Re: [asa] Education, Medicine, and Evolution

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
<collinb@brendemuehl.net> wrote:
> Dick,
>
>> Evolution is like that. It doesn't have a direction.
>
> Oh, but a good number of evolutions consider it "directional".
> They still maintain an optimism and a mathematical certainty.
> Of course, not all do, but many do.

One has to be careful how one applies these terms. In speciation,
directionality refers to sexual preferences, in that sense there is
'directionality'. Additionally, constraints can provide
'directionality' to evolution but that should not be confused with
"evolution has no direction". Constraints are a major reason why
evolution appears to be teleological.

> PvM,
> Brayton doesn't always represent the situation accurately.
> The teacher in Mt. Vernon, OH (not far from me), as best I can gather, never
> burned a cross on anyone.
> But you can't keep a bad story down.

The details are indeed incomplete. We will find out more. But somehow
this seems unnecessarily ad hom and as I show, contradicted by the
facts in case of the argument we were discussing. So let's focus on
the argument perhaps?

> http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124&ct=1&SESSID=e1663e3e9fce780dc2be7faa81863347
> As I read the news item about the "creationist" teachers, my
> impression first was that they first believed
> in special creation (YEC). No separate number was given as to how many of
> these actually taught it in the classroom.
> It seem that, like much of what is called "news", the info was conflated
> and as such was incoherent.
> This type of demand for "orthodoxy" might well hint of a coming Inquiry.
> That's exactly what he is asking for.

If teachers are teaching creationism, which is what was suggested then
there is no excuse, and the articles you referenced seems
straightforward here.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/05/1_in_8_teaching_creationism_in.php

Thus Ed Brayton's reasonable comments should be seen in context

<quote>Here's an absolutely frightening study by researchers at Penn
State that finds that 1 in 8 public school science teachers in the US
are teaching creationism as a valid alternative to evolution in their
classrooms. Here's the problem: we only find out who they are if a
student or parent comes forward and contacts us. So I'm proposing that
we get more aggressive and start rooting them out one by one.</quote>

In fact the PLOS study stated

<quote>Our survey of biology teachers is the first nationally
representative, scientific sample survey to examine evolution and
creationism in the classroom. Three different survey questions all
suggest that between 12% and 16% of the nation's biology teachers are
creationist in orientation. Roughly one sixth of all teachers
professed a "young earth" personal belief, and about one in eight
reported that they teach creationism or intelligent design in a
positive light.</quote>

It helps reading the article?

> Then again, the science and the social implicaitons are to different
> subjects, though certainly closely-related.
> It's difficult to talk about one without talking about the other.
>
> Collin

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 1 20:20:23 2008