Measuring the Treatment of Evolution in Science Classes
08.13.09 by Daniel Gaddy
I recently wrote an Introduction to Evolution on this site outlining the basics of evolution and exploring the disconnect between the scientific community and the education system of the United States when it comes to the teaching of evolution. A new study by Louise Mead and Anton Mates, published in Evolution: Education and Outreach has performed a very thorough analysis of the teaching of evolution in science curricula, comparing each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The authors compare their results to results of a similar analysis in 2000, which was referenced in my previous article. Essentially, 9 states (California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) and the District of Columbia received grades of A, meaning the treatment of evolution in science classes was particularly good, while 5 states (Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia) received grades of F, meaning treatment of evolution was particularly poor. Kansas, in particular, is cited as a major success story. After several years of battling over standards for teaching evolution and intelligent design, Kansas “standards have improved immensely.”
While several states, including Kansas and Florida, improved their standards, several states, including Hawaii and Texas, actually regressed, often by the incorporation of creationist jargon. Overall conclusions from the study suggest that standards of teaching science in the United States public school system include more about evolution than in 2000. The authors also offer some advice on how to address science education standards in your state:
Get involved. Check to see when your state is next reviewing state standards, and ask your department of education or state educators’ associations how to participate in that process. Take a careful look at the language of your standards; check not only for explicit creationist claims but also for language that permits or encourages teaching material that makes such claims. Do not confine your attention to life science courses; check whether earth and space science courses discuss cosmological and geological evolution and whether human evolution is discussed in social studies or anatomy courses (as is sometimes the case). And make sure that the groundwork for all of these subjects is laid in K-8, rather than introduced for the first time in high school.
New Planetary Discovery
04.24.09 by kate
Scientists have discovered more than 300 planets outside of our solar system and this week, they found one more. Only about twenty light years away from Earth, it orbits a red dwarf called Gliese 581. The planet is known as Gliese 581e and there’s building science buzz around this little planet for two reasons. First, it’s the lightest exoplanet ever discovered at only about twice Earth’s mass and, second, its discovery means that its neighboring planet, Gliese 581d may very well be in the habitable zone of its star.
To date 346 plantes have been dicovered around 292 stars. Most exoplanets that have been identified are gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn. They’re just simply easier to detect, since they affect the orbit of the surrounding bodies to a greater degree. It’s only because Gliese 581 is a very small star that the gravitational pull of a small planet can be detected. This discovery speaks volumes for the future of exoplanet exploration.
A more tantilizing debate is around whether or not Gliese 581e is really in its star’s habitable zone. The habitable zone is a very specific area around a sun in which water can exist in its liquid form. Of course, this would differ from star to star and depend on a variety of factors, like the mass of the planet and the nature of its atmosphere. Some scientists dispute that this new Gliese 581d is anything more than another ball of ice.
Presidential Candidates Answer Science Questions
09.17.08 by Daniel Gaddy
In the debates that took place during the Republican primaries earlier this year, some of the candidates for President proudly proclaimed that they did not believe in evolution. Many of us in the science world were aghast. Luckily, none of those candidates made it very far in the race, but it still raised an important issue: politicians of all stripes will pander to almost any group of people on almost any topic, but science is not one of them. With this in mind, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western University professor of astrophysics, decided to try to do something about it. He joined with screenwriter/directer Matthew Chapman, journalist and author of The Republican War on Science Chris Mooney, and screenwriter Shawn Lawrence Otto to form a non-profit organization called Science Debate 2008. The primary purpose of this organization is to “elevate the visibility of science in the Presidential race,” with the hope of organizing science-oriented debates between candidates of both parties. More than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on and supported Science Debate 2008, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. More than 3400 questions were submitted for candidates to answer about science and the future of America.
Well, those debates never materialized, but Science Debate 2008 would not be defeated. Instead, they narrowed the list of 3400 questions down to the top 14 questions, addressing a broad range of topics including climate change, energy, health care, research, science education and American innovation. The questions were submitted to the candidates and, finally, the candidates decided these topics were important enough to address specifically.
The responses of both Barack Obama and John McCain are found here, allowing side-by-side comparison. Luckily, at least Obama and McCain both say they believe in evolution, although McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, may not.
Regardless of your political leanings, the stance of each candidate on these issues cannot be discounted. These issues affect our everyday lives. More importantly, many of these issues affect the overall health of not only our species, but our planet as a whole. America currently leads the world in science and technology, but all too often the politicians who lead the country and shape our interactions with the world prove themselves to be not only uneducated and unconcerned with science, but are openly hostile toward science and technology. The views of politicians, especially the President, are of particular importance because they shape science policy, and their decisions affect the entire world.
Because of this, we should all strive to elect a President who is scientifically literate, or at least scientifically aware. The worst possible move would be to elect someone who continues the tradition set forth by the current administration, which has been openly hostile toward science by severely restricting funding and scientific endeavor, and has also manipulated and suppressed science in order to achieve their political agenda. We at FundScience are not here to try to change your political views, but we strongly urge you to carefully read both Obama’s and McCain’s responses to these very important science questions. It is unlikely that science topics will swing many votes, but that does not discount their importance. Science Debate 2008 and other organizations, including FundScience, seek to raise awareness of science and science-related issues, and hope to gradually change the current culture that ignores or rejects the very innovation that drives this country, and the research that impacts our lives more than most people realize.
| Posted in Life Sciences, Physical Sciences | Comments Off