Life in the trenches - teaching biology to non-majors

For nearly 2 decades TPP taught biology to non-majors or freshman majors (but the class was still half non-majors) in large lecture sections, and he was very good at it. Although the upper mid-west is above the Bible belt, evolution was still a controversial subject for many students. Some students were adamantly opposed to evolution and all for religious reasons, some had never been taught evolution and were curious about why it was an issue, probably because high school teachers simply wanted to avoid any problems with their students, and some who had been taught something about evolution but wanted to learn more. Here's an essay by a biologist who long has taught non-majors at the U. of Kentucky, and TPP assures you that he knows exactly where this guy is coming from. Similar things have happened to all of us who have so taught. TPP actually always felt sorry for those students whose religious beliefs prevented them from learning, and even worse for those who did learn something and then decided that their religious leaders, their parents, had been deceiving them. Here's the Botanical Society of America's statement on evolution for which TPP was the primary author.

Same sex marriage in Lincolnland

So far is has not been decided whether Lincolnland will allow same sex marriage or if our state will just stay unconstitutional.  Opponents still out number proponents in the state legislature, so the matter will probably not be brought to a vote anytime soon.  The opponents claim this will have a negative impact on religious liberties, but the only liberty that has the potential to be infringed upon is bigotry.  Even if the measure is passed, gay-bigot denominations would not have to marry any couples they object to, just as now, however, since TPP's church (Unitarian) would marry them, one might ask where is our religious liberty?  The problem here is that marriage exists as both civil and a religious institutions, and no issue shows more clearly why you don't want religion and government to become further entangled. Jocelyn Floyd, special counsel for the Thomas More Society for Religious Bigotry and Science Denialism doesn't seem to know any gay couples because she argues that the primary reason for marriage is too protect children and provide a "cultural environment where children [have] a mother and a father to each offer unique aspects in raising".  Every gay couple TPP knows, and he knows quite a few, provide exactly such cultural environment, and you need only interact with them a short time to figure it out.  At quite a young age our F1 completely understood that while her friend and playmate had two daddies, one of them was really the mommy.  Of course, extending Jocelyn's procreation and parenting reasoning, the marriages of senior citizens have no purpose.  Other zealots warn of the moral collapse of our society, and from what TPP can see their cure is worse than the disease.  One interesting twist here in Lincolnland is that in general black clergy oppose gay marriage showing that they learned very little during the civil rights struggles of my youth, back when interracial marriage was both socially, religiously, and legally outlawed. My students see no problem whatsoever, so our legislators had better wake up; these voters are paying attention.        

America the Ignorant

TPP lived in Misery, a Midwestern state with southern tendencies, for two of the longest years of his life.  It's easy to be cynical about state level politics, but this is a truly amazing level of nonsense even for these knee-biters.  As part of a state constitutional amendment allowing people to pray, a right they've always had, is the following clause designed to assure people remain pig-ignorant with my apology to any swine reading this. 

"no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs."

My own particular understanding of religious freedom enjoyed by USA citizens was that you were free to believe anything you want, however you are not free from encountering differing beliefs or discomforting ideas.  Sounds like Miserians think differently, sort of a new take on "where never is heard a discouraging word".  Well, if religious bigotry is OK, one must suppose that religious ignorance is OK too.  Will this affect history classes if the student has been read David Barton history lessons for bedtime stories?  A Christian Scientist goes to medical school, so how that will play out?   Wonder if it ever occurs to such people how desperate it makes their faith sound?  After all, students are not required to "believe" in evolution, just understand it.  And if just understanding something you don't believe shakes your faith or is so terribly discomforting that you should can not bear it, well, it's not a very impressive demonstration of your faith, is it? 

And it's not just Misery.  Here's what a KY state representative Ben Waide said after finding out the state science standards included evolution (because it's part of the ACT) but not creationism.  "The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science—Darwin made it up.” Waide went on to say that “Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny.”  Why it makes you wonder what biologists have been doing in the 150 years since Darwin if not testing his hypotheses thousands of times, and without falsifying it.  This is an expression of pure, distilled ignorance delivered with the righteous indignation of a true believer.

