Although it might be trite to say so, it is worth saying it: Good news isn't always what it seems.
Having said that, here's the good news. I predict that within the near future the achievement gap in student science learning between the United States and South Korea will be narrowing significantly. As of right now, the gap is huge.
Let me explain. Beginning in 1995 and every four years thereafter, something called The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) has been conducted. TIMSS tests fourth, eighth and 12th grade students around the globe on both science and mathematics and the huge data set allows knowledge levels to be compared by country. The results for 2007, the last year for which data are available, compared more than half a million students in 41 countries.
In science, students in the United States ranked third at the fourth grade level but fell to 17th at the eighth grade level and rose slightly to 16th at the 12th grade level. Students from South Korea, in comparison, were first and fourth in fourth and eighth grade, respectively. (South Korea didn't test their 12th grade students.)
Here's a list of the 2007 TIMSS results:
When the 2007 data were released, Pascal D. Forgione, Jr., then U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics at the National Center for Education Statistics, laid the poor placement of U.S. students directly on the weak science curricula present in U.S. middle schools and high schools.
All of that is now about to change. Well, maybe not all of it, but, as I said, we will soon be closing the gap with South Korea. Unfortunately, the reason isn't because the United States has improved its science curriculum. No, quite the contrary.
Recent changes in South Korea have made it clear that fundamentalists are flexing some of the same muscles that their brethren have flexed in the United States. According to a report in Nature, South Korea's Ministry of Education, Science and Technology indicated that in response to a campaign by a group called the "Society for Textbook Revise" (sic) (STR) publishers of biology books will release revised editions of basic biology texts that omit many classic examples of evolution. STR is also working to have content about the evolution of humans removed from texts as well.
Koreans will soon realize that when biology education removes evolution as the organizing principle for the discipline, students will no longer be able to make sense of the science. Without evolution serving as the central idea tying all facets of biology together, all that's left is a collection of random facts and experiments. Teaching biology without evolution is akin to teaching history simply by asking students to memorize dates. No context, no integration of ideas, no learning.
The Nature article quoted Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin who was not happy with the upcoming changes in biology texts. His explanation for the change and for the general rise of creationism in South Korea in recent years was as simple as it is likely wrong: these actions, he said, are "due to strong Christianity in the country."
Christianity is not the problem either in South Korea or in the United States. Most Christian denominations, in fact, have doctrinal statements that are fully supportive of evolution. As biologist Joel Martin shows in the first chapter of his wonderful book "The Prism and the Rainbow: A Christian Explains Why Evolution Is Not a Threat," "acceptance of evolution is a majority, and not a minority, view among Christians."
And as I so often point out on these pages, the various clergy letters produced by The Clergy Letter Project have been endorsed by more than 13,000 clergy members in the United States alone. The Christian Clergy Letter makes this point so clearly that it is impossible to be misunderstood:
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. ... We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."
Fundamentalism is one type of religious belief -- and it is quite distinct from that believed by members of most religious denominations. When we lose sight of this fact, when we believe that anyone who is religious is a fundamentalist, that anyone who is religious is opposed to science, we become unable to engage in meaningful dialogue.
The problem is not with religion per se. The problem is with one very vocal and very aggressive form of religion. And the problem is when we allow these people to control the public educational agenda.
South Korea will soon see that bringing religious dogmatism into the science arena will undermine science education. Unless this trend is reversed, South Korean students will soon sink to the levels found in the United States.
But growing ignorance in South Korea will certainly not make the United States any more competitive. Together we will watch the citizens of other developed countries achieve things we are no longer capable of accomplishing.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
"Yes. The Catholic Church, recognizing that they blew it with Galileo and others, accepted natural selection and evolution as sound scientific theory back in the 1950s."
Appended
is a summary of a few magisterial (official) Catholic teachings about origins:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
http://www.kolbecenter.org/images/kolbe/pdfs/what_church_teaches.pdf
- God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning. (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
- Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909)
- Genesis contains real history - it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
- Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII) ...
- All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church) ...
- Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught. (Pius XII, Humani Generis) ... CONCLUSION:
Natural science offers no evidence that would contradict the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-11, the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church on creation and the origins of man and the universe.
