Smrt Lernins

What do the Rosetta Stone language curricula have to do with creationist pseudo-science?

Yeah, my first answer would have been “nothing,” too, but now, if you “like” Rosetta Stone Homeschool on Facebook, The Old Schoolhouse magazine will be happy to send you free creationist e-books to befuddle, mislead, and indoctrinate your children into the glorious world of creation non-science. All you have to do is email gena@tosmag.com and you’ll be sent a list of The Curiosity Files e-books from which to choose*.

Personally, I’m having a hard time choosing. Which burning scientific inquiry do I most need answered?

Does the dung beetle really “bring glory to God?”
What does the Bible tell us about MRSA?
Were blue diamonds sent as a special gift to us?
Is the blue-footed booby an “evolution stumper” that “defies the theory of natural selection?”
Can these handy curricula can help hammer home the important fundamentalist idea that “male and female roles [are] very different?”

So hard to choose! *sigh*

Seriously, folks. Pseudo-science like this is insidious. It’s dressed up in fun little packages, but the stuff inside is designed to lead children away from real, evidence-based science. I genuinely pity children who are taught to blindly accept creationism, rather than developing a truly scientific mind and learning to discern fact from fancy, evidence from belief, and science from religion. Let faith be faith and science be science.

*A friend told me about this giveaway, with no info as to the name of the curricula that would be given away, just that it was science. Yes, I suspected that any science e-books given away by TOS would be creationist. However, I was under the impression that Rosetta Stone was a secular curricula, so I’m curious why the “reward” for liking their company’s homeschool curricula branch is a decidedly religious curricula.

For starters, Happy (almost) International Darwin Day and Happy Evolution Weekend!

If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you know I’ve had my share to say about Conservative Christianity and its view of evolution as being mutually exclusive with faith. I’ve talked about how appalling it is for parents to teach their children as fact something that is not only NOT evidence-based, but which flies in the face of all sound science. I’ve discussed my concerns about a creationist mentality encroaching into our laws and our schools. I’m concerned about the general dumbing-down of American in the name of God.

Luckily, it turns out that I’m not the only one with those concerns! Even more luckily, Christians themselves are raising their voices in support of evolution science. In 2006, a large group of clergy (467 in total) came together to sign a letter decrying the false dichotomy of religion vs science. Rather than force people to choose between their religion/denomination’s beliefs and strong scientific evidence, they instead started looking for ways to show that scientific theory and spirituality aren’t in opposition to each other. This year, 642 congregations, which include groups from every state and 13 countries, to demonstrate that:

Religious people from many diverse faith traditions and locations around the world understand that evolution is quite simply sound science; and for them, it does not in any way threaten, demean, or diminish their faith in God. In fact, for many, the wonders of science often enhance and deepen their awe and gratitude towards God.

Or, as pastor Carl Gregg so eloquently states it, “As people of faith in the 21st century, we can do better, and Evolution Sunday is an explicit invitation to remind both ourselves and our congregations that we shouldn’t have to check our brain at the door of the church.”

Or, as my former biology teacher, Dr. Wes McCoy, put it, “Understanding how humans are intimately connected through genetics to all other living species fills my soul with wonder. My understanding of evolution does nothing to diminish my faith in God. In fact, my connection to God is deepened when I contemplate the intricate beauty of evolution.”

Secular science and religious belief don’t have to negate each other. Nearly 650 congregations have come together to declare this. That’s nearly 650 congregations full of people who don’t think the Bible has to be believed at the expense of research or our own exploration of the world. That so many people can embrace the compatibility of both spirituality and science shines a rather pointed light on those who say the two must be in opposition. Evolutionary Christians are out there, exploring how science and faith can relate, be reconciled. Every single one of them makes the science-deniers look all the more foolish.

