Science Test: Will America Protect Our Kids' Education From Religious Right Reactionaries?
Rob Boston printable version print page     Bookmark and Share
Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:03:57 PM EST
If you watched President Barack Obama's State of the Union address last week, you might have noticed an emphasis on science.

The president noted that countries like China and India are racing to challenge the United States in the global economy. These nations have made changes to their educational systems, he said, noting "[T]hey started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science."
Later, Obama pointed out, "Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations." He even put in a plug for school science fairs.

It's good to see this issue getting the attention it deserves. And the president's pro-science call to arms came at just the right time.

About the same time as the State of the Union, the federal government issued a report showing that two-thirds of American fourth-graders did not show proficiency in science in 2009. Furthermore, 70 percent of eighth-graders and 79 percent of students in grade 12 also fell short of science proficiency on a standardized test.

This is a sad state of affairs, and it must be addressed if our nation is to remain economically competitive in the days to come.

One thing that won't help is continuing to ignore the teaching of evolution in public schools. Although Religious Right-style fundamentalists hate evolution, it remains the central organizing principle of biology. We ignore it at our peril.

Yet that's exactly what many of our public schools are doing. A recent report by two scholars at Penn State University found that only 28 percent of high school biology teachers said they consistently teach evolution.

More alarmingly, 13 percent said they favor teaching creationism or "intelligent design." The rest fall into a mushy middle. Many may favor a robust teaching of evolution but are afraid to do, knowing it will spark controversy.

"These teachers fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments, even if unintentionally," wrote Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, the authors of the report.

In central Pennsylvania, a retired chemistry and physics teacher named Tom Ritter is suing the Blue Mountain School District in Orwigsburg, claiming that instruction about evolution is unscientific and advances atheism.

It's a foolish lawsuit and will undoubtedly fail. (Ritter also wants to abolish public education entirely.) People have tried this gambit before, and it has gone nowhere in the courts.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the courts can only take us so far. I'm thankful for brave federal judges like John E. Jones who struck down intelligent design in Dover, Pa., in 2005, but we have a lot more work to do if we want to preserve the separation of church and state by keeping religion out of science classrooms.

We can start by redoubling our efforts to oppose Religious Right activists who seek to replace modern science with their interpretation of the Bible.

The president is right. Some of the best jobs of the future will require an understanding of science and technology. The Religious Right wants to deny our children opportunities by stunting their science education.

Every American who cares about the future of this country must stand up to that.



To discuss this story, sign up for a free account

Display:
Science Test: Will America Protect Our Kids' Education From Religious Right Reactionaries? | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
Fear of retaliation (5.00 / 1)
I believe that the "mushy middle" are for the most part, scared of retaliation or harassment by the fundamentalists.  Some may not have an adequate education about evolution or aren't sure, but I am not certain that they would be a majority.

A couple of teachers in this area have actually said that they feared retaliation if they clearly and openly taught evolution.

This lack of education and programmed hostility towards evolution is clearly seen in college.  The hostility isn't just against teachers, there are attacks against students as well.

At the undergraduate level, many science classes start with a discussion of evolution on the first day.  I know that happened in several of the classes I took - and in most of those, the teacher said up front in the very beginning that the sciences in question were solidly connected to evolution, and if the student couldn't accept that, it was suggested that they leave now and withdraw from the course.  In every instance, a number of students walked out.  In one memorable instance in a lecture class of around 300 students, over 50 walked out.  Even then, I witnessed a few situations where students disrupted the course when evolution was mentioned after that first meeting - they were angry that it was being taught.

One professor/educator I know mentioned being afraid when they discussed evolution, and a couple have said that they really dislike having to open like that, but they'd found if they didn't, the fundamentalists were too disruptive of the class (they told stories of several fundamentalists being expelled from school for completely disrupting classes and threatening the professor).