Reference:
Genesis 1-11 (NIV1984 Bible) :
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ..."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1-11&version=NIV1984
This most basic fact is frequently just glossed right over.
Evolution has been taught dogmantically for decades but no one seems to care.
Paul Lemoine (1878-1940) director of the Paris Natural History Museum said,
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach:
but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate."
"The theory of evolution is impossible.
At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it . . . Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people."
Also consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits” 03 February 2010
“Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.
The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered.
Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin's theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object.
The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
So... the fact that someone who died in 1940 said that evolution is impossible is irrelevant.
What is taught in high school is core knowledge, not the cutting edge or outer limits where things may or may not be at issue. There are many hypotheses around evolution that are under constant revision as new data becomes available. However, a scientific theory is a model and not an enumerator of all possible facts. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of science that people such as you continue to push forward.
1) The scientific method should prevail in the science classroom.
2) The scientific method requires:
a) A skeptical approach
b) Evidence which is observable, measureable, repeatable
c) Clear definitions and claims
3) Since Darwinian/Macro evolution does not satisfy these criteria, it should NOT be taught as a scientific fact.
4) The bucket loads of deceptions in the text books supposedly "prooving" Evolution should be removed. We should not deceive our young people. If Evolution cannot stand on the basis of scientific evidence; then it should NOT be prompted up by dogmas and deceptions. Do a google search on Ernst Haeckel deception as an example.
5) Science should be a search for the truth. If we cannot scientifically determine how we got here; we should say so. Not fabricate lies to support an atheistic world view.
- Torturing or exagerating the evidence should not be tolerated.
I assume you agree with me on the above points. Please advise
"Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical"
How many reviews of the GENESIS, by the Catholic church, are critical do you think ? (~zero?)
If those scientists are so reckless in their work, you should demand firing them from universities.
You should also conduct a high inquiry into statements of every catholic priest and if they promoted ideas which they can't prove, they should be fired on the spot. Try doing it with the Moslems and see (not for long) what's happening.
You judge science to much higher standards than the religions and you expect to have
a meaningful debate about the subject "Genesis Book vs. Evolution Theory"
We maybe need the Genesis for our souls but please do not damage the logical thinking of our children.
GOD certainly wants us to develop our minds if he made us in His image, don't you think ?
Genesis and the Bible are in the realm of faith and religion. Some points they make can be confirmed scientifically many cannot.
Evolution on the other had is claimed to be a scientific theory and proven "fact". This statement is patently false. Teaching Evolution to kids in the science class as fact is clearly a deception because the scientific evidence supporting is woeful.
We should not torture or exegerate the evidence to infer that it says something that it does not. Doing so is deceptive.
Not teaching science would deny future generations immense opportunity. Evolution is science for the reason it is falsifiable.
Intelligent design or creationism is not science as it is not falsifiable.
“Evolution” is a vague word.
Sometimes what is meant is "change over time", this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.
Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution which asserts that:
1) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
The vague and changing definition is poor science and a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.
The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion - this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method it crumbles.
Second you need to read up what evolution is. Your rant on micro/macro exposes your utter lack of knowledge about how evolution works.
In any case intelligent design/creationism will never be science.
Here's a thought- try an honest approach to your agenda.
This is a fight to bring us back to the good old days, when we knew nothing, and all we had was dogma. Maybe it's a way to combat global warming by eventually wiping out most of the population that we're able to sustain at the moment, but I'd rather we kept trying to educate ourselves and understand the universe.
When you believe something that cannot be supported by evidence, no bounds exist for what people might be persuaded to believe without reason. Religion is a floodgate of absurdity...and all it takes is one unsupported "fact" and the rest precipitates.
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method it crumbles.
Malcom Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo said:
"I, myself, am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has."
In order to make an informed conclusion you should view some debates on Evolution and see the theory under some scrutiny; just believing the pet answers is poor science. Go to Google Video or YouTube and search for Debates on Evolution. Try this link as a start http://youtu.be/PnmI4Yf12g4. Professor William Moore, Teacher of evolution at University level for over 30 years debates Kent Hovind (science teacher).
