Evolution vs. creationism: Does this cartoon belong in Grady High School biology class?

[n2doc]

By Maureen Downey
A reader sent me a note about this anti-evolution cartoon, which was shown to a freshman biology class at Atlanta's Grady High School as part of a PowerPoint presentation.

"I just can't believe that this didn't hit the media in a bigger way. I'm pretty horrified by the idea that my children heading off to Grady might experience this. I think it needs to be addressed by the larger community," wrote the reader.

The Grady High student newspaper, the Southerner, did an excellent job reporting on the cartoon and the fallout.Grady High student journalists Josh Weinstock and Archie Kinnane invested a lot of time into their careful reporting. I'm disappointed Atlanta Public Schools did not respond when approached by the Southerner reporters in May. Someone from the district should have explained to the Southerner and the greater Grady High community why this cartoon was in an APS file-sharing database for teachers.

I reached out to APS Wednesday, recognizing, that while this occurred before the watch of brand new APS superintendent Meria Carstarphen, parents and students were still hoping for a response.

"It appears that this science lesson plan was not properly vetted prior to being uploaded to the district’s SharePoint website last summer. When the district learned of the PowerPoint presentation and worksheet that is in question, the lesson and supporting documents were reviewed, and they were immediately removed," said APS spokeswoman Jill Strickland Luse in an email Wednesday. "The district is currently reviewing the vetting process for all lesson plans prior to uploading them for instruction. In addition, the curriculum coordinators will review lesson plans with teachers as part of their pre-planning session later this month."

more

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2014/jul/03/evolution-vs-creationism-why-still-issue-grady-or-/

[DetlefK]

1. They could introduce Intelligent Design in the chemistry-class...

As soon as students have a grasp of thermodynamics and statistics (Gay-Lussac's streaming-experiment, fractions, infinity), they are able to understand a simple mathematical proof that shows that Intelligent Design is based on a conveniently overlooked mathematical error: ID works in an ideal thermodynamic system with an infinite number of particles (which is implicitly used in most of literature), it no longer works in a realistic thermodynamic system with a finite number of particles.

[Wounded Bear]

2. If the foundation of their faith is based on Creationism...

I'd say they built their house on a foundation of sand.

[MisterP]

5. and since they're Creationists they won't get the reference

(since if you call yourself a literalist you don't have to do any READING)

[Warpy]

8. I'd say they built their house on a puffy little cloud

and out of the same material. It goes "poof" when subjected to the least amount of stress.

[Gothmog]

3. This is a stupid cartoon

[TBF]

4. Separation of church and state -

nothing referencing "Christ" should exist in a public school.

[Igel]

6. Sure it should.

Depends what's being taught.

Good luck teaching a lot of literature, American or British or otherwise. It's like a gag order.

Same for a lot of art, which dealt with Christian themes or had artists who claimed inspiration from Christian themes.

It means that you gag the students: They can't freely associate or speak, because of a gag rule.

The other word for a gag rule that's imposed by a branch of government on what can be said, depicted, or printed is "censorship."

[TBF]

9. You disagree with the separation? nt

[Igel]

7. Depends on the students.

And the lesson.

Take this excerpt:

“ have gay parents, and [the cartoon] said that evolution caused homosexuality and it implied that to be negative, so I was pretty offended by it,” Cooley said.

That tells me that the students couldn't think sufficiently maturely about the topic. The cartoon "says" little. Cooley inferred that was the message, and that's a great point to bring up: It's her interpretation, not what's "said." Perhaps authorial intent could come into it. Point of view. Whether or not it's valid. At the pre-AP or AP level it would be a bit more appropriate in some ways, but not in others.

(As for whether or not "evolution caused homosexuality," if it's a genetic trait or the developmental expression of a latent attribute, then, yes, in some way evolution did cause evolution, even if you don't like the idea of sociobiology very much. The idea that possible behavioral traits that result from evolution means those traits are automatically "negative" is, itself, a bit of a problem. Strike 2 for 9th-grade thinking.)

A lot of science courses don't just teach "facts." (Good luck with that, anyway. I was taught that there were three fundamental subatomic particles. Then I was introduced to the particle zoo and told they were fundamental. At the time evidence for quarks existed, but I was only taught about the zoo. "Facts"?)

A lot of science courses are to teach history, the role of science in society, to inform students about debates. This is a good way to engage students, to challenge their misconceptions and say, "Hey, you may find this interesting.

In doing this, often you want to find misconceptions or make explicit the assumptions and backgrounds students bring with them to class. Those are things you have to overcome, you have to spend time *unteaching* the errors and take them head-on, otherwise that's what you'll get on the test. Students will discount what's taught in favor of what they believe.