Why would the God you believe in give you an incisive brain if he didn’t want you to put it to good use? I’m legitimately sorry for those who believe in a God who gave them a brain and keen senses in order to trick or tempt or fool them. What a sad state you must exist in, trying to figure out if every bit of evidence is another attempt to lead you astray and then punish you for it. You decry all the evidence as being chicanery on the part of scientists, some kind of devil, or God, because you believe what you have been told: believing in science means you can’t believe in God. How very sad for you that your own denomination or congregation works so hard to keep you in your own private Dark Ages.

I want to see more evolutionary Christians in the world. If faith is going to continue to play such a huge part in our society — and I see no way around that — I hope for a rise in the number of congregations who don’t accept a handful of narrow interpretations of translations of widely-varying accuracy of millennia-old texts over the mountain of evidence supporting contemporary scientific theory. The secular and the spiritual can live together in harmony. There can and should be a place for both. There shouldn’t, however, be a place where “it’s true because I believe it” outweighs “it’s true because the data supports it.” Faith can make us strong or compassionate or hopeful. Blind faith just makes us dumb.

A commenter on my post about the pro-creationist bill introduced in Oklahoma seemed to think I was getting my panties in a twist over something he dismissed as a “crackpot bill.” Whether or not the state senator introducing the bill is a crackpot isn’t the issue here, however (though I agree that he is, in fact, a crackpot). The problem isn’t that one guy in Oklahoma thinks teachers should teach creationism in the classroom. The problem is that so many teachers already do.

LiveScience reports that data collected from 926 nationally representative participants in the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers shows that fewer than 30 percent of teachers teach an adamantly pro-evolution biology curriculum, while 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms. An overwhelming majority (close to 60%) didn’t take an in-class stance on the issue at all, opting to skirt the issue by talking about genes or “teaching the controversy.”

So, yeah. I’m concerned when a senator introduces a bill that would give that 13% of teachers state support. I do think it’s a big deal and I expect better for and from our public schools.

Growing up in an affluent, yet very conservative, county in GA, the potential for creationism popping up in my high school science classrooms was high. Luckily, I instead had Dr. Wes McCoy, who is both a devout Christian (Presbyterian) and a vocal proponent of evolutionary science. He was also a 2006 recipient of the AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. He is a member of the Broader Social Impacts Committee of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History’s Human Origins Initiative, which explores the question of “What does it mean to be human?” in part through relationship between science and religion.

That Dr. McCoy holds a strong belief in God and is an active member of his church was never an issue in the classroom. It didn’t interfere with the evidence-based teaching of evolutionary science. On the contrary, Dr. McCoy himself has said, “My understanding of evolution does nothing to diminish my faith in God. In fact, my connection to God is deepened when I contemplate the intricate beauty of evolution.” A man of profound faith, but also a man of science, Dr. McCoy has staunchly fought for high science standards for our local school system and against such anti-evolutionary nonsense as the “evolution is a theory, not a fact” stickers in the county’s science texts.

This man set my standard for scientific excellence in the classroom. It wasn’t until I had my own children and had to start looking at potential pitfalls in their education that I came to realize that Dr. McCoy, while an exemplary teacher, is not a particularly accurate example of the type of science teacher I could expect for my children throughout their years in school. They would be twice as likely to have a teacher who pussy-foots around the topic of education as they would be to have one like Dr. McCoy. Their odds of having a teacher with a creationist or “intelligent design” approach to education is unacceptably high. The desire for my children to have a sound, accurate education in evolutionary science is one of many reasons why I have chosen to homeschool them. When I look at the numbers from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, I have it reconfirmed for me that this choice was a very wise one.

It’s easy to dismiss concerns about inappropriate religious influences in the classroom and on our laws as “tilting at windmills,” but saying it doesn’t make it so. Conservative (“evangelical” and/or “fundamentalist,” if you prefer) Christianity still significantly impacts laws and policies relating to education, healthcare, marriage, and other areas of our lives. Even if, as some numbers show, the overall % of people in the US who identify as Christian is decreasing (and even that is debatable, as more people are becoming disenchanted with organized religion and identify as religiously unaffiliated, which doesn’t mean they have don’t still share specific conservative religious views), those who remain become more and more polarized into an extreme way of thinking. That impacts the lives and education of my children and makes it a topic worth addressing here.

