Lawrence Krauss, a physicist and astronomer from Case Western Reserve University, has an excellent essay in the New York Times yesterday about attempts to weaken science education by school boards with absolutely no understanding of science. He points to Kansas and the fact that the members of the state board of education pushing to change the science standards were utterly ignorant of the very subjects they were attempting to legislate on:
The chairman of the school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is not merely a strict creationist. He has openly stated that he believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in The New York Times this month as saying that his personal faith "doesn't have anything to do with science."
"I can separate them," he continued, adding, "My personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom."
A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams's religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board.
And he's absolutely right. It is unbelievably foolish to have boards of education and state legislatures full of people with no training in science whatsoever deciding what should and should not be taught in science classrooms. I've suggested before that there should be a test given to school boards and legislatures. If you cannot, at a mimimum, pass the AP biology final exam, you cannot vote on any policy concerning biology education. Science education is too important to allow the most ignorant among us to decide what should and should not be taught. We wouldn't let John Candy design a phys ed curriculum, and we damn sure shouldn't let Connie Morris set the science curriculum.
- Log in to post comments
John Candy's dead. He can't decide much of anything.
I wonder if there could be a relation between scientific illiteracy (or even science distrust) and the lack of universal healtcare.
While acceptance of evolution is a major issue in many places around the world, the ignorance and distrust of science seems, to me, to be a peculiar american phenomenon.
Nowhere, in the civilized world, someone would doubt the germ theory (like the guy who commented on Aetiology some times ago).
So my hypotesis is that, because the most common way people came in contact with science is in a hospital, the fact that in America you have to pay to be cured could lead to the belief that "it's all about money".
That could explain, for example, the conspiracy twist that many "skeptics" have in regard with evolution, medicine, research and so on.
Regards, Diego
Refrigerator Perry then. When he's not involved in competitive eating contests, he can test out the rope climb exercise.
Diego said:
Ignorance, maybe. However, the NSF reports that Americans trust scientists more than any other profession (except sometimes the military). Plus, they seem to have a more positive outlook on science than e.g. the EU.
Here's the link:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s3.htm#c7s3l9
I'm afraid there's a fairly limited pool of people who could "pass" (meaning I guess a score of 3 or above) the AP biology exam. That would pretty much be limited to biology teachers, biomedical researchers, doctors, people who majored in biology not too long ago, and the very small number of people who simply take an interest in the stuff and study it on their own. The AP exam is not meant to be easy; you can exempt up to 8 hours of college credit, so the bar is set fairly high.
Still, it would be pretty cool still if all school board members could pass the AP biology exam, but how many could pass the AP biology, physics, chemistry, English, US history, calculus, etc. exams all at the same time? Virtually no one. Since school board members have to vote on the curricula for all of those subjects, trying to institute competency exams wouldn't work very well.
To be fair Steve, Ed was only speaking of voting on issues of biology instruction, not making passing Bio AP a requirement to sit on a school board, period. Of course, if similar AP requirements were set forth to vote on issues regarding teaching history, mathematics, physics, et cetera, it would certainly greatly reduce the number of voting members available to vote on them--and a flat-out scholar who could nail a wide range of AP tests probably wouldn't take a job on a school board.
Certainly anyone who sits on a school board should have a broad and solid educational background, though.
Thank, Chaz, for the link you posted.
It seems I was wrong or, at best, misled in my opinion by the "media impact" of fundamentalist.
Regards, Diego
Steve-
That is exactly my point. Science curricula should be set not by politicians with their own agendas but by scientists in the relevant fields. In Michigan, the Department of Education appoints a committee of experts in each discipline to decide what the curriculum should be in each course. I think that should essentially be the final word on it. The legislature, full of people who simply do not have the knowledge to evaluate such standards and beholden to an equally ignorant public with agendas fueled by demagogues, should stay out of it because they simply aren't qualified.
"broad and solid educational background" in my previous post including a passing knowledge of science, of course.
It is unrealistic to expect politicians to pass tests on subjects they are going to vote on.
That's what advisors are for. That's why we non-experts defer to expert opinion.
It is realistic to expect policy makers to consult people trained in relevant fields when making policy, and not to cite cranks to back up their unsubstantiated claims.
If I'm ever on a school board, you can bet that I'll be rewriting the portions in health class that deal with nutrition. Shellfish are an abomination, and we're glossing over that simple fact for the sake of political correctness. I'll have none of it.
No problem, Diego - when I first read it, I was pleasantly surprised by public attitudes towards science - especially the fact that 80% of Americans would be happy with their kids becoming scientists! That 1 in 5 of us thinks the Sun orbits the Earth is less heartening.
Chaz
Related:
Reading the above article makes me wonder if we should reconsider restricting the right to vote...
It's interesting to me that Dr. Abrams is a veterinarian, but yet here is accused of scientific illiteracy. Are there now veterinary and/or medical curricula based on faith-healing? Dr. Abrams MUST know something about AP-level biology or he'd not be a veterniarian.
That, of course, might not stop him behaving like a true fundie while acting in his school board capacity, nor does it preclude his rejecting the theoretical basis of his medical practice, even if he does use drugs or acts accordingly when faced with drug-resistant bacterial infections (that God must have just put there yesterday). That just makes any fundie positions he takes harder to justify... Does anyone know how this guy has voted on evolution-related issues while on the Board? Should we call him a hypocrite instead of a scientific illiterate?
richrath wrote:
I don't think that's true. One can easily become a vet without understanding biology well, particularly evolutionary biology. Abrams is a bona fide creationist.
John Candy may be dead, but Canadian Bacon lives on!