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.

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.

Where the wind goes whipping down the plains…full of people living w/ dinosaurs?

Oklahoma Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow for the teaching of creationist pseudoscience in public school classrooms. You can read the details of the bill here.

The bill specifically states that teachers can teach the “scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of controversial topics in sciences and that “scientific information is not excluded from this definition solely on the basis that it coincides with the tenets of some or all religious beliefs or doctrines.” It also says that “this section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief” and “this definition does exclude information based solely on religious writings, beliefs or doctrines,” so at least “the Bible says so” won’t be an acceptable reason to teach it in science class, right?

Of course, all it takes is one piece of “evidence” for “intelligent design” or one argument from one of those so-called creation scientists to justify teachers presenting faith-based fancy, which has absolutely no basis in real evidence or scientific theory, as a perfectly valid alternative to actual science. Under this law, school systems would not be allowed to prevent teachers from teaching creationism or the even more insidious “intelligent design” as scientifically on par with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Teachers could not be disciplined for teaching tripe as fact, as long as they can fabricate some small claim that what they are teaching is based in any way on something that might sorta-kinda resemble a fact.

In other words, teachers in Oklahoma would be able to place their religious beliefs above doing the duties of their job, just like some pharmacists are doing. Instead of taking a job where their skewed morality is welcome (a religious school, perhaps?), they are going to spew it into public schools. Nothing like an impressionable group of young students to sew the seeds of ignorance and religious fervor.

We choose not to send our children to public school. Our family situation allows us the freedom and ability to homeschool our children. If that changed, however, and I had to send my children to public school, I should be able to do so with the expectation that they will not be taught that the world was created 6000 years ago, that people lived with dinosaurs, that God is a fact (whatever our personal spiritual beliefs), or that the Bible is true. Separation of church and state should mean your religious beliefs aren’t being impressed upon my children. It should mean that, in order to teach science in a public school, you should actually — call me crazy here — teach evidence-based science.

Incidentally, if you doubt the intent of the bill as anything other than anti-evolution, the state senator introducing it was very clear that this was his goal.