We were able to successfully run the PLATO Earth Science program today, meaning Captain Science could finally start that course. It only took trying three different browsers (wouldn’t open in latest version of IE or in Google Chrome, would open in Firefox) and fiddling with pop-up blockers to make it happen. I printed out the worksheet that accompanies is, a 7-page monstrosity that assumes I have a color printer (I don’t) for him to work on tomorrow while we’re at the La Leche League meeting, because Officer Daddyman has a week on the firing range and won’t be home in the morning so Captain S can stay home.

He also got started with his KidCoder computer programming curriculum today. It was mostly vocabulary and background information on hardware, software, languages, systems, etc., but he was so excited to get going! We got it as a last-minute buy through the Homeschool Buyers Co-op and seems to have been worth the money. Officer Daddyman is helping him with this one.

Captain Science is also using some great computer program Daddyman downloaded to make the cards for his Pantheon Project, which didn’t really get worked on much over the summer, despite our best intentions. Captain S and Daddyman have developed a neat system for the game, a sort of rummy-style 2-4 player game. Anyone interested in playtesting it once it’s finished?

I might owe the young earth creationists an apology.

They just may have had it right this whole time with the “fossils are a) tricks from the devil to confuse you or b)a test from God to see if you believe in the Bible” thing, because apparently, there’s no such thing as triceratops. I’m not putting you on! The triceratops may just be the juvenile form of another dinosaur, the lesser known and decidedly less awesome torosaurus. Why was this not readily apparent to scientists and all dino-obsessed 7-year-olds? Because the tricera-toro-liar-saur-tops had mother-freaking shapeshifting bones, y’all. If dinosaurs with Transformer heads isn’t a prank from a devil or some trickster god (Loki, perhaps? Anansi? Coyote, maybe?), I just may be disappointed a second time, because this is the kind of bullhonky nonsense that just makes me think none of us actually have the slightest idea about…well, much of anything,really.

This has been my biggest betrayal by science since they decided that Pluto wasn’t actually a planet. Wasn’t it bad enough to find out that the brontosaurus was just apatosaurus with the wrong head stuck on it? Now it’s bizarro morphosaurs Science is stealing my planets and my dinosaurs, and this is unacceptable! Next they’re going to tell me that you CAN get pregnant from a swimming pool (if so, I’ll have to give more props to the ultrafundies yet again for their sensible “no mixed swimming” policy) or that we really don’t have a clue how electricity or magnets work!

A new study shows that negative stereotypes about learning can impact, not just the students’ performance, but their actual ability to learn.

If you want to know why I don’t find it amusing to perpetuate negative stereotypes about girls and math, this pretty much sums it up:

“(The present study) points to the importance of creating environments that reduce the impact of stereotype threat during mathematical skill acquisition by women,” the authors concluded in their PNAS article. “If creating such an environment is not done, the learning deficits that result could well be cumulative, causing problems that continually worsen as development proceeds.

When you portray girls as being bad at math, you might actually be making them bad at math.

It’s not just math and it’s not just girls, of course, but that girls and math was the chosen example for this article is pretty telling. Do people really think we’re in a post-sexist society, where female-deprecating humor is suddenly, magically, not harmful?

Perhaps it’s proof that God loves the secular homeschoolers, too–or at the very least, humors us–that a friend of mine should pass this link along to me just in time for a Secular Thursday. Pharyngula, a blogger at ScienceBlogs write about his dismay over the way a “science” textbook published by Bob Jones University presents the topic of electricity. I am equally dismayed.

You can view the scanned page here or at ScienceBlogs, but here’s the text:

Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and feel and hear only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists say that the sun may be the source of most electricity. Other think that the movement of the Earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many ways to bring it forth.