Yes, people we here in the USA are at the dawn of a new dark age.  This country used to value education as the way to get ahead in the world, to make yourself, your community, and your country better.  This gives you a hint, a peak, of what the theocratic USA will be like, and it's not a pretty picture.  How depressing with for all of this to hit the news just as a new semester is starting. 

HT to PZ Myers.

This is education?

As if our job could get any harder, the state of Misery is trying hard to stop education altogether.  Let's see what this legislation allows or requires. 
"students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs".
What a crock! Yes, folks, in certain parts of these United States, you will never have to confront or deal with any uncomfortable ideas or information conflicting with your beliefs. This is truly remarkable. Imagine that, you never, ever have to hear anything, or learn anything, of deal with anything that doesn’t fit into your particular belief system! If you ever wonder what is wrong with higher education, what will finally be the death of higher education, this is the kind of complete crap that will do it.  No one has to learn anything they don't want to.  Oh, does someone believe in a flat Earth?  How about tooth fairies?  How about a medical student who thinks a witch's curse is the actual problem? 
Now the Phactor has been explaining evolution to students for quite a few decades now. But he’s never required that anybody believe anything. However it is required that you demonstrate that you understand what was explained to you. So this is total anti-educational BS. You don’t have to learn anything. You can write an essay about the garden of Eden, which according to Mormon theology might be in Misery, instead of organic evolution, and what then do professors do with such stuff?  So what would such legislative crap allow or disallow?  It boggles the mind.  What are your thoughts?

What people need to understand about evolution

Dear Paula (Kirby), Very well said, indeed. You understand the situation vis-a-vis evolution and religion very well. It is rare to find someone who grasps fully the problem evolution poses for many religions. That being said, a very great many people in the USA, and many other countries, perhaps even a majority, will stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "La, la, la, la,...." so as not to hear any of it. And the most sobering realization is that it really means we, as individuals and as societies, must be responsible for our actions and deeds. Once you get comfortable with reality it is preferable to mythology, but this does not condemn religious stories to the dust heap completely because like the moral stories of Aesop, they need not be factually true to teach lessons.

Shades of gray, nuanced thinking

As many if not all of you are aware, these are not good days to be an intellectual. Thinking, and doing it well, are not a highly prized commodity of late, and in its place there are lots of concrete thinking and simplistic black and white answers. Way too many people seem unaware of how shallow such answers are and naturally our unpopularity arises from popping their balloons, to which they answer with hostility. For this reason, and his general sanity, the Phactor stays away from most current issues with only the occasional rant to vent his frustration. but every now and then you must admit that someone does it better. So here's the infamous science blogger, PZ Myers' essay on shades of gray. "This is a complicated world and there are a great many subjects that simply aren't reducible to binaries — we do a disservice to the subtleties when we discard them in favor of absolutes. And often I can agree that we need depth and breadth of understanding if we're to navigate a difficult situation."

Naked truth about sex, gardening, religion, and politics in American government

In this day of binging and googling, buzzwords in a title can greatly affect the number of hits upon your blog or published article, but who would stoop to such a low and deceptive device? Since botany is in one of the little traveled back waters of biology, and most of biology isn’t trendy enough to matter to the media, it would appear that the Phactor has never used one of these academically trendy buzz words in any title of any published article. He did publish ‘the best pun ever used as a title” (according to one reviewer) and it attracted a great deal of attention to a small, but quite clever, bit of research, so buzzwords appears to work, but by now you should have realized that you are a data point in an experiment. We’ll report back to see if the traffic on this article is affected by the gratuitous use of buzzwords in the title. Which buzz word do you think will have the greatest impact? Take the poll; you're part of the experiment anyways.

Are you a true scientist?