Explain to me the hundreds of peer reviewed scientific journals that have been scrutinized over and over only to come to the same conclusion. I guarantee you, if any of these "scientists" you are referring to were to actually to able have any of their work pass any kind of peer reviewing, then they would have a noble prize. The fact of the matter is they they are preaching junk science that will never make it in a real scientific journal.
--Voltaire
Hitler believed in Evolution and natural selection and he tried to speed it up.
It states ""We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth"
Here are all these clergy making a statement about scientific accuracy. They have no training in the field yet they are prepared to make that dogmatic statement. The first 2 words are correct - they BELIEVE. The believe Evolution to be true because the scientific evidence supporting it so woeful.
The don't bother to define what they mean by "evolution" which is another core problem.
“Evolution” is a vague word.
Sometimes what is meant is "change over time", this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.
Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
The conflict pertains to Darwinian/Macro evolution which asserts that:
1) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
2) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
The vague and changing definition is poor science and a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.
The clergy who signed this letter are simply compromising the Christian faith to gain acceptance with the world. Not becuase of the scientific evidence but in spite of it.
I assert the genuine Christians signed it out of ignorance and stupidity and perhaps some coercion.
The *ONLY* conflict between religion and evolution is a literal reading of Genesis. The overwhelming majority of our scientific knowledge was discovered 1500 or more years after the death of Jesus. Science is not mentioned in the bible because it did not exist yet in its current form.
The conflict you keep pushing represents an anachronistic application of the bible and not an honest admission of the separation between faith and science.
Have you watched debates where the scientific evidence has been scrutinized?
Darwin in his book expresed doubts about his theory plus he asserted that there must be "countles intermediary" forms in the fossils. They were missing then becuase he said the fossil record was incomplete. Gues what after 150 years it is still incomplete.
The countless imtermediaries that he expected has NOT been found.
The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion - this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method it crumbles.
In order to make an informed conclusion you should view some debates on Evolution and see the theory under some scrutiny; just believing the pet answers is poor science. Go to Google Video or YouTube and search for Debates on Evolution. Try this link as a start http://youtu.be/PnmI4Yf12g4. Professor William Moore, Teacher of evolution at University level for over 30 years debates Kent Hovind (science teacher).
However the text books start of with that definition; then then do a bait and switch trick and redefine the word to mean that ALL living things had common ancestor who got here by purely natuaralistic means.
What do you think is the starting point of evolution?
- Is a promordial soup?
- Is it a self replicating molecule?
- Is it a cell?
Let's apply some rigourous science here and not vague ambiguities.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
I guess the evidence for and factual nature of evolution is not as rosy as creationist fairy tales.
A shame, but I suspect that creationist-educated kids will be so much easier to control, since they won't have the ability to think for themselves, or question the ridiculous claims of creationism. Well done, creationists!
There is significant dissent from Darwinism. For proof of the dissent to go http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and download the list of brave scientists who are willing to publicly declare their dissent from Darwinian/Macro evolution. Micro Evolution is observable science, Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairytale supported only by propaganda.
Do a YouTube search on “Kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk the Darwinian/Macro evolution myth.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticists and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
I believe in most of the ideas of evolution in how living things adapt and diversify, but I think that living things ultimately came from an intelligent, not naturalistic, process. Proposing that living things originated from an intelligent design does not violate the methodological naturalism of science. On the contrary, inferring intelligent design behind living things is no less reasonable than inferring intelligent design behind computers. Granted, it does threaten metaphysical naturalism if the intelligence behind living things were supernatural. But we don't need to know the identity of the designer in order to infer design. Is it so unreasonable to engage in discussion about this in school?
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Your argument is thinly veiled and proves you did not read the article.
Premise 1: Every nonliving system (i.e. computers, automobiles) that is complex, organized, guided by information, and comprised of purposeful components is an intelligently designed system.
Premise 2: Every living thing is complex, organized, guided by information, and comprised of purposeful components.
Conclusion: Living things are also intelligently designed systems.
I did not have to work backwards from my conclusion; it is, in fact, a conclusion.
You can also believe whatever you like. People are entitled to their religion. They're not entitled to have that religion taught as science in classrooms. Do you understand the difference? Injecting theology into the classroom is not only going to bring down the quality of education, it's also downright unconstitutional. Under the First Amendment people have a right to be free from religion.