With one exception, every semester I helped to teach the course "Fantastic Archaeology", I witnessed fundamentalist students disrupting discussions of evolution and anything that disproved parts of the Bible (like the literal interpretation of the story of Noah).  A couple of times, students did their best to grill and attack the professor I was working for over religion - one spent almost an entire online discussion session demanding that he tell them what his religious beliefs were (I think we banned that student from any more chat sessions because he or she wouldn't stop).  In another situation, a fundamentalist was blocked for a few weeks and nearly expelled from the class, because he was verbally attacking and threatening another student who said he or she didn't believe the Bible was true.  In a third situation, a fundamentalist viciously (verbally) attacked a young lady who believed in Atlantis (instead of examining things critically, she was trying to convert people to her thinking - not following the instructions of the course), but when his presentation was an attempt to prove the Bible and proselytize people (and we stopped him), he accused us of discriminating against Christians when we told him that he needed to look at the evidence and preaching was not acceptable.  His disruptions also eventually led to being blocked from the online sessions.

In every class I helped to teach, several (usually a dozen or more) students told me that the only thing they ever heard about evolution was that "It is an atheist secularist plot to destroy Christianity".  A few in each class were really angry that they'd been mislead by their preachers and teachers.  Maybe a half dozen or more (again in each class) thanked me when I told them that they could accept that evolution was a fact, and still be Christian (I even had to explain that - separate from the classroom, of course - a couple of times).

That's just the adult students' hostility.  The parents can be even more vicious.  I've heard some pretty nasty stories about younger kids too, including bullying of other students who don't accept fundamentalist forms of Christianity.

I believe that Dr. H. Roy Kaplan mentions some of this topic in his book "Failing Grades".


by ArchaeoBob on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 12:52:46 PM EST

Side note (5.00 / 1)
The "Fantastic Archaeology" course was an online course, and averaged between 250 and 400 students.

So while a dozen or more students coming to me to thank me for saying something IS a fairly large number, it's actually a small percentage of the class.

by ArchaeoBob on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 01:01:56 PM EST
Parent


Midwestern community colleges have same problem (5.00 / 1)
The students typically defend creationism as "God said so", and perhaps add some popularized pseudo-argument about irreducible complexity.

by NancyP on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 08:23:10 PM EST
Parent
Heard those comments! (5.00 / 1)
I direct those students to Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God".  They either get confused or explode.


by ArchaeoBob on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 10:20:30 AM EST
Parent
I'm in the middle (none / 0)
of the first volume of two on Darwin's life and I think the title of Miller's book is a bit misleading, as Darwin greatly doubted there was a God not long after he came back from his voyage on the Beagle. I think Miller in his book tries to do one of those dances to link the concept of God to quantum physics, which I happen to know annoys the heck out of quantum physicists. I'm not sure suggesting that book as a source is a productive or clarifying exercise. The attempts to connect science, including evolution, to religion are wrong headed. Students need to know that if they personally want to glean God out of the science, they are welcome to do so privately. However, it is not science's job or role in any way to try to accomodate religious beliefs, and they should not be accomodated, particularly in the classroom; or for that matter, in a book on evolution, no matter how good that book is on the science.

by monarchmom on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 04:46:11 PM EST
Parent
Strategy (none / 0)
Consider the mindset of the students.  Completely denigrating or eliminating religion will stop any further exploration on their part, and that is counterproductive.  I don't suggest the book to everyone, but I do recommend it to the people who have listened to Behe's nonsense (and to students who are uncomfortable with the atheistic take you sometimes encounter, and want a different way to think about things).

The thrust of Miller's book is debunking the different ideas of "Intelligent Design" and the false concepts of God behind much of their thinking.  He does put forth an idea about God that I find quite attractive, even though SOME physicists don't like it (and I have more than a lay understanding of the topic).  I don't teach religion in the classroom, but I DO say that the two are compatible in the thinking of a lot of people, and that you can accept evolution as fact and still be Christian.