Philosopher and keyboard artist Ervin Laszlo can help you answer this question. According to a recent piece at the Huffington Post:
You aren't a "true" scientist if you "confound the record of a religious experience with the meaning of that experience". Hmmm. Whose meaning?
You aren't a "true" scientist if you "judge a religion by the literal veracity of the sayings, episodes, and injunctions contained in its doctrines". Hmmm. OK, we aren't to pay any attention to what the religion teaches.
A "true" scientist would be "reasonably certain...that there are aspects and planes of human experience that far transcend the limits of everyday experience, and they ["true" scientists] would seek to understand that experience". Ah, at last. Yes, the biology of hallucinations is fascinating and explains why hallucinogenic plants are involved with so many of the world's religions. In a pre-scientific world such experiences would be taken as absolute proof of the supernatural, but now we know it's brain chemistry. And have these experiences provided any profound insights into human nature and the natural world? Alas, no.
Well, by now you get the idea, you are not a "true" or "genuine" scientist if you don't simply accept the religious experience at face value rather than saying "your brain was deprived of oxygen".
But this is what really rubs my rhubarb. Any scientist who doesn't agree with Laszlo in neither a "true" or "genuine" scientist. It is to laugh. Only a desperately irrelevant philosopher would use such a rhetorical device and provide us with such a slipshod, second rate contribution to the problem of sorting out the science and religion problem. Stick with the keyboard Laszlo; you're giving philosophy a bad name.

Professor offends students with Catholic thought

An adjunct professor of religion has been fired from one of our great public institutions of higher learning here in Lincolnland after students claimed his remarks about homosexuality were “offensive” and “hate speech”. After reading the story my thoughts about this are three fold.
First, when you’re an adjunct professor you have no protections, no recourse, and no guarantee of continued employment. If the person in charge doesn’t like your socks, you can be fired. Now this is a statement of fact and does not condone the misuse and abuse of adjunct faculty who should only be used to replace faculty on leave as a stop-gap measure. Maybe this particular fellow was a pain or pissed someone off and they were just waiting for an excuse to come along, and this back story has yet to come out.
Second, students these days cry about being offended when they find out the world isn’t flat and other insults to their fragile dignities, and we have way to many admini-wimps who, rather than defending academic rigor, react by trying to dismiss the faculty member as the offending party. If you’re not offending the delicate sensibilities of students, if you’re not making them think about uncomfortable ideas and concepts, then you’re probably not teaching anything meaningful at the university level. According to someone who should know, the Phactor actually still holds one record for our institution having been accused of being a sexist, a racist, and a Christian proselytizer by students all in the same course all in the same semester! The trifecta of improprieties! And all while teaching economic botany. Imagine though, a Unitarian botanist accused of being a Christian proselytizer! Must have been that reference book Plants of the Bible.
Third, when you sign up for a course called Catholicism and Catholic Thought you pretty much expect to be offended, the more so if you expected logical, rational reasons for believing the things Catholics must do. Although no expert surely, the Phactor has heard enough about “natural moral laws” to understand that the Catholic reasons for castigating homosexuality can quite readily be called offensive, but what did you expect from Catholic thought? Part of the problem, and probably the best reason for firing this professor, is that you’re going to get nothing but a one-sided presentation when the presenter is also an adherent of the religion. You’re not going to get any rigorous debate about basic tenets out of people like that, so if you want your religion classes to have all of the rigor of the religious instruction of your youth, then you hire professors like this.
So when you get down to basics, the firing sounds unjustified especially since the university approved a course like this and this fellow has been teaching it for 9 years without prior complaint. But it sounds like an awful class and the university could hardly do worse.

Passing on the National Day of Prayer

Yours truly is going to pass on the national day of prayer. This is not because of any particular anti-religious fervor on my part, but it is based on a practical conviction that prayer alone just won’t do any good. When my students conducted a well constructed experiment, prayer couldn’t even help beans grow better, so I doubt it’s going to help with the national debt. Asking for gods’ continued guidance (Here use of the plural is deliberate so as not to offend any believers, e.g., in gods we trust.) does not strike me as particularly sound course of action because of late this hasn’t resulted in very impressive leadership given our unwise military actions, unwise business practices, and our policies reflecting considerable religiously rationalized bigotry. Perhaps messages are mixed, coming as they are from so many different deities, after all President Obama did invite “all people of faith” to join in, so maybe the one true God (mostly likely Odin) is pissed to hear so many prayers so wrongly directed, so the guidance delivered may be deliberately poor. And lastly prayer just strikes me as a bit childish and naïve, a rather poor substitute for hard-nosed pragmatic thinking, a most uncommon national practice.

The trouble with trying to get religious students to think

The American Center for Law and Justice recently claimed to have championed the rights of a religious student who was being persecuted by professor.