How would you have to change the way you get ready for school if you did not use electricity?

“The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.” Psalm 77:18

Ok, what in the happy crap is that? I’ll tell you what it’s not: Science.

Did the person who wrote that book ever read an actual science text? Do they actually know anything about electricity? Have they ever even bothered to look up electricity on Wikipedia? We do, in fact, know what electricity is and where it comes from. It’s generated by a myriad sources. It isn’t, as Pharyngula points out, “something like oil, a substance lying in large deposits that must be harvested and poured into your hairdryer to make it work,” as the BJU text’s author seems to think.

Obviously, BJU’s presentation of things like the origin of life and changes in species is going to be significantly different from that of secular science. While I think their presentation is based on an entirely non-scientific premise, I acknowledge that said premise is going to lead to a certain way of presenting certain topics. Fine. I won’t teach that to my kids, but if you think people lived with dinosaurs and the earth is only 6000 years old, you feel free to teach that to your kids.

There is NO excuse, however, for completely misrepresenting topics like electricity. Really, how is explaining about particles and currents not compatible with creationism? Can someone explain that to me? Does electricity have to be dumbed down and falsified and just…just…stupid-ized purely for the sake of making it different from secular science? What is the purpose here?

I’m absolutely baffled, is what I am. Can’t you teach your children a creationist viewpoint without screwing up the rest of science? DO you have to distill it down to something, as Pharyngula points out, worthy of the Insane Clown Posse [if you aren't familiar with ICP, please be warned, anything related to this band contains EXPLICIT LANGUAGE]?

I just find it hard to believe that Christian homeschoolers really want their children to be dumber than a Juggalo. Why would they tolerate this insulting level of pseudoscience?

I love it when I can start my Secular Thursday off with a story about dinosaurs. Scientists have discovered multiple 243 million year old Asilisaurus skeletons*, enough to assemble a complete skeleton. If you want to get technical, this Labrador-sized creature (which lived during the middle Triassic period) is a silesaur, another member of the clade dinosauriform, so more like a cousin to the guys we call dinosaurs. Still, dinosaurs and silesaurs existed simultaneously, springing from a common ancestor, so if silesaurs existed earlier than originally thought (by about 10 million years, by scientist’s estimations), their dinosaur cousins likely did, as well.

Now, “clade” is a fun word. It refers to a branch on the tree of life and includes the ancestor and all of its descendants. Cladistics is one way of studying/classifying the diversification of life of Earth through looking at evolutionary relation. The diagram demonstrating cladistics is called a cladogram, and it’s pretty nifty-keen in that it can show the origins and derivations of pretty much everything, or at least everything related, neatly laid out so that you can see what came likely from where (or who) based on shared derived characteristics.

Cladograms don’t indicate how much time has passed, just the relation between species, which makes it a useful tool in demonstrating evolutionary concepts to children. Explaining evolution to (especially younger) children can be tricky, in my experience, because children’s understanding of time is fairly limited. Trying to conceptualize time relations between species and understand tiny changes over millions of years is confusing to a kid who still think of his years in halves. Cladograms just show the probable order of speciation, like a family tree, which kids don’t seem to have a problem understanding.

If you want to look at something really cool (though now out of date, because science…always updating and changing as we develop better tools and find more clues!), you should take a look at this dinosaur cladogram completed in 2001. The way this tool can be useful for your kids isn’t because it has an up-to-date degree of accuracy (too many discoveries sticking other creatures in between the ones list), but because it does provide an interesting visual way to track how creatures change over time. The simple dino silhouettes will probably much a lot more sense that a text-only “family tree” of evolution, plus, what kid doesn’t love dinosaurs (probably some kids, but mine aren’t among them)?

If you’d like to read more about the Asilisaurus, you might enjoy one of the articles from Discover magazine or Wired. I’m sure you want to read more about this herbivorous lap dog of the Triassic period!

