Dumbing down the next generation
Groups like Answers In Genesis are on a never-ending crusade of disinformation attempting to convince people that bio-chemical evolution is a worldwide conspiracy, fake science, etc. because it contradicts their Young Earth Creationist beliefs of a 6,000 year old Earth and that species are all the result of direct creation by the biblical God. They and others continue to lobby for teaching Creationism in schools as an alternative to science so that the kids can 'make up their own minds'.
Seems interesting to me to see this playing out in an Islamic school. Watch this brief excerpt (this is part of a much longer documentary) up to time mark 1:54 where the science teacher could not answer the (basic) question on why there are still apes if we evolved from apes. Dawkins asked the teacher to answer her student's question: "But her question is: why are there still apes?" and the teacher was speechless ... not a clue.
How is teaching religion instead of science (clearly that is what is taking place here since ALL of the students reject evolution in this school) doing anything but a disservice to these budding young minds who want to be professionals such as doctors, scientists?
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes? What answer does your science teacher give you for that question?
The answer is always "cuz God did it!"
Duh.
Different environmental paths would be my guess.
Branches split off and fork.
Over millions of years, shit tends to happen.
Actually, I read a study on mice that showed that evolution can happen pretty fast even in mammals. They set up a enclosures with different color substrates and placed mice that were genetically similar into them. After a couple generations, a short time for mice, the mice changed color depending on the substrate they lived on and they changed genetically too. The study is still ongoing.
A recent study of Darwin's finches also illustrated rather quick evolution. But I suspect that for some it does not matter how many solid examples are provided. We still have people complaining about the missing link in spite of an abundance of transitional forms.
When I had my wisdom teeth removed in the 70's, my dentist told me that some people were coming in with 'buds' that would never 'erupt'. He felt that humans were evolving to no longer have wisdom teeth.
Given we no longer need them for survival that is no doubt taking place. Wisdom teeth were necessary to chew raw meat, etc. in the primitive diet. Basically, those with poor wisdom teeth would have been more likely to die from malnutrition (and related effects such as a weakened immune system) and, frankly, just being physically weak in a hostile environment. Thus their genes were less likely to be passed on to the next generation. Those with strong wisdom teeth would have the advantage and pass their genes.
For thousands of years human beings have not needed our wisdom teeth (we cook food, cut it with utensils, etc.) so our current gene pool no doubt has far less bias for strong wisdom teeth. There has been no survival advantage to having wisdom teeth (indeed they became a slight disadvantage).
Probably going to take many thousands of years before wisdom teeth are gone.
Even the AIG site says to not use this argument, because it only proves the ignorance of the person using it.
I have Torus mandibularis, it is a bony growth in the mandible along the surface nearest to the tongue.
The dentist says it happens to 40% of the human population, mostly men.
Surgery is possible to grind them out but they are likely to grow back, best to ignore them, so she says.
I also have several shark jaws hanging in the man cave which exhibit the same feature.
Coincidence? Probably not.
Our ancestors' jaws were larger than ours. Wisdom teeth would have been an adaptation at the time. As we evolved shorter jaws, there was no longer room for wisdom teeth to erupt, so they were impacted in many people. Impacted wisdom teeth can cause infections and even jaw fractures due to cyst formation. Some people have large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but for most of us, they're pretty much vistigial.
It's somewhat common to see people who don't develop wisdom teeth, or who develop less than the usual 4.
That is one of the largest hurdles we have to overcome to educate the ignorant of how evolution actually works. We first have to unteach them the misinformation they learned by osmosis from people around them as they grew up who had virtually no understanding of what evolution is.
First lesson, we did not evolve from apes. We and apes share an ancient common ancestor thus making them our distant cousins, not direct ancestors. Thus, if a science teacher is trying to explain how we evolved from apes and why apes still exist, then you're likely not listening to a science teacher but some religious fanatic in a stolen lab coat.
The apes of today are as genetically different from our ancient common ancestor as we are. While they still share close to 99% of the same DNA, how that DNA has been expressed through the millennia turning on and off key genes enabling optimum adaptability for survival and has been unique for each branch descending from our common ancestor.
