| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"human" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2006 05:48:26 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin Day |
Darwin Day 2006 is almost upon us. After you read the following, I hope
you will consider it important-even imperative-that you attend and support
Darwin Day 2006 in a community near you.
I have included links to make it easier for those who might want to read
more.
After recently reading a piece by Lawrence S. Lerner in the current issue
of FREETHOUGHT TODAY in which he addresses the sad state of science
education in the U.S., my interest was piqued. So, I googled for the
report titled The State of State Science Standards 2005 of the Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation, writtened by Paul R. Gross, Ursula Goodenough,
Lawrence S.
Lerner, Susan Haack, Martha Schwartz, Richard Schwartz, Chester E. Finn,
Jr.
[12/7/2005] to confirm that my state, Wisconsin, had earned an "F" in the
categories "Overall Grades" and "Grades on Treatment of Evolution."
(Detail about Wisconsin's situation begins on page 69 of the 75 page
Fordham report
http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/Science%20Standards.FinalFinal.pdf )
Lerner wrote: "The good news is the 19 states, where more than half of
American students go to school, have excellent or good (A or B) science
standards. Not so happily, 16 states scored mediocre to bad (C or D) and
15 states flunked (F)."
FLUNKED! Wisconsin FLUNKED!!!
The Fordham study indicated that, although Wisconsin rated 6 out of a
possible 6 in the category of "seriousness," our other less encouraging
marks include (and these numbers are copied right from the page 69 box
score):
Expectations, Purpose, Audience: 2.3 out of 12
Organization: 3.8 out of 9
Science Content and Approach: 6.5 out of 27
Quality: 0.5 out of 9
Inquiry: 1 out of 3
Evolution: 0 out of 3
Raw Score: 20.1 out of 69
Final Percentage Score: 29%
The report goes on with its succinct indictment of Wisconsin:
"The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards announce confidently that they
'set clear and specific goals for teaching and learning.' That was not the
judgment of our review. They are, in fact, generally vague and
nonspecific, very heavy in process, and so light in science discipline
content as to render them nearly useless-at least as a response to
problems for which state learning standards are supposed to be a remedy."
Another aspect of the report which appears potentially problematic to me
is "Advanced science courses are entirely of local design." That means
the scenario which transpired in Dover, PA may very well happen in
Wisconsin communities in with predominant fundamentalist and/or
evangelical influence, because (again in the words of the Fordham Report):
"Interpretation of all such 'standards' by teachers across an entire state
must inevitably range from the sublime to the ridiculous."
If this information doesn't make you want to don your Darwin Button and
join in the Darwin Day parade, I don't know what else I can say, but let
me try again, with just one more quote from the Fordham report:
"'Science' we are told in the Standards, follows a generally accepted set
of rules.' Would that we were told what those rules were! More to the
point, would that the teachers making lessons, curricula, and tests were
given real guidance on those putative rules of science and the degree to
which they differ, if they do, from 'accepted sets of rules' in other
human occupations. Grade: 'F.'"
Flunked!! But, I repeat myself.
Another indicator of the sad state of science education in Wisconsin is
the on-going situation in Grantsburg. I will quote from a message from the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE) which explains what happened
in Grantsburg, and also touches on the Clergy Letter project (more about
joining with religious folks also follows):
"On December 6, 2004, the Grantsburg, Wisconsin, school board passed a
third version of a resolution on its science curriculum by a vote of 6 to
1. Two previous versions of the policy were widely criticized as obvious
attempts to require or allow the teaching of various forms of creationism,
including 'intelligent design,' in the district's science classes. The
policy states:
'Students are expected to analyze, review, and critique scientific
explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and
weaknesses using scientific evidence and information. Students shall be
able to explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary
theory.
This policy does not call for the teaching of creationism or intelligent
design.' Despite the welcome clarification in the last sentence, the
singling out of evolution for special attention is still problematic.
NCSE's Susan Spath told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 'We'll have to
wait and see what materials are produced' to implement the new policy.