My goal as a teacher is to get people to think and consider the facts.  Confronting error sometimes works, sometimes you can't do anything more than "planting seeds" (especially with some of the hostile dominionists I've encountered), but usually if you start people to thinking about alternate ways of thinking and possibilities, and teach them about the different approaches to logic (inductive, deductive, abductive), and give them the evidence, they will usually come to the conclusions that the original thinkers did.  Sometimes they will have new insights into things, and that can be very valuable (and great fun when it happens)!

Undergraduates especially seem to be unused to thinking about things and tend to want to just take in and regurgitate facts.  I want them to do more, to understand HOW the conclusions came about and to understand the thought behind them.

(Then they can get into such fascinating topics as epistemology.)


by ArchaeoBob on Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 07:42:06 PM EST
Parent

What exactly is (none / 0)
a "false concept of God"? God is what any one individual imagines him/her/it to be, isn't that true? So you are really talking about trying to bend these students' ideas about what God is and isn't in order to make that idea more accomodating to whatever science you're discussing? You may find Miller's God description to be "attractive", but by touting that description, you are flirting with promoting a certain religious view simply to replace another one. That is not the role of a science teacher. You are neither "denigrating" nor "eliminating" religion by telling students that it just isn't part of science as it is taught. If they wish to shoe horn their religious beliefs into the science, then they certainly are welcome to do that privately. But to point them to a book that tries to bend science into a certain specific God concept does a real diservice to the actual meaning of science. The "thoughts behind science" are not related to religion in any way. Science is not done to prove, disprove or discover any God at all. Science is done to explain the facts about our universe. ID is not science because it claims totally untestable ideas. Why is that so hard to get through to students?

by monarchmom on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 05:25:15 PM EST
Parent
Back off (none / 0)
First, I'm not promoting religion.  I'm not promoting my version of religion.  The comment about how I view his ideas was in response to you, and not what I say in general.  You don't understand the situation, so cool it!  Or would you rather have the kids slammed with some sort of atheistic viewpoint?  That would just turn them off, and we'd have more graduates who do only the minimum necessary to get their degree and tune out (and not learn anything).  Remember, the kids I'm talking about - the ones who have either come to me because of the disconnect between what they'd been taught all their lives and reality and need some other ways of thinking, or the ones who start spewing Intelligent Design (or one of the errors of that thinking) are the ones that I suggest Miller's book to - usually in private (or by private communication).  I don't broadcast the book.  Its a specific tool for specific situations, and very effective there.  In fact, with most of the classes I helped to teach, I didn't mention the book at all.  I think I've mentioned it publicly in class once in 4 years, when asked about additional information on Science vs Creationism/Intelligent Design.

In general, I just say that one can accept evolution as fact, and still be Christian.  That is said only when religion comes into the discussion in terms of "evolution vs Bible", which since we show how creationism, Intelligent Design, and a literal interpretation of scripture (all connected to archaeology in one way or another) are disproved by science, happens all the time.  We also deliberately provide a video showing how there is a different way to look at the story of Noah... neither completely rejecting it or buying it outright (Bob Ballard/National Geographic "Search for Noah's Flood").  This is done to show that science can both provide a rational and reasonable explanation for ancient stories, without discarding them as myths.  It's just as wrong to declare the entire Bible to be myth, as it is to claim that it is infallible.  Parts of it, yes, a literal understanding is proved to be wrong.  Parts of it have been supported by science.  A great portion of it may fall into the third category - even as there are alternate explanations to the Flood narrative, explanations that come through science.  That is what I try to explain.  (Another good article about being Christian and accepting evolution is the discussion of non-interfering magisteria).

