Note: My intent here is neither to discuss religion nor politics, but rather focus upon the future of public education where astronomy & cosmology are concerned. I respectfully request that we all participate accordingly.

Today I began reading the April 2005 issue of Sky & Telescope, in which Editor-in-Chief Richard Fienberg's article Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By (p.8) really got me thinking. It begins:

(While I wish I could post more from the article, I certainly don't want to violate the FAQ or copyright law; hopefully the above is in keeping with fair use standards, and if not I'll shorten the above citation accordingly.)

Fienberg goes on to describe (IMHO, quite accurately), misconceptions & misunderstandings about science and the scientific method amongst adults in the US, interspersed with comments on critical thought. He also cautions that if astronomers don't adopt a proactive stance we may find ourselves in a position where texts must be altered to appease school boards rather than reflect new discoveries.

What I'm wondering, though -- is our educational outlook in the United States really this bleak regarding study of the cosmos (or science in general, for that matter)? Will we have a battle on our hands to keep astronomy in public school curricula as has been the case with evolution?

I know this board's membership includes educators and those working in public outreach, and am curious to better understand whether the picture painted above demonstrates accuracy or pessimism, or perhaps a combination of the two. While the fight to preserve teaching of evolution in classrooms has been publicized extensively, I'm not aware of ongoing legal wrangling in astronomical areas. However, I'm certainly not attempting to discount the possibility of such, if this page from the Institute for Creation Research offers any indication:

Yikes.

Thoughts?

I personallly hope that as the fundamentalist creationists attempt to bias education in more areas, more reasonable minded people will see them encroach on an area they know enough about to realize that the so called creationist sciences are pure crackpottery. Maybe a backlash will ensue.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

When I was at The Amazing Meeting (TAM) in January (a skeptics conference sponsored by JREF) I met a ton of Americans who were very concerned about science education as most felt it was being compromised by fundamentalist Christians. For the most part it was limited to biology but there were some for whom the concern was for science in general. I was actually surprised at just how many people at the convention had these concerns but as one lady (who registered here as TQuilla) told me, "You're not on the front lines having to deal with this". True enough I suppose, having never lived in the US I may be naive to just how big of a problem this is becoming.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Yeah, you are naive. The creationists are out to remove anything that as much as suggests that the Earth is over ten-thousand years old. Indeed, Answers in Genesis as of late has been really going on the offense against those who would "compromise" by accepting an old Earth. YEC sites often attack the Big Bang, stellar evolution, and other aspects of astronomy that require the universe be old.

You have to remember that, by and large, the YEC crowd doesn't want anything to interfere withwhat they consider to be the "glory of God's creation" and the "apex of God's creation" -- which would be "man."

That's hubris of the finest and most chilling kind, and when these folks are brought up short by people who don't buy their party line, they do nothing but whine that we're persecuting them. (We, meaning the folks who don't buy their snake oil.)

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

If I recall correctly, many many more people don't believe in the Big Bang when compared to creationism. I'd also like to mention that I can't recall ever getting one lesson on the Big Bang throughout my schooldays: it was one of those things stuck in the back of the book that we "never got to." We "never got to" evolution as well, if anyone's interested...

Edit to add: on a completely unrelated note, I just noticed there's an add at the bottom of the page for the very same astronomy program I'm currently enrolled in.

__________________
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.

Good point....I can't remember where I learned about it. :-k

What really annoys me is the constant lies about conventional physics that are spread by creationists.

"The Big Bang and conservation of angular momentum requires that everything spins the same way"

"Evolution implies that atoms spontaneously create themselves"

etc.

If you're goign to take issue with something, take issue with it, not these silly strawmen.

I just read "Reason" by Isaac Asimov for the first time, absolutely brilliant!

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Does anybody have any hard figures showing this as a significantly growing trend? I remember there always being Creationists trying to push their material into the science classroom. I used to hear more from the TV evangelists on this bit then I seem to today (back in the '80s, it always seemed like you would see Jerry Falwell on some news show or other going on about it) and I found it pretty disturbing at that time, since many folks seemed to take him and his ilk seriously. There definitely was a much greater focus on evolution than "young earth" or "young universe" issues. Anyway, it certainly isn't a new issue, what (in real figures, not impressions) has changed?

When I was in high school (class of '89, which is really starting to make me feel ancient as time goes by), I don't recall any astronomy-specific courses being offered, nor the inclusion of basic concepts incorporated into the science courses I took. Three of my years of high school were spent at a private institution, and my final year in public school after moving; I'd far surpassed the number of science credits required by the public high school before I transferred (noting that my primary focus was upon English, language, and arts, not science ), and they hardly offered any science classes.

Presently, the private school I'd attended now offers specific courses in general astronomy, planetary astronomy, observational astronomy, cosmology, and some related electives. I'd wager the public school where I finished still doesn't have the resources. (They don't even have a website...)

