science also doesn’t have the cachet of acting, music, or athletics - no million dollar scientists on TV since Carl Sagan (my personal hero when I was 12).

I wanted to be a scientist when I turned four and watched Neil Armstrong step on the moon. We haven’t had a great science moment since then - instead we have NASA blunders, ID vs evolution debates, and seemingly conflicting headlines ripped from recently published research. Where’s Samantha from Sex and the City when we need her?

Worst part - when a student (usually a girl) tells me she wants to be a veterinarian or a pediatrician, but then tells me she doesn’t like science!

By JustMe

May 13, 2008 11:06 PM | Link to this

Tony - I would disagree with your analysis. Not your point that much of science is memorizing facts, but that is what ‘turns kids off.’ I know many kids that love history. And, history is pratically not BUT memorizing facts.

So, just because a kid must memorize the parts of the atom, for example, this cannot be the reason kids may be ‘turned off’ of science!

Also, you tend to blame teachers (what a shock). Remember that teachers in GA are the lowest employees in the school system. We must do what the administration forces upon us. We really don’t have the liberty to be much creative at all with lessons. Frequently, we are told what to teach (GSP), how to teach it, and when to teach it.

If the burger maker at McDonalds is told they must make the burger a specific way, and that is what they do, how can you blame the burger maker if it tastes horrible?

This is what GA education has become! But, the general public still blames the burger maker (the teacher).

By jim d

May 14, 2008 7:11 AM | Link to this

JM,

No offense meant—your anology rings rather hollow though.

The burgers are made by a machine and The burger flippers don’t hold BA’s.(generally speaking)

The cookie cutter education comes from the helplessness that many teachers feel due to their constant “caving in” and lack of self esteem in many instances (not all).

I’ve been dealing with the same beaucracey for well over ten years to create change and totally believe that teachers must be the catalyst for change in education. Can the general public create change? You betcha, but I can tell you from first hand expierence that it is extremely slow and incremental. Largely, I believe, stemming from the fact that people in education largely think that John Q don’t know squat. If I’ve learned but one thing over the years, I’ve learned to listen to people that don’t know “thats the way its always been done”, sometimes they see innovative methods due to their lack of that knowledge.(a lesson perhaps that our school systems should adopt)

By jim d

May 14, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this

Lee,

Here’s an aspirn.

Where did God come from? He didn’t. He always was. So to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.

Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end — and/or no beginning. Since God has no beginning or end, He has no beginning. This is because He is outside of time.

Hope that clears up the mystery for you.

HAGD :-)

By Jeff

May 14, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

“Irreducible Complexity”.

Is half an eye useful?

Darwin himself acknowledged that if you can find such an “irreducibly complex” organism, his theory falls apart.

And that is EXACTLY what ID looks at.

Take, for example, the aforementioned eye: Is just a retina a helpful thing? Or just a cornea? Or just a pupil? What about a retina and cornea, but no pupil? Or a cornea and pupil, but no retina?

No, the eye MUST have come about all at once, and not as disjoint random mutations.

Therefore, the eye is irreducibly complex.

By LJ

May 14, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Hey Jeff, read “Darwin’s Black Box” by Behe? Don’t…it’s a load of crap. One of the arguments he makes similar to the one you just posted has to do with antibodies. Same argument, different system. Behe argues that antibodies are useless without the other components of the immune system. Quick history lesson: up until recently, it was thought that only jawed fish and higher organisms had adaptive immune systems (i.e. antibodies and T cells). However, work from Max Cooper (a national academy member and currently on faculty at Emory) has shown that jawless fish (lampreys) have an adaptive immune response analogous to that found in higher organisms, but consisting of entirely different protein fold and and effector molecule analogous to the antibody. His data suggests that the adaptive immune system is not irreducibly complex as described by Behe.

Regarding your particular example of the eye, just because the system as we currently know it would not function in the same way when reduced to it’s part doesn’t mean that those parts can’t serve similar or other functions independently. The short version is that simpler eyes exist that serve a similar function to the mammalian eye.

Irreducible complexity is an invalid argument for ID, and you still haven’t provided any legitimate scientific references. It is kind of amusing to watch you google and parrot, though.

By Tony

May 14, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

history is pratically not BUT memorizing facts. JM, I don’t know where you teach, but history is much more than memorizing facts. My best recollections of history class are the ones where analysis and comparison were the more important learning strategies. Facts can be found by using references. What we do with the facts is much more important. The same is true for science. I have taught science - physics and chemistry - throughout my career.

Yes, to some extent teachers are to blame for the lack of interest in science! As jim d frequently points out and something with which I agree, teachers are the key to turning around our educational system. It is our job as professionals to provide some inspiration to our students. However, teachers are not solely to blame. There are systemic issues as well. Allowing teachers to become certified to teach science without even holding a degree is at the heart of the systemic problem. The second systemic problem (as I stated) is with the curriculum and testing.

jim d - I am thoroughly impressed with your theological prowess!

By HB

May 14, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

I know many kids that love history. And, history is pratically not BUT memorizing facts.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a very long time. As a history major turned on to history in lower grades, I can tell you that memorizing facts had nothing to do with my interest. I was fortunate to have a middle school teacher who primarily used interactive and inquiry-based methods of teaching history. She really worked to put us back in time imagining what life might have been in ancient Mesopotamia, Renaissance Italy, and 19th-century Georgia. She also made sure to point out the importance of history in our current world. Much of what I know about the history of Middle East conflict came from her class. She encouraged inquiry, challenged us to use higher thinking, and made it fun, not with bells and whistles and games, but simply by making it interesting. Hers was also the class where I learned to take notes on a teacher’s lecture, so clearly, there is room for necessary lecture and memorization to build a base of knowledge, AND the more interesting stuff. When I moved on to high school history, I found classes that stressed memorization alone to be very dull, but was thrilled to hit AP U.S. History with its focus on significance and analysis.

Sadly, I never had science classes with time for real labs. They rarely showed where what we were learning apllied to real life. We really did just memorize — no inquiry-based learning. My college friends who majored in science, though, described such classes. Clearly, if we want kids to pursue science careers (and we should because we are short on American students entering these fields), we need to inspire them. And that’s not just for college-bound students. Good hands-on and inquiry-based science can inspire non-college students to pursue vocational careers — medical assistants, mechanics, contractors…

By HS Teacher Too