I also question your hostility to Miller's book.  Dr. Miller is respected by (and I believe part of) the National Center for Science Education, and they've recommended his book.  He was one of the principles in the Dover trial.  Yes, he puts forward his own thoughts.  He has that right.  His book is about the battles he's had with Intelligent Design and countering some of their thinking and concepts.  It's the perfect tool for the situations where I suggest it.

by ArchaeoBob on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 11:03:49 PM EST
Parent

Your suggestions to (none / 0)
"back off" and/or "cool it" are interesting in light of the fact that the purpose of a blog is to allow people to share and challenge one another's ideas or opinions. Your suggestion that I would want students to be "slammed with some sort of atheistic viewpoint" indicates to me that you have not understood a single thing I said about the nature of science and the teaching of it. The science of evolution is not atheistic, as it takes NO SIDE on religious issues. It just simply does not address that area of life and neither should the teaching of it. If a student brings up ID, it is perfectly fine to point out that ID proposes theories that can not be tested because they are religious in nature. That's not hard to understand, is it? What it sounds like you are doing (even if very occasionally) is allowing science to become entangled with religion by allowing the aggressive religious students to define where the conversation goes.

I have no "hostility" towards Mr. Miller's book or his expression of his personal faith in that book. I question the mixing of science and religion and the legitimizing of that mix by some scientists like Miller and Francis Collins. I am expressing a point of view that is shared by many scientists who get frustrated with the conversations in this country in particular that allow religion to even be considered as part of a scientific dialogue. Why do you show a film on Noah's flood stories to a class that may contain students not of that tradition or non-believing students in order to present archeology? Do you teach at a religious school? Is there any other point of reference to discuss the archeology of that area of the world besides biblical references or the Flood narrative? By using this approach it seems as if you are allowing students from a particular religious background to define the parameters of teaching a science. At least, that's how it appears to me.

And one other thing. Most scientists are trained to take criticism of their work as part of the territory. You could have clarified your positions and actions to me without telling me to "back off". Or you could have simply not replied.

by monarchmom on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 02:40:48 PM EST
Parent

veiled personal attacks (none / 0)
  Your criticisms are starting to verge on personal attacks, and I don't appreciate it.  

You've questioned my professionalism, you've questioned my defense of self (from your attacks), you've accused me of teaching religion in the classroom.  

You've attacked one of the "big names" in the fight against teaching creationism and ID in the science classroom.  His book isn't a science textbook.  It's a discussion of his fight against ID.  (In fact, I wonder if you've even read his book.)

Teaching religion as science is what the Pentecostals and Dominionists do.  The very accusation makes it clear that you didn't have a clue about what I do.  You could have at least ASKED, rather than started with the accusations.  Then I would have responded in a different manner.

A while back you expressed negative emotions that the MRFF was standing up for and helping a family because their daughter had gotten hooked by a cult.  You've criticized how I handle very delicate topics and students with problems (while accusing me of teaching religion in the science classroom).  I didn't ask you for a critique of my teaching methods or materials.  I have others that I go to for that, people who are more than qualified AND who are also active (and in some circles known for their work) in the fight against creationism and ID.

Regarding science and religion - it's not a black-and-white or off/on situation.  Teaching atheism or saying that science disproves religion is just as wrong as saying that creationism or Intelligent design must be taught.  When the topic is the social sciences, as in this case archaeology, it is possible (even probable) that religion will come into discussion IN the discussions of science.  When you're talking about fantastic (as in crazy and weird) claims that involve history/archaeology, religion definitely gets discussed.  At the same time, making scientific claims (as in "does not exist") about anything that cannot be tested is just as unethical as forcing creationism/Intelligent design in the science classroom.  Thus, denial of the existence of "God" (or whatever) is also not appropriate.  Non-Interfering Magisteria, remember?  So I have to find different ways of approaching things because of the nature of the topic.

Considering the topic and the audience, sometimes wisdom and common sense requires that you do more than give a dry statement of facts.  