Or at the very least you want to acknowledge that the students aren't mindless sponges waiting to absorb the revelations from a sage master of all things unalterably factual. This is a kind of respect, acknowledging that students are still humans, albeit incompletely formed humans.

I've seen biology "teachers" who start off by dismissing as ludicrous the views of many of the students that they'll have the hardest time reaching--those firmly rooted in fundamentalist through (which doesn't have to be Xian, btw). When the first words out of a teacher's mouth is an insult and a taunt, the first thing the teacher has done is tell the kids to ignore him/her.

That said, if this was the only cartoon presented, it's inappropriate. It presents one perceived side of what has, over time, amounted to a battle. The other side should be presented, as well. A lot of Xians aren't anti-evolution, you can be a creationist and do work in evolutionary molecular biology or, conversely, be a benighted evolutionist with kooky and creepy views. Science, contra the spokesperson who was playing at legal ass-covering and ramping up the angular momentum of the discussion, isn't just played out bloodlessly in labs by erudite, unemotional automata. It's also played out in politics, and much of the fight over evolution carries over to global warming, stem-cell research, and other very much social and political issues.

But it's a risky strategy, trying to get kids to think. A lot can't. And even among those who can, they have parents who are really quite averse to the idea and struggle to find offense. Given that education is largely political these days, administrators often have no trouble taking the side of the customers against their employees, while demanding that the employees be dedicated and devoted team players and "loyal" to their bosses' unwavering and inspired leadership. As in much of American corporate thought, loyalty is a one-way street. The inmates run the classroom.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Only if the children would be encouraged to laugh at it

It really is quite offensive - to anyone who understands evolution and believes in Satan, for instance. Or to us all, by grouping 'racism' and 'homosexuality' together. If it's explained as "this is what the dangerous nutters believe - notice how they think they're under attack", and it's used to show how fucking dumb and scared some defenders of 'creationism' are, then it could stay. Seems a waste of class time to me, though.

[InternetPersonlol11]

11. This is a paradox

Because one does not believe in god does not mean they believe in satan or any counterpart. The whole concept of "satan" is tied to religon - if one does not believe in religon, it means they don't believe in satan either. It's a paradox of sorts that they've (Creationists) have created for the world.

[HereSince1628]

12. I looked at the PPT, it's basically the standard BSCS evolution curriculum

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

That means the content of what most DUers learned and know about evolution from high school or first year college biology. The ppt is not anti-evolution.

But the power point is strong in the usual points and weak in the usual points: it's best case for evolutionary mechanism is for microevolution via natural selection. How macroevolutionary mechanisms might actually work is mostly glossed over, largely limited to Mayr's biological species concept, and completely ignoring the significant role of extinction. Macroevolution is demonstrated by its consequences even if professional biologists are unsure if it is really the sum of microevolutionary mechanisms in the context of vertical transmission of alleles.

But all that is just as it usually is in middle school/high school presentations of evolution that follow a BSCS style biology curriculum. And that's my point. The ppt is standard fare with some edgy illustrations (competing castles, octomom as Malthusian planetary overpopulator)

So what's the deal with the warring castles slide? It obviously harkens to the evolution vs creation conflict, but it is presented with no commentary. Yes, the evolution side is associated with 'social ills' as might seen by some christian fundamentalists on the creation side. So, the slide recognizes that the controversy involves a lot of name calling chauvinism and often not much meaningful critique of the opponents' arguments. That rings true.

But on its face, it suggests only one side engages in that behavior. That doesn't ring true. Supporters on both sides and (to a disappointing extent) that includes leading advocates engaging in ad hominem name calling.

Maybe that was mentioned in the oral commentary with the slide presentation.At any level the viewer is left to speculate on what the author's purposes were as this slide was presented in class.

The rest of the ppt does not show any support for the creationist position. My speculation, colored by ~3 decades of college level teaching in zoology/biology, is that it seems likely to have been included in the lesson as a recognition that at least one alternative explanation to evolution exists, and that particular alternative is associated with controversy between two "camps", one of which is religious.

Within the power point, the slide is positioned to lead into an explicit statement that the instructor is going to teach what scientists believe, but individuals' religious beliefs will be respected.

I suspect many instructors make this same point; I certainly did when I taught evolution at church sponsored colleges...although the only place I ever ran into objecting students was public universities. Go figure.

I see the slide as being reflective of society. It may be a poor choice for a website with public access, not because it demonstrates ad hominem name calling against the evolutionist castle, but because its edginess is a red flag for any viewer primed to take offense.

And within the ppt that could work on all sides. IMO, the picture of "Octomom" surrounded by infants as an illustration of the Malthusian concept that all species are capable of reproducing beyond the carrying capacity of the environment is likely just as offensive to persons belonging to anti-contraception camps.