That being said, would it be a fair guess that biology curricula (and state requirements regarding such) are far more commonplace today throughout the public educational system than courses even outlining astronomy & cosmology? That might account for (what I perceive to be) a lack of outcry from the religious groups.

Nonetheless, I'm still rather moved by Fienberg's caveats.

Agreed. While there are many resources available refuting creationist claims regarding evolution, I don't recall coming across much refuting similarly errant claims in other scientific disciplines. Scientific American recently printed an article detailing misconceptions about the Big Bang; I'd like to see something similar refuting creationist claims where cosmology is concerned (as they'd done in the past for evo).

I'm curious to know precisely the same things; input would be most appreciated.

Maybe stepping over the line here, but imo part of the reason fundamentalist religion is gaining so much traction is the introduction of high tech production values in their sunday shows. My brother is part of such a church and their services are like something off a broadway stage in terms of sound, lighting, staging, and special effects (not content). Fundamentalist religion is becoming a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry and as such must take measures to protect its revenue base, which leads to the increased attack on anything which contradicts the basic belief system.

__________________
Free speech is no problem
It's listening that costs

Well put, JD! Self-perpetuation is a given for any bureaucracy, but when that organization has some power, it becomes even more determined not to give an inch.

Fundamentalist encroachments on science may have declined a bit during the 1990s, but there's at least one obvious reason why they're currently on the attack again.

During the 1950s these groups were pretty much fringe, except for the bible belt. I think the main thing that reinvigorated fundamentalist xians was Roe v. Wade in 1973. That gave those groups something they could get worked up about, and an issue that was national in its nature. It's no coincidence that the country started hearing a lot about "born agains" during the 1970s.

BTW, some aspects of this subject were discussed in great detail in this thread.

I worry about the Constitution. It's still OK to say that, right? Be right back, someone's knocking on the front door...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Knowledge is power.
When knowledge is outlawed, only the knowledgeable will have power and only the powerful will have knowledge.

Is this rise in creationism what prompted National Geographic to do a big pro-evolution article (and cover) in a recent issue?

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Hmm, so I take it that this guy Fienberg doesn’t think the earth is just 5765 years old this year? Why didn't he mention the people who originated and perpetuate this myth and who taught it to the Europeans?

Isn't the real problem here the fact that some religious people feel that evolution is at odds with the bible. That is to say that if Evolution were true, the bible couldn't possibly be true. Or to put that another way, if the bible is true (which they believe it to be) then there's no possible way that evolution could be true.

I realize that you're probably reading this and saying, "duuuhhh" but please hear me out.

What I've done is to distill the issue to its simplest form. A religious person believes that the bible is true. That's not going to change. Anything that they believe to be in conflict with the bible is therefore threatening to them - they see it as an attack against them.

The problem here is not evolution, or the big bang, or anything else in science. The problem is the belief in the minds of certain religious people that if these things are true, then the bible can't be true. My question is, who told them that and why do they believe it?

Consider this - this is what I say to any creationist that I happen to meet: there was a time when people believed that the world was flat. The bible supported their belief by mentioning "the foundations of the Earth" and "the four corners of the Earth." If you could go back in time and tell those people that the earth was a sphere, they would say to you basically the same thing that creationists say about evolution. "that can't be true - I believe what my bible tells me." Now, these were good people with good intentions. These were people who lived by faith and just wanted to do the right thing. They weren't ignorant. They had no malice in their hearts. They didn't hate science. They just believed what they read in the bible.

But, they were wrong.

And at this point, I ask the creationist how it is possible that a person who lives by faith and believes what the bible says could possibly be wrong. Is the bible wrong?? No, of course not. But their interpretation of the bible must have been wrong - because we know that the Earth is not flat.

You can do the same thing with the story of Galileo. The people who persecuted him did so because they believed what the bible said. But they were wrong. Does that mean the bible was wrong? No, it just means that they interpreted it wrong.

So here we are, in the 21st century. You believe the bible, and you don't believe evolution. Well, you're wrong. But you don't have to feel threatened by it. This kind of thing has happened before. The problem is not the bible and the problem is not evolution. The problem is that you believe that evolution contradicts the bible.

The reason I like this line of argument is that you have to understand that you are never ever going to make a person give up a religious or political opinion. It just isn't going to happen. You're wasting your time if you try. What this line of argument does is stress the idea that there doesn't have to be a conflict. Religion and science can coexist.