Or, again I must ask you - are you wanting us to drive students away from science or force a different religion on them?  Believe me, the programming that some of them get from the churches is strong enough to drive people away (I've seen it), even if they love science and have learned to think to a degree.   Thus, showing that there are alternate explanations to the 'truths' they've been taught is the most ethical and humane way to deal with the issues that will come up because of what we teach.  We will not teach something along the lines of "Science disproves the Bible because it disproves parts of the Bible."  The fact is, science has also SUPPORTED parts of the Bible, that is, some of the physical claims and historical statements.

I might add, this is a BLOG.  Not your average blog, to be sure - it's largely a research blog and one dedicated to fighting dominionism, and unlike most blogs documentation is provided where applicable (or available).  T2A is not a peer-reviewed journal.  So I don't follow standard practice here, and expecting the same is demanding too much.  I discuss the topics in threads, I share my personal experiences, I explain things (when I know the explanation), I ask questions, I share.  In other words, I hold conversations.  In essence you've told me "You're a scientist, so why aren't you writing scientific articles".  Well, scientists are people... not just robots doing science (and a good portion of the scientists I know are privately religious).

Having said all that (in defense of self), let's let this drop.

by ArchaeoBob on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 09:09:45 AM EST
Parent

I'm replying anyway... (none / 0)
"Teaching atheism or saying that science disproves religion is just as wrong as saying that creationism or Intelligent design must be taught.".... I said this.

 "Thus, denial of the existence of "God" (or whatever) is also not appropriate.".... I said this too.

 "A while back you expressed negative emotions that the MRFF was standing up for and helping a family because their daughter had gotten hooked by a cult."...  I said at that time that MRFF was totally correct to take on the issue of the violations of church/state the Christian group and the AFA were participating in. However, it was not the role of MRFF to judge whether this girl was estranged from her family by force or by choice. Nor was it their role, in my view, to get involved with what might be an inter-family dispute. We don't KNOW whether this girl was "brainwashed" or not. We only have her family's say on that.

"Your criticisms are starting to verge on personal attacks, and I don't appreciate it."... It looks to me as though you 1) do not read my posts carefully 2) see personal attacks in places they don't exist.

I was simply trying to point out that bringing into a scientific discussion either a God concept or a no-God concept, a biblical reference or any other scriptural reference as points related to science works against the nature of science itself. Science is neutral and non-involved in matters of religion or religious ideas. They are not part of science's realm. ID is not science. That is a simple statement and doesn't need to be explored any further with a student or proven one way or the other because your course is not an Intelligent Design course.  The fact that you choose to allow that to be explored is certainly your choice, but it makes people like me uncomfortable enough to question it because you are allowing the students' religiousity to define what should be a scientific conversation.   If you or any book is trying to make science appear more palpable to a religious student by tying it in some way to religion's realm (concept of God, etc.), then, in my view, it's not science. I understand the ties between archeology and biblical claims. That certainly would be appropriate to explore in a Biblical Archeology course, which may be the title of your course. I don't know. But if it is a general science of archeology course, I question biblical stories as a frame of reference for such a course. I do have the right to question that or discuss it without being accused of making a personal attack- don't I?

Finally, my view is not offered with the goal of personally attacking anyone, including the author of that book.

by monarchmom on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 12:06:59 PM EST
Parent

Drop the subject. (none / 0)
Your discomfort is because you don't know the nature of the course or the discussions.   I've mentioned the name AND subject of the course multiple times, and yet you still don't understand.

The only people unhappy with it so far have been P/D/Fs (and a few Mormons and newagers/Atlantis seekers), until you came along.

I'm not going to drive any student away if I can help it.  I've seen that happen.  I don't like it.  If a student comes along and privately requests help dealing with an issue coming from the course, I will help.  If Miller's book is the best way to help, I will recommend it.  If a student comes close to disrupting the course and tries to expound on one of the "ideas" that Miller debunks, I will PM that student and suggest he or she read the book.  If a student asks for good sources on the discussion of evolution vs ID (beyond what is already given), I will suggest the book (and now others, although I prefer his book).  If students (as they always have done in every Fantastic Archaeology class) have expressed discomfort with the conflict and the seeming black-or-white all-or-nothing view that their programming causes, I will tell them that religion and science are and can be compatible.  Science and atheism are and can be compatible, after all.  This is not pushing religion.  It's placing the discussion where it should be... and at the same time it does help the students who are being forced (again by their programming) into a position of all-or-nothing.  (I also have suggested in every case for the students to contact me privately.  Most did, but to thank me for saying that!)