I took Dawkins to mean the taxonomic family 'Great Apes' when he used the term 'ape'. We are all the progeny of Great Apes.
Key is that a science teacher teaching evolution is stumped by a basic question on the science.
That reminds me of something from South Park :
In a sense, this is not that far off base from what some kids are taught.
I know, right? Rather sad
Well, ultimately we are likely the progeny of some single cell organism's in an ancient primordial soup of amino acids creating the first RNA and DNA. From that perspective we
I guess the question would be, when was it that the ape family first branched off from the more rodent-like mammals.
Likely true, but the Islamic lesson focused on 'apes'.
When we're done, can we repeat this process on subjects that are actually much more pressing on everyone's daily lives? Like math, for example? Or basic financial literacy?
... or biology?
Certainly.
And English, while we're at it.
Good. Well for the moment we are on biology.
Well it's less important than the others, so we need to start those soon.
Why wait? Feel free to seed articles on all of those subjects and more. NT members have proven capable of addressing more than one issue at a time.
That was a very strange ' discussion ' last night. I admit I never expected anyone (much less two members) to argue that biology is not even something we should bother to teach our kids as part of general educational requirements so who cares if the teacher does not have clue one on the fundamentals of evolution (the core of biology).
( The implicit argument IMO .)
Nothing quite replaces the experience of pithing a frog and then dissecting it while it is still alive.
Good training for future adults, don't you agree?
Yes. Most actual discussions don't involve wild and ridiculous presumptions about things that were never actually said, combined with copious contempt for the people who never actually said them.
Should the foundation of biology be taught in high school or not? Should we teach kids only the math they will use in everyday life (arithmetic) and skip 'pointless' concepts such as factoring polynomials, calculating areas of polygons, solving an algebraic equation?
You know, abstract reasoning ... that kind of stuff.
Foundations....yes....with repeated emphasis on current, real-world application that would be significant to non-technical people.
Depends on the kids. And I would challenge your representation of various concepts.
Most states require at least three years of math for a diploma. When it comes to non-technically oriented kids, far, far too much of that time is devoted to algebra.
Solving an algebraic equation is a skill everyone should have at a basic level. But finding the vertical asymptotes of a discontinuity is a waste of time for kids who have already missed their opportunity to go to engineering school and don't want to anyway. My daughter is teaching that very concept to exactly those kids this week.
This emphasis on algebra to the exclusion of all else goes back to the post Sputnik panic where we decided we needed 40 million engineers by 1968. We've never really moved forward, because the people in the institution see change as a threat.
Other avenues of math, like probability, elementary statistics, discrete math, geometry, and (most importantly) financial math are actually much more useful for the average person. If we spent as much time teaching kids about money as we currently spend teaching them about algebra, we wouldn't have the wealth inequality we complain about today.
In my experience, our best results at promoting abstract reasoning came when the curriculum was integrated....meaning the math, science, history and English departments were all on the same page teaching topics that related to each other. When we did that, we saw a lot more analysis and synthesis of data and ideas, even in kids as young as 12 or 13.
I am good with that. In Biology, basics of evolution, DNA, anatomy, basic cells structure are all part of the foundation IMO.
But literally dissecting a frog, or a detailed understanding of brain anatomy (for example) illustrate unnecessary use of time and too detailed level of information, respectively. IMO again.
This now reads like rethinking the specifics of what is taught in each subject. That is quite different from not teaching the subjects. I would continue to teach Algebra through Calculus (pre-Calc at least) and Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Also I would teach History, English, Music, Foreign Language, etc.
But I most certainly would not object to calibrating what we teach in each of those subjects to contemporary needs. The kinds still will get a solid education that evolves their thinking from arithmetic into higher levels of abstraction. They will learn the three foundational sciences and how they interrelate. They will understand classical physics, know enough of quantum and cosmological physics to make sense of articles on the subject matter, understand and distinguish elements, molecules, compounds, etc.
Leaving the very detailed treatment and of course the advanced concepts to college of course makes sense.
Bottom line, if one argues that evolution is not something we should bother teaching our kids in high school, I will object. If someone argues that we can do a better job teaching our kids more applicable skills, I agree in principle. The specifics is what matters.