Nice looking guy, isn’t he?

*Sterling J. Nesbitt, Christian A. Sidor, Randall B. Irmis, Kenneth D. Angielczyk, Roger M. H. Smith & Linda A. Tsuji. “Ecologically distinct dinosaurian sister group shows early diversification of Ornithodira” Nature 464, 95-98 (4 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08718; Received 16 September 2009; Accepted 1 December 2009

Happy Darwin Day to one and all! Here’s a little bit about what Darwin Day means to me:

My county’s public school system (an otherwise well-thought-of system, high scores and all those things one uses to grade a public school system as “good”) has a somewhat ignoble history of dealing with the topic of evolution. Up through the ’90s, the county’s policy was to avoid the topic entirely, so as to avoid “compelling of any student to study the origin of human species,” a stunning example of the separation of church science and state. In 2001, the school system started looking for new science books and new approaches towards evolution (new approaches encouraged, I suspect, by my former biology teacher, Dr. Wesley McCoy, who has testified in favor of evolution at public hearings and federal court — it’s worth noting that Dr. McCoy, when I knew him at least, was also highly active in his church and involved in trying to bridge the gaps between the religious and scientific communities). When the religious community got wind of this shift towards the more scientifically-sound teaching of evolution, they responded with a protest signed by some 2,300 parents (a number which makes up only a small percentage of the parents of the 100,000+ students enrolled in Cobb County schools).

The county, in order to avoid a media mess over the change toward a more evolutionist science text (the horror!), decided the solution was to include this sticker in the new science texts:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Approved by
Cobb County Board of Education
Thursday, March 28, 2002

I was lucky to have graduated five years (and my brother two years) prior to this incident, but it still struck a nerve. A small group of religious individuals had put pressure on a public school over the inclusion of secular scientific theory — and had won. To those with a decent understanding of science, “scientific theory” means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. We understand that a “fact” is a single piece of quantifiable data and a “theory” is the means of correlating and interpreting multiple facts. To say that say “evolution is not a fact, but a theory,” is to say “a duck is not a wing, but a bird.” There’s a twisted degree of limited accuracy there (the wing is not the whole duck, nor is the duck nothing but a wing), but a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between evolutionary theory and the factual existence of evolution (the wing is one necessary component of the whole duck; the wing doesn’t exist without the duck). Evolution is a theory…that evolution itself exists is a fact. Trying to use the “just a theory, not a fact” argument to discount the scientific validity of evolution only demonstrates one’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of empirical evidence-based science and of current modern evolutionary synthesis. Or, as one writer put it, “Evolution isn’t just a theory; it’s triumphantly a theory!”

In 2004, plaintiffs Jeffrey Selman, Kathleen Chapman, Jeff Silver, Paul Mason, and terry Jackson, who all had children in the school system, brought suit claiming that the sticker violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 2005, a judged ruled on the case (Selman v. Cobb County School District), finding that the stickers violated the Lemon test (which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion):

1. The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion.

The stickers failed the Lemon test because they gave the appearance that “the School Board [had] sided with the proponents of religious theories of origin in violation of the Establishment Clause.” The board’s choice of language — referring to evolution as “a theory, not a fact,” a well-known tactic of evolution-opponents, using “theory” in the colloquial sense to mean an opinion or guess — was ultimately the hill on which the battle was lost. Judge Cooper, who heard the case, wrote: “…the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement.”

The case was appealed and ultimately settled out of court in favor of the plaintiffs, at which time Cobb County School District state it would not order the placement of “any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.” No stickers getting in the way of children learning about evolution in public school…at least, not in Cobb County.

The National Center for Science Education, the ACLU, and Smrt Mama called this a win.

The full text of Selman v. Cobb County can be read at Talk Origins Archive, a “collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective.” You can find a list of additional resources on teaching evolution to your pre-collegiate students here.