I think that message needs to get out more.

in the California schools (it should be mentioned at this point that all my knowledge about their requirements will be ten years out of date in June), all graduating students are required to have taken one year of "life science" and one year of "physical science."

now, of course, all the college-bound kids and quite a lot of those who weren't took biology for the first option, whereas those who were, ah, less intelligent took a generic class called "life science." however, there were three options for "physical science." one was, you guessed it, a generic "physical science" course; I have no idea what, exactly, they taught in it, as I didn't take it. the other two were chemistry, the most popular option, and physics, which I took. (I learned nothing, really, which is actually a very funny story for another time--I think I might've told it in the "women in science" thread.) no astronomy was available.

thinking about this, I realize that I cannot have learned about the Big Bang in high school. possibly in the one year of generic science taught in junior high, but I can't have gotten a very good understanding of it from that.

given that, I'm much less surprised at people who don't know much about astronomy than people who believe in creationism. I just don't understand how anyone could've gone through Mr. Lamb's bio class and come out not believing in evolution. and since he taught life science, too, as did the equally good teacher Mr. Perlstein, even life science students could've gotten it.

but they never taught us about the stars. if astronomy had been an option, I'd've taken that instead of physics. probably would've retained more, come to that.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Good point. I was in California high school (mumble mumble) years before you, but it sounds pretty similar. I took biology, physics, and chemistry, there was no astronomy course. I'd been reading astronomy texts long before high school so I didn't really think about it much, but I doubt many of the students could have said much useful about big bang theory, or interstellar distances.

Our biology teacher didn't go into any great depth on evolution. That, unfortunately, is the easiest way to get out of the issue: Don't say anything religious, but go into it in depth, either. Paleontology was one of my father's specializations, so I'd already picked up a few things from him on the subject.

Off topic, but I did learn something useful in the physics class: With old springs and measuring equipment, it is easy to do "conservation of energy" experiments where it appears you are getting back more energy than you put in. It was HARD to do the experiment properly. I learned to be suspicious of perpetual motion machine claims from that class.

Perhaps (and this IS a topic for a different thread) if they're a "business" then these "production companies" should not be getting exemptions as churches.

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

If I had to learn the "Intelligent" Design in my biology class, I would walk right out the door and refuse to take it.

In my science classes, I want science, not creationism creeping up.

Evolution is just a theory? Yes, it's just a theory. It seems people are forgetting what the definition of a theory is. I thought if I.D. is of any use, and I know that it's not. Evolution works.

As far as the Big Bang theory, that's a little more shaky. However, evolution makes perfect sense. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

That is the key to this issue.

This is actually a political issue. It started late in the 19th Century after the Civil War, the push to have a federal public school curriculum and to do away with the rights of local people in the local states to control their own local school systems. Before the 1970s, people in Kansas decided what was taught in Kansas. People in California decided for California. Like the Constitution says. But people in California and New York should not make the decision for people in Kansas. It’s a 9th and 10th Amendment right for local states to make the local decisions. All arguments, according to the Constitution, should be on the local state level. If you don’t want to live in Kansas or Texas, you can live in New York or California and get involved with your own school systems there. Kansas and Texas people usually don’t try to tell New York or California people what to think, but quite often California and New York people try to tell Kansas and Texas people what to think. A federal curriculum leads to a federal dictatorship of state schools. It works across the board, especially in the history and civics classes.

Maybe I missed something, but that political rant seems singularly irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

I also think it's funny, given that the biggest groups promoting censorship--who want the books they don't like out of all schools, and for preference not published at all--is based in Texas. who's not telling whom how to think?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I've changed my mind. They should teach ID in science classes at school. And they should teach about the philosophy of science, the "everything is a thoery based on assumption" line of attack, etc. And for homework, every student should construct their own original crackpot theory about some well established scientific theory and then defend it against the class and teacher. As a warm up the teacher starts off by defending ID. Marks for how long you can withstand the attack and how well you can attack ID.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Could you provide some documentation for that? I think you will find that the groups inside the states want, again, and as the Constitution provides, for state school curricula to be decided on the state level.

This was no problem in the South in the 1940s or ’50. I went to school there and also in Texas. There were no 6000-year creationists back in those days. This movement has grown up during the past 40 years and is only one of the groups fighting against the federalization of the schools. In Washington state, run your local schools as you in Washington see fit.

unfortunately, I cannot find my notes from the quarter I studied book banning for 16 credits, so a quick Google search is going to have to do.

http://www.americanvision.org/articl...e/12-23-04.asp

this is about the Gablers, and their fight against heathen textbooks in Texas.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Sam, there is NO federal curriculum. The education standards for science were created by teachers and educators and students and were not imposed by the feds but instead put together by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and a National Academy of Sciences president's discretionary fund provided by the Volvo North American Corporation, The Ettinger Foundation, Inc., and the Eugene McDermott Foundation.

I think it's the same (i.e. not federally -created) for other coursework as well, but I only participated in the science education standards review.

If you're at all interested, I suggest you read this page:

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

Hi, very nice personal webpages! What are the URL addresses to the Spanish, Tewa, and Diné versions?