Finally, you're putting words in my mouth again.  "I question biblical stories as a frame of reference for such a course."   I never said I was using the Bible to teach the course and it should be clear that I was not doing so.   Saying that I am doing so when it should be clear that I am not is saying that I'm teaching religion in a science course, and is a form of attack.  How many times do I have to say that I am NOT TEACHING RELIGION IN A SCIENCE COURSE?

Please, consider asking questions rather than making assertions.  If you'd asked me why I used Miller's book, and asked about the nature of the course, I would have been glad to explain.  I thought I did, in some detail.  Getting students to think isn't as easy as it may seem, and when you're in an atmosphere such as we experience around here, it's even more difficult.  You have to consider your audience as well as the material, and find ways to work with both, while getting the first to understand the second.

by ArchaeoBob on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 01:55:39 PM EST
Parent

please see below (none / 0)
This thread is getting hard to read because of the extreme indent. Please see below for continuation.

by MLouise on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 03:37:24 PM EST
Parent

If a student comes to you (none / 0)
and says what you are teaching is opposite (black and white) of what I believe religiously and you respond with "science and religion can be compatible" rather than saying that science is "not related to religion", IN MY VIEW, you are allowing the student to put the subject of science into their religious framework, rather than learning that the two are unrelated. Because science does not deal with the issue of God/creation or any other religious set of beliefs does not make science atheistic either. What book would you send a Hindu student to, or an Wiccan student or some other non-Abrahamic rooted student to who asked the same question? Are there Miller type sources for them?

"Your discomfort is because you don't know the nature of the course or the discussions."...my reactions are based upon what you have provided as information in that area.

"Finally, you're putting words in my mouth again.  "I question biblical stories as a frame of reference for such a course."   I never said I was using the Bible to teach the course and it should be clear that I was not doing so."... you said that you show or provide a video on the mythology of Noah and the Flood. Isn't that a biblical frame of reference?

"Please, consider asking questions rather than making assertions.".... If you re-read my posts starting with the one titled 'What exactly is..', you will see that I have asked you several questions. My first being about the nature of the concept of God.

I understand the difficulties of getting science concepts and many other areas of information clearly through to students, AND I understand the issue of teaching science and having students intercept discussions or ask questions in an attempt to frame the science in response to a religious belief. How do I know this? Because I taught science to many students through the vehicle of a high energy particle physics facility.  When the students who came in groups asked questions like, "Do scientists believe in the Big Bang rather than God creating the world?", the answer was, "Scientists do not 'believe' in their scientific theories as one 'believes' in a religious idea. Science and religion are un-related.".  That's it. It always seemed to satisfy the questioner, and it actually provided them with the relief from having to try to reconcile the two issues.  We have allowed the ID people to frame the conversation by allowing those who come from the creationist camps to re-define what science is. Students do not have to "believe" in a science, they just need to study it to be educated. Keeping science and religion separate is the best way to insure they remain where they properly belong and, IN MY VIEW, is the best way to take the pressure off the student of having to try to cobble them together.

by monarchmom on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 04:01:38 PM EST
Parent













Spoke recently at PA Progress Summit 2010... (5.00 / 1)
... and emphasized the link between the teaching of Creationism and political policy.  Today I posted (on Talk2action) the first article in a series summarizing my presentation and providing links and resources.  I included a video clip of Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen stating that the earth is only 6000 years old and the new Cornwall Alliance video claiming that environmentalism is an anti-Christian "cult of the green dragon."