But the Center for Inquiry has another version of the story. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has recently boasted of a "victory" in protecting a college student's rights to religious freedom. In postings on its website and in a radio broadcast on June 4, 2008, the ACLJ has trumpeted the claim that a demand letter one of its staff attorneys sent to Suffolk County Community College prevented a Christian student from receiving a failing grade from a professor who wanted to penalize her because of her religious beliefs.

The CfI says nothing could be further from the truth. "The ACLJ's spurious claim of a legal 'victory' is just slightly less outrageous than its brazen attempt to intimidate a philosophy professor from doing his job—which is to get students to think critically," commented Ronald A. Lindsay, Executive Director of the Council of Secular Humanism, who has talked to the allegedly biased professor. "As far as I can tell," observed Lindsay, "the ACLJ's letter accomplished nothing other than providing an excuse for soliciting donations."

The scholar that the ACLJ falsely accused of bias is a longtime philosophy professor who has taught more than 13,000 students over a period of thirty-six years. He has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, and has served as President of the American Association of Philosophy Teachers and as an officer in many other organizations. Although the ACLJ's radio broadcast alleged that the professor "hates" the very idea of Christians, this professor has taught students of many different faiths, and no faith, over the years, all without incident until the ACLJ's campaign of vilification. Indeed, after the ACLJ made its baseless accusations, students in this professor's philosophy class, including religious students, defended him, stating that he does not pass judgment on students because of their beliefs, but simply challenges them to examine all beliefs critically, including their own. His students have stated that they cannot identify the professor's own views based either on the course materials or the textbook authored for the class by the professor, and he does not pressure them to adopt any particular position.
"I would not be doing my job as a philosophy professor," explained the professor, "if I did not require students to think about their beliefs and provide reasons in support of their beliefs— not my beliefs or anyone else's beliefs. Critical examination of beliefs, including one's own beliefs, and training in reasoning are among the primary objectives of a philosophy course, and of a liberal education in general. Only professors who are negligent or indifferent allow students to earn good grades simply by providing as a reason for an assertion 'well, this is what I believe'."
The professor will not discuss in detail his interaction with the student who complained to the ACLJ about him, because he does not believe it is appropriate to share the details of a student's coursework with the outside world. However, he does have a right to defend himself against false accusations. The core of the ACLJ's claim is that the student was in danger of failing the class because of the professor's religious bias before the ACLJ intervened. "That claim is preposterous," according to Pecorino. "At no time did I tell her she was in danger of failing. When I had to project a grade for her earlier in the semester, I projected a 'C' and that was when she was most resistant to providing any reasoning to support her assertions. She was not open to examining her own beliefs or to entering into the dialectical process of inquiry in community because, according to her, she already had all the answers." And what of the ACLJ's claim that the student had a failing grade average of 54 prior to the ACLJ's intervention? "That is a misleading use of information. I use a cumulative point system in grading," explained the professor. "In other words, as students progress during the semester, they earn points for each assignment, with a possible total of 100 points by the end of the semester. She at one point probably did have 54 points, but that in no way indicates she was in danger of failing. She had 54 points, not a failing grade average of 54. All students start the semester with 0 points, so by the ACLJ's logic, all students are in danger of failing."

And did the ACLJ's letter influence the professor, either directly or indirectly through pressure from college administrators? "Absolutely not," the professor states. "I received no pressure form my college administrators, only support, and although I was a bit bothered by all the hate emails and other communications that resulted from the ACLJ's campaign against me, I did not let that affect my grading of this student. I take my responsibilities as an educator too seriously for that to happen. The student received a 'B' because she earned a 'B,' no more and no less."
The ACLJ's campaign against this professor cannot be dismissed as insignificant. As the professor observes, "Essentially, the ACLJ is claiming a religious exemption from the obligation of students in public colleges to engage in critical thinking, and this claim strikes at the core of higher education. If permitted to go unchallenged, this claim will weaken our democratic and pluralistic society." Lindsay agrees, adding, "For a democracy to succeed, we need citizens who can provide reasons to support their beliefs. We cannot reason together if all we have are groups of individuals who adamantly insist they have all the answers because of some supernatural revelation and who are unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints. The ACLJ is a very slick, very well-funded organization, and its animosity toward critical thinking is even more troubling than its willingness to distort the facts."

