[IP] more on Attempts at overthrowing the teaching of evolution gathering steam
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-0406@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 8, 2004 5:27:36 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, 'Ip' <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Robert Berger' <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] Attempts at overthrowing the teaching of evolution
gathering steam
First, check out and support http://www.ncseweb.org -- National Center
for Science in education.
This is a topic I need to write about in far more depth. When my son
studied biology in High School in Newton Ma I was appalled to find that
the teacher taught evolution but didn't understand the process.
This is an endemic problem because we teach evolution in biology
classes. Biology is too complex to teach hard sciences. So evolution
comes across just as another stupid and wrong rhyme like "ontology
recapitulates phylogeny".
Evolution is really an emergent property of any complex system that can
regenerate success and quench failure. It's easiest to think of these
as digital systems though it's tautological. Scale and perturbation are
part of the mix.
How can you understand the Internet and make rational policy decisions
if you can't understand the concept of stable systems arising from and
even requiring disorder at the level below (in order to provide
opportunity and solutions already available). More troubling to mean is
that it separates meaning from the underlying layers.
It's only a small step to observe that DNA just another digital system.
What upset people about Darwin was not the idea that things charge or
evolve, just that there is no designer controlling it. That's the real
disagreement. The lack of specialness is part of this -- Copernicus
already displaced them from the center.
This is very troubling for those, as Lakoff points out, whose world is
hierarchical with a super-father in charge.
The problem is not only whether or not evolution is taught -- it's also
that we are still teaching evolution using 19th century models. Even if
we get past the notion of directed evolution (progress) we are still
stuck with the idea of complexity.
I argue that evolution doesn't create complex systems. Each step is
simple -- we just don't recognize the simplicity. For those of us who
architect systems we know how important the right decomposition is and
there isn't just a single one.
Seymour Papert has pointed out the importance of the "powerful idea"
which doesn't necessarily follow from reasoning. Instead it's an
opportunity we take advantage of. If the brain is capable of a given
operation then we make use of it.
Without the notions of opportunity, decompositions and emergent
properties we are stuck with arbitrary and seeming inexplicable (thus
magical) complexity. Biology, as science, is a messy landscape in which
those seeking to confirm there theories found plenty of ambiguity. This
makes it difficult to isolate evolutionary processes and provides
shelter to those who are seek confirmation of their beliefs rather new
understanding.
We can't afford to make the "theory" of evolution subservient to the
vagaries of biology.
The other liability is that this is all being judged by lawyers who are
often self-selected for "people-people" rather than technologists. I
remember when I did take a joint seminar with Harvard Law and the
problem of getting techies interested. In dealing with legal issues now
I find it a profession bound by medieval baggage of its own.
At least with the tax code one can argue with the IRS but the legal
system is much more perverse and hierarchical.
Well, that's a quick and short set of comments -- I really do need to
explore this in full.
I would also like to figure out how I can help. If we have to identify
a single issue which separates those who understand complex issues and
those who simply have the trappings of modernity it's understanding how
systems survive -- that's really all evolution is about.
I'm curious -- is evolution "play" in Moslem countries
PS: While trying to write this I had to reboot and thought I might've
lost this letter. Luckily Word has evolved mechanisms to checkpoint
files -- that's the result of repeated trauma requiring such resilience
for survival. But ultimately the problems are due to being at the mercy
of a very hierarchical model of computing. Hierarchies resist
evolutionary processes.
And, no, Linux is not magically better -- it is a close cousin and
lacks the tools I depend upon.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of David Farber
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 16:02
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] Attempts at overthrowing the teaching of evolution
gathering steam
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Date: November 8, 2004 2:32:35 PM EST
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Farber
<dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Attempts at overthrowing the teaching of evolution gathering
steam
The Christian Fundamentalists are hard at work at making the US on par
with
Islamic fundamentalist states. First step, have their religion taught in
schools. Cases in Georgia and Wisconsin are the first points of legal
attack. All they need is get Bush to appoint some more fundamentalist
judges
and there will may be no stopping them.
-----------
Evolution case opens in Georgia court
By Kristen Wyatt
http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2004/11/08/evolution/print.html
Nov. 8, 2004 | ATLANTA (AP) -- A warning sticker in suburban
Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not
a fact" was challenged in court Monday as an unlawful promotion
of religion.
The disclaimer was adopted by Cobb County school officials in
2002 after hundreds of parents signed a petition criticizing the
textbooks for treating evolution as fact without discussing
alternate theories, including creationism.
"The religious views of some that contradict science cannot
dictate curriculum," American Civil Liberties Union attorney
Maggie Garrett argued Monday before U.S. District Judge Clarence
Cooper. The trial is expected to last several days.
But a lawyer for Cobb County schools, Linwood Gunn, held up a
copy of a textbook's table of contents Monday that showed dozens
of pages about evolution.
"The sticker doesn't exist independently of the 101 pages about
evolution," Gunn said. "This case is not about a sticker which
has 33 words on it. ... It's about textbooks that say a lot more
than that."
The stickers read: "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."
One of the parents who filed the lawsuit, Jeffrey Selman, said
the stickers discredit the science of evolution.
"It's like saying everything that follows this sticker isn't
true," he said.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism was a
religious belief that could not be taught in public schools
along with evolution.
Gunn said he expects the warning will hold up in court, saying
it "provides a unique opportunity for critical thinking."
"It doesn't say anything about faith," Gunn said. "It doesn't
say anything about religion."
And:
Wisconsin district to teach more than evolution
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/
GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the
science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism,
prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that
the decision be reversed.
Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law
governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The
science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one
scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the
district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.
Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum,
language was added calling for "various models/theories" of
origin to be incorporated.
The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious
studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the
Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent
previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.
"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in
biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses
some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public
funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school
districts are free to create their own curricular standards,
said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public
Instruction.
There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other
school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover
Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching
of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent
design" -- the idea that life is too complex to have developed
without a creator.
The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in
1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision
was reversed in 2001.
In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson
plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching
creationism.
--
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as BobIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/