Signs are not good, though: at a meeting in late November, the school
board allowed a proponent of 'intelligent design' creationism to make a
lengthy presentation and to screen a videotape, while denying requests to
allow a biologist to speak at a later meeting.
"On December 16, the Grantsburg school board received a letter signed by
almost 200 members of the Wisconsin clergy urging the board 'to preserve
the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the
theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.' In all,
about 3000 science professors, religion professors, science educators, and
members of the clergy from across the state have signed letters of protest
to the board about its antievolution policies, thanks in large part to the
efforts of NCSE member Michael Zimmerman, the dean of the College of
Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Grantsburg
Superintendent Joni Burgin is reportedly unimpressed, however, writing in
an e-mail to the St. Paul Pioneer Press that 'The amount of letters and
the number of signatures does not matter. The school board feels that they
must do what is right for Grantsburg students and the Grantsburg
community.' Concerned residents of Grantsburg are planning to hold a
public forum on January 8, 2005, on evolution, creationism, and public
education -- and on what is really right for science education in
Grantsburg.
For the story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, visit:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/dec04/283092.asp
And for NCSE's coverage of Grantsburg, look at the stories dated 2004
here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=WI "
more information here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/WI/707_grantsburg39s_third_try_12
_22_2004.asp
http://www.advancetitan.com/story.asp?issue=11125&story=3911
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol24/6105_grantsburg_activis
ts_budge_sch_12_30_1899.asp
We all have heard of Giordano Bruno and how he met his end, but often we
do not recognize that Bruno was not even a scientist (as most of us are
not); and, we remember only that he was burned at the stake. Wikipedia's
entry reads, in part: "Although the actual charge against Bruno was
docetism, adherence to the doctrine that Jesus did not actually have a
physical body and that his physical presence was an illusion, the world of
science has long claimed Bruno as a martyr, even though in effect many of
his positions were as scientific as those of alchemy. It is said that,
like Galileo Galilei, his Copernicanism was a factor in his heresy trial,
but, unlike Galileo, some of his theological beliefs were also a factor.
Also, unlike Galileo, he refused to renounce his beliefs, hazy as they
were on many points."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
So, if you are not a scientist either, and you have no interest in
martyrdom, let me suggest another way citizens concerned about the sorry
state of science education in Wisconsin may make a difference, in addition
to supporting Darwin Day:
* attend your local school board meetings,
* talk to the board members, and
* consider becoming even more involved by running for the school board.
* support NCSE
There are excellent resources available which make it possible for
citizens without formal science education to become involved, even at the
school board level; and, taking the action I have suggested creates a
position from which one may monitor other potential intrusions into public
education by the radical religious right, often subtle and insidious. From
such a position, one may speak out in support of religious neutrality in
public education-a neutrality we often assume-but which is sadly and often
not the reality.
It is important to remember that as secular people, we are not alone in
our interest in keeping science secular. Joining people who are religious
in supporting public education is very important. If you are in contact
with some of them, please share information about "Evolution Sunday,"
February 12:
http://www.uwm.edu/~ajpetto/ and
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/rel_evol_sun.htm#WI which lists
Wisconsin congregations which are participating in Evolution Sunday.
Darwin Days in Wisconsin:
February 15: Darwin Day at UW Milwaukee http://www.uwm.edu/~ajpetto/
["more information to come," but the Milwaukee event features a link to
Whitewater.]
February 15: Darwin Day at UW Whitewater: Genetic Conflicts in Human
Pregnancy: A featured lecture with Harvard's David Haig. This will linked
via videoconference to UW Madison, Milwaukee, and Whitewater campuses.
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Biology/Docs/Faculty/ajpetto.htmlUW
February 11: Darwin Day at UW Madison
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/news_events/darwin_day.html
Fordham Report
http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/global/index.cfm
Lerner, one of the authors of the Fordham Report, has translated Bruno's
"The Ash Wednesday Supper (LA Cena De Le Ceneri)"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802074693/102-9618990-5717758?v=glance&n=283155
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