It surprises me how few people connect the dots and see the political purpose that Creationism serves for the Right.

by Rachel Tabachnick on Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 03:17:17 PM EST


teaching, continued (none / 0)
ArchaeoBob, what you describe as your ways of handling inquiring and potentially disruptive students makes a lot of sense to me. I'm wondering if you would be willing to tell us what grade level students are in your classes, and whether you teach at a public or private school. Interaction between younger students and teachers needs to be more circumscribed, while conversations held outside of the classroom with upper level high school and college students can be more wide-ranging, in my opinion. In-class discussions, of course ~ especially in publically funded schools ~ must keep a high barrier. Are you familiar with "Radical Amazement" by Judy Cannato? It is written from a contemplative R.C. viewpoint, and the science is rather basic, but accurate. It might be another "bridge book" for reaching some who are questioning.

by MLouise on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 03:51:58 PM EST
We must have been posting (none / 0)
at the same time or I would have taken your advice on the column narrowness issue with my last post.  Actually I'm wondering just how narrow they could potentially be!

by monarchmom on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 04:04:39 PM EST
Parent

University level (none / 0)
The classes I helped teach were a 3000 level class on archaeology (where the subjects here never came up), Fantastic Archaeology which was a 4000 level exit course for undergraduates, and a third course which was for advanced seniors and graduate students (this last course I only did a little teaching, mainly on a couple of more esoteric forms of analysis and general laboratory procedures) called Archaeology Science.  I also helped teach an archaeology field school one summer.

Thanks for the suggestion for a "Bridge book"!!!  This has been a big problem in the Fantastic Archaeology class.  We don't have problems with atheists who take the course (except they sometimes get into rather unfriendly side discussions with the dominionists) or most other religions, including those from true mainstream churches.  We did have one very militant atheist who kept getting into (online) fights, and had to ask him to cool it.  He was trying to force his religious beliefs on others and it didn't work.  (We told him that he needed to show respect for the others in the class, even as we demanded that he be respected.)

The problem has been with students who, as I mentioned, had been programmed.  Nearly every semester, someone in the class would say that all they'd ever heard about evolution was that it was "a secular plot to destroy Christianity" - didn't even know what it was.  Those are the students who really benefited from Miller's book.  I recommended Miller's books to the P/D/Fs who repeated some of the discredited thinking he exposed, in hopes that it would get them to think a bit.

by ArchaeoBob on Sat Feb 05, 2011 at 04:42:39 PM EST
Parent



Education (none / 0)
It is necessary to engage in improving education in the country. If there are some people who do not finish high school, then we need to work on it. You can work through online platforms college-paper-review https://essayservicescanner.com/college-paper-review/ that draw people into education outside educational institutions. This can greatly improve the overall picture.

by FaithFrench on Thu Jan 17, 2019 at 06:32:51 AM EST

Science Test: Will America Protect Our Kids' Education From Religious Right Reactionaries? | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)