All good subjects for a high school curriculum. Well advanced of mere arithmetic.
I can see that. As you might imagine I am quite in favor of a curriculum that places critical thinking as a major priority. Teaching kids how to think is, IMO, more important than stuffing facts in their heads. ( But the information and facts are still important. )
Tying several of your statements together....
I agree all of those are great subjects for HS curriculum, and all have real-world applications that kids can implement immediately.
However we require so much algebra that most kids never get a sniff of those courses.
Now.. OF COURSE I would not remove calculus...which means we also cannot remove any of the pieces of the calculus track. So all the algebra courses would stay. But those students would primarily be kids who want to pursue some sort of STEM career, know how competitive the good schools are and are already on that track.
The non-STEM kids....and we need to stop shaming these kids...would get to pick from a wide menu of alternative classes that are more generalized but also more applicable to everyday life.
The same would be true of sciences. A semester each of bio, chem, physics, anatomy, botany, and a robust nutrition/physiology/kinesiology combo course would give kids a broad exposure to many different disciplines.
I would have not objected to anything in this post. I would note, however, that part of high school is preparing kids for college. Those kids who might want to go to college would need to learn all that is required to get good ACT / SAT scores and be able to gracefully move into a college curriculum.
So the calibration of the high school curriculum is subject to challenging practical constraints and depends upon a child having an idea of what s/he plans to do after high school. I can easily see a kid thinking s/he likes some form of liberal arts only to later discover a passion for architecture. Rather profound change in the preparation if the high school has tailored a curriculum to the student.
But back to the subject, I would still insist that every student understand the basics of evolution and be able to at least explain why apes still exist if we all evolved from 'apes'.
Dear Friend TiG; This question reminds me of a joke.
A youth asks the father where did we come from?
The father explains evolution. That we are from the line of the Great Apes family.
Later the youth ask mother the same question.
She replies we are created by G-d, in His image.
Youth inquires, how can that be? Father said we are from the line of the Great Apes.
Mother advises, the Great Apes are his side of the family.
Smiles.
Enoch.
Thanks for the comic relief.
Ok, that was a good one
At some point a species mated with the wrong species and fucked it all up.
Or perhaps it wasn't so much the wrong species as the same family... In the South, before tinder they had family reunions...
With that mindset, I don't see them entering those professions. Or at least being very good at them.
Humans didn't evolve from chimps. They come from a common branch, but apes (each species) evolved separately. Even though we share the most DNA with chimps, it is believed that all of us came from a common gorilla type animal. Also, humans are not more evolved than apes. We all evolved into what we are today separately.
I think that there is a conflict of interests here. The science teacher isn't just teaching science but also that religion trumps science. That is worrisome.
Too bad the science teacher was stumped by this question. No wonder 100% of her students reject biochemical evolution.
Most people, even those who believe in evolution don't understand that. You would be surprised.
I would not be surprised. I wrote this article because I am not surprised. It is disturbing.
I certainly find it disturbing, and i even have one of those little signs on my doorknob,
but i've found, it doesn't have any effect on my perpetual state of disturbed ness, that i will wear proudly,
as i'm a fashion statement ? followed by an !
.
I prefer the path of most resistance, i'm drawn to it, but know not the artist.
You can always spot anyone who knows nothing about evolution when they say/parrot or take offense from the idea that we came from chimps. Or when someone outright declares evolution to be "pseudoscience," while offering nothing to discredit it.
I was always busting a teachers' chops and asking questions like, "Where does the light go when you turn off the switch?" or "Did Shakespeare take credit for the writings of Sir Francis Bacon?" I don't remember evolution being a topic of debate in our school.
I know it wasn't in my 10th grade biology class because my teacher was a religious nutter.
Needless to say we didn't get along and he threw me out of class a couple of times
I was in a very small (mostly rural) public school district. I can't remember anyone other than a religious nutter friend of mine ever talk about religion.
Can we consider this now the end of the masturbation segment and return to something close to the topic?
Dumbing down is not a new thing. I watched Betsy DeVos answer questions yesterday.
Locking (just to be safe) for the evening.
UNLOCKED
Finally !!!
I was locked in all night