We’ve all had students like this. Only a couple of years ago I had a student in a senior seminar class, a “capstone experience” for biology majors who refused to discuss or even justify their positions or opinions. I had “no right to pass judgment”. Of course I wasn’t passing judgment, I was trying to get students to think and support their positions in a manner scientific. Now that was the catch. It just doesn’t cut much mustard to tell me that human life begins at the moment of conception because the Bible says so (and it doesn’t). Their complaint about my bias against their religious perspective went no further than a dean of undergraduate studies who decided is was perfectly OK that a professor of science would ask science majors to justify positions in a scientific manner. Even then I was not requiring anyone to argue for any particular positions, but interestingly enough, all of the biology majors changed their initial ideas about the beginning of human life, not all in the same way, as they learned more, thought more, and gained more knowledge. Only one student dogmatically stuck to their initial position no matter what; they remained unfazed by new information and new ideas. And if such people are actually model citizens, then demoncracy is indeed in trouble should they ever gain a majority.

And it again brings up the idea that I have blogged about before that religious thinking interferes with learning. I was greatly relieved to learn that this student was not a biology major, but had gotten into the class via some strange non-major major. After this experience I investigated this non-major major and ultimately was instrumental in killing this academic monster.

Of course in this specific instance the Catholic Church jumped on the idea of conception as the beginning of human life because of they wanted a fixed point at which to say an individual with a soul existed. The logical inconsistencies that have arisen as science has moved on are causing all manner of problems unless the faithful just continue to believe. Religion and science may coexist, but dogmatism and science can never coexist.

Science education versus religious thinking

A recent commentary (Science Education and the Future of Humankind) by Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, asks, “Can we modify our educational system so that all high school graduates emerge with a science way of thinking?”

And of course he calls upon scientists to get involved especially in educating science teachers. Who can actually argue with this? No question about it, teachers are the key component, especially those in elementary education for two reasons. One, they reach kids during formative stages, and two, they are among the most woefully poorly trained to teach science.

Now I’ve recently commented on increasing the amount of science in liberal arts core curriculum, but I’m not going to hold my breath about any change there. We can probably teach teachers to become better at instructing science, but not without drastically changing the way we educate teachers. Teaching is a profession. Can you name any other profession that does not demand post-graduate education? Part of the problem is that teaching gets the shorted in terms of educational demands. How can anyone become proficient in a subject area and proficient in a profession is a 4-year curriculum? I maintain that it is not possible, although many teachers do manage to do a fine job, it is in spite of their education not as a result of it. Teachers should earn a regular BS/BA degree before embarking upon professional study to become proficient in teaching.

But even this isn’t going to solve the problem because deeply rooted religious beliefs are antithetic to scientific thinking. All those people who seek accommodation between religion and science are on a fool’s errand because very few religious practices are fully compatible with science (Unitarians being the one obvious exception).

I have seen the conflict first-hand in too many students. If they accept an evidence-based way of thinking, their religious experience is threatened and they find themselves faced with accepting ideas that they do not believe or want to accept on the basis of their religious beliefs. If faith is important, then evidence is not, and vice versa.

In a senior seminar class of mostly biology majors I presented a lesson on the morality of stem cell research. I am careful not to present anything that might be considered my position. Most agreed that human life began at conception, except one Jewish student who said it begins at birth. I had them seek information and discuss other ideas of when human life begins. As they got more sophisticated and were exposed to more different ideas, many of them modified their positions as they gained knowledge, for example, in the UK embryos less than 12 days old are used because up until this time twinning can occur. This one simple fact was very significant to many students, as was the idea of brain death and the commencement of higher level brain activity at around the 25th week of development. However a few dogmatically stuck to their guns (“life begins at conception”), forcing them to ignore or dismiss any information that ran counter to their religiously-based positions.

Pitting scientifically based learning in school against religious indoctrination at home and at church will only increase the divide and probably generate more pressure to publically fund religious schools or allow people to opt out of public school taxes on religious grounds.

Lederman is one smart guy, but he hasn’t been down in the educational trenches in a long time, if ever, and he just doesn’t know what most people are thinking.