WWW Talk To Action


Cognitive Dissonance & Dominionism Denial
There is new research on why people are averse to hearing or learning about the views of ideological opponents. Based on evaluation of five......
By Frederick Clarkson (374 comments)
Will the Air Force Do Anything To Rein In Its Dynamic Duo of Gay-Bashing, Misogynistic Bloggers?
"I always get nervous when I see female pastors/chaplains. Here is why everyone should as well: "First, women are not called to be pastors,......
By Chris Rodda (197 comments)
The Legacy of Big Oil
The media is ablaze with the upcoming publication of David Grann's book, Killers of the Flower Moon. The shocking non fiction account of the......
By wilkyjr (110 comments)
Gimme That Old Time Dominionism Denial
Over the years, I have written a great deal here and in other venues about the explicitly theocratic movement called dominionism -- which has......
By Frederick Clarkson (101 comments)
History Advisor to Members of Congress Completely Twists Jefferson's Words to Support Muslim Ban
Pseudo-historian David Barton, best known for his misquoting of our country's founders to promote the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation,......
By Chris Rodda (113 comments)
"Christian Fighter Pilot" Calls First Lesbian Air Force Academy Commandant a Liar
In a new post on his "Christian Fighter Pilot" blog titled "BGen Kristin Goodwin and the USAFA Honor Code," Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan......
By Chris Rodda (144 comments)
Catholic Right Leader Unapologetic about Call for 'Death to Liberal Professors' -- UPDATED
Today, Donald Trump appointed C-FAM Executive Vice President Lisa Correnti to the US Delegation To UN Commission On Status Of Women. (C-FAM is a......
By Frederick Clarkson (126 comments)
Controlling Information
     Yesterday I listened to Russ Limbaugh.  Rush advised listeners it would be best that they not listen to CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS and......
By wilkyjr (118 comments)
Is Bannon Fifth-Columning the Pope?
In December 2016 I wrote about how White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who likes to flash his Catholic credentials when it comes to......
By Frank Cocozzelli (250 comments)
Ross Douthat's Hackery on the Seemingly Incongruous Alliance of Bannon & Burke
Conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat has dissembled again. This time, in a February 15, 2017 New York Times op-ed titled The Trump Era's Catholic......
By Frank Cocozzelli (64 comments)
`So-Called Patriots' Attack The Rule Of Law
Every so often, right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan lurches out of the far-right fever swamp where he has resided for the past 50 years to......
By Rob Boston (161 comments)
Bad Faith from Focus on the Family
Here is one from the archives, Feb 12, 2011, that serves as a reminder of how deeply disingenuous people can be. Appeals to seek......
By Frederick Clarkson (176 comments)
The Legacy of George Wallace
"One need not accept any of those views to agree that they had appealed to real concerns of real people, not to mindless, unreasoning......
By wilkyjr (70 comments)
Betsy DeVos's Mudsill View of Public Education
My Talk to Action colleague Rachel Tabachnick has been doing yeoman's work in explaining Betsy DeVos's long-term strategy for decimating universal public education. If......
By Frank Cocozzelli (80 comments)
Prince and DeVos Families at Intersection of Radical Free Market Privatizers and Religious Right
This post from 2011 surfaces important information about President-Elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. -- FC Erik Prince, Brother of Betsy......
By Rachel Tabachnick (218 comments)

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness?
The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......
MTOLincoln (253 comments)
Fear
What I'm feeling now is fear.  I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president".  I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......
ArchaeoBob (107 comments)
"America - love it or LEAVE!"
I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before.  Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......
ArchaeoBob (211 comments)
"Faked!" Meme
Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right"  (Christian Terrorism is......
ArchaeoBob (165 comments)
More aggressive proselytizing
My wife told me today of an experience she had this last week, where she was proselytized by a McDonald's employee while in the store. ......
ArchaeoBob (163 comments)
See if you recognize names on this list
This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it!  (It's also connected to Trump.) ......
ArchaeoBob (169 comments)
Unions: A Labor Day Discussion
This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......
Xulon (156 comments)
Extremely obnoxious protesters at WitchsFest NYC: connected to NAR?
In July of this year, some extremely loud, obnoxious Christian-identified protesters showed up at WitchsFest, an annual Pagan street fair here in NYC.  Here's an account of the protest by Pagan writer Heather Greene......
Diane Vera (130 comments)
Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei
I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......
Xulon (330 comments)
History of attitudes towards poverty and the churches.
Jesus is said to have stated that "The Poor will always be with you" and some Christians have used that to refuse to try to help the poor, because "they will always be with......
ArchaeoBob (148 comments)
Alternate economy medical treatment
Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built.  Well, it's actually made the news.  Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......
ArchaeoBob (90 comments)
Evidence violence is more common than believed
Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident?  I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......
ArchaeoBob (214 comments)

More Diaries...




All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors. Everything else © 2005 Talk to Action, LLC.