RSS Feed MenuIn 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools violates the doctrine of separation of church and state. To circumvent these rulings, critics of evolution have also begun to object to the teaching of climate change in schools. In doing so, they claim to be championing academic freedom, insisting that “all theories” be taught to America’s children.
Before I go further, I should state that I am a Christian who also accepts the overwhelming evidence in favor of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and the overwhelming evidence that suggests climate change is real. I see no incompatibility here. That said, I can understand and respect the right of others to reject these scientific findings, so long as they do so privately. However, the assertion that because some in society happen to hold these dubious and completely unverifiable beliefs privately it follows that they should be taught in our schools alongside tested and verified scientific reality is deeply troubling. Furthermore, it could in the future compromise America’s position as a military and economic superpower.
Educational policies like the one passed last year in my home state of Texas which mandate teachers to present “all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming” treat verifiable science the same way they treat ideas that have no real world scientific support. At a time when American students are already falling behind the rest of the world in science and math proficiency, this just sends the message to young people, suggesting to them that science has little merit or truth. The scores from the 2006 Program for International Student assessment showed that American students trailed 16 of the 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in science knowledge. Americans performed even worse in math, trailing 23 countries.
One of the first steps towards closing this gap is to teach our young people that these subjects matter. Science can sometimes get the answers wrong, and those who disagree with its findings are entitled to do so, but to teach accepted science as just “theory” alongside unverifiable personal beliefs will only convince American students to not take this subjects seriously. And a nation that cannot educate its students can count on becoming irrelevant on the world stage.
sinz54 // Mar 6, 2010 at 9:21 am
Carney: The next wave, the Southern and Eastern Europeans, were an even bigger challenge to assimilate, and that process is still only at the tail end of completion for some of them. I’ll skip their story for space.
Actually, I would like to hear your views on this group.
Because I come from that group.
As long as you’re sitting in judgment on all the non-WASPs, you might as well tell me what you think of my ancestors too.
sinz54 // Mar 6, 2010 at 9:34 am
Getting back to the original topic:
The scientific community doesn’t need to bother popularizing string theory or black holes with the general public right now.
Because the application and philosophical implications of these theories won’t affect Americans’ daily lives–at least not for a long time.
(insert courtesy bow to Star Trek fans here)
But with global warming, scientists aren’t just analyzing the problem in the abstract. They’re also suggesting that American society will have to change–dramatically–to deal with the problem. And that will be costly. For that reason, the scientific community must get its act together and be able to explain to the American public why they should spend trillions of dollars to deal with a problem they can’t even see. They need to find themselves another Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov: Photogenic, personable, articulate, sincere, and honest, able to explain a scientific issue in the deepest philosophical and historical contexts.
When I was a kid, I saw the SF movie “When Worlds Collide,” and I read the book the movie was based on. In it, a bunch of astronomers discover a new planet moving through deep space. They calculate that the planet is going to collide with Earth, destroying it and our entire civilization–unless we can spend zillions of dollars to build space ships to evacuate our people to another planet.
These scientists were laughed at: A few astronomers make a few mathematical calculations and we’re doomed? Predicting the end of the world yet again? And so while a few idealistic people decided to build at least a couple of space ships to leave Earth, the vast majority of people did nothing, preferring to just keep things the way they are.
Until the planet moved so close to Earth that it became visible in the sky with the naked eye, growing bigger each night. And then the panic really started. But even then, most other scientists believed it was impossible to evacuate a sizable fraction of Earth’s population. And so they still did nothing. Except pray to God for a miracle to save them. Forgetting that God helps those who help themselves.
Global warming represents a real challenge to the scientific community: Humans have a poor track record in dealing with potential threats before they become gigantic crises. We often act only after we’ve already been pushed to the wall. If these scientists are going to avoid the fate of the scientists in “When Worlds Collide,” they’re going to have to make a case that is clear, untainted by ANY–and I do mean ANY–chicanery or fudging–and they’re going to have to be HONEST about what dealing with it will mean for us in our daily lives. They have to stop keeping two sets of books, privately telling each other that the current American way of life (personal transportation in suburbia) is doomed, while carefully avoiding telling that in their interviews on CNN or lectures to average Americans.
3/6/10 Links | HBD Books // Mar 6, 2010 at 2:18 pm
[...] teach global warming in schools and a link to an article demanding a purge of the anti-war right. Apparently, [...]
rbrtwjohnson // Mar 7, 2010 at 9:57 am
I think maybe aneutronic energy could be an important breakthrough towards a new way of producing electric power without neutron hazards.
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
Carney // Mar 7, 2010 at 11:29 pm
sinz54 @ 76, I’m a non-WASP, being a first-wave descendant myself. And I’m married to a second-waver, so my “judgment” about them is that they’re attractive and make for a great family to marry into.
But who cares? What if I were a blue-blooded Boston Brahmin, married to the same? What’s true is true, regardless of who says it, or who hears it. Reality is utterly indifferent to all our feelings.
PracticalGirl // Mar 8, 2010 at 4:57 pm
On one side, the fervent Climate Deniers who would have us ignore the plausible in favor of the cheap and politically expedient. On the other, the fervent who insist that climate change is all manmade and want us to ignore the possible in favor of the expensive and politically expedient. Each side has taken on the shine of an emotional, religious experience and they’re both toxic to forward movement
If I had to pick a side, though, I wouldn’t hesitate. Call each side narrow, but I’d rather work with the people who see the invisible problem rather than those who seek to make the problem evaporate through nastiness and dogma.
Carney // Mar 9, 2010 at 11:21 am
To correct myself @ 70, I meant that it was a 20 point rout, not 40, and that our current handling of the Third Wave is the worst, not “world”, policy of all.
It would be really nice if FrumForum allowed editing of past posts…