Heh. Greg Laden says it...

[kiless]

"So, yesterday Afternoon, there was a meeting of the Minnesota
Atheists that included a one hour panel discussion of evolution,
creationism, science education, and so on. The panel was moderated by
Lynn Fellman, and included (in order from right to left as the
audience gazed on) Randy Moore, Sehoya Cotner, Jane Phillips, Greg
Laden, and PZ Myers."
...
"I just want to mention one point that I made that I feel is very
important: There is a big difference between what can and should
happen in a college classroom and a high school classroom, owing to
the difference in relationship between instructor and administration,
instructor and student, and instructor and parents. And school boards
(colleges, we don't have 'em!). These differences need to be kept in
mind when discussing strategies. For example, PZ's strategy and my
strategy would not work in a high school. For long."

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/02/creationism_and_evolution_in_t.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

[kil...@gmail.com]

Actually - read this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/what_did_i_talk_about_in_st_pa.php

I think this might be a very good time to write to both PZ and to Greg Laden and tell them what we plan to do at D*C?

"It was a good discussion, though, with a whole gang of UM educators up front talking about our diverse strategies for dealing with creationism in the classroom. The one thing I think we missed, and that Greg brought up several times, is more input from high school teachers. What we can do in a university and what others can do in a public school are very different, and I actually think the high school experience is more formative and more important."

[Skepticality]

Well, the nice part is there is a great chance that PZ will be at
Dragon*Con this year. He applied and I told the Guest Committee who he
was and that he would be a great guest and that the Science as well as
the Skeptic track would definitely use him. I hope I can convince him
to come if he doesn't get accepted as a guest, but it will likely
depend on his schedule, since that is what happened last year. :|

On Feb 17, 3:34 am, "kil...@gmail.com" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually - read this:
>

> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/what_did_i_talk_about_in_s...

[kil...@gmail.com]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, science teachers and PZ - perfect match!!! Absolute photo op, let alone teachers being on a panel with him. :) :) He'll be on Science panels as well as Skeptic, yes?

Can Skeptic Zone ask to interview him? ;) Mind, I guess Skepticality should have first dibs, since you guys are doing all the organisation work there!

[badrescher]

Uh, just what IS the plan?

I commented on PZ's blog yesterday (plugged the group, too) and
mentioned something you all might find interesting.

I gave my students an extra credit assignment for Darwin week and was
approached by a student who told me that she really knew nothing about
evolution. This class is for graduating seniors (in college, for those
who don't know me).

Also, as I was looking for ideas for the assignment, I stumbled across
may sites designed to tell fundamental Christian students how to write
papers on evolution. They said to approach it like a journalist and
make statements like "Some scientists believe that..." rather than
making statements with which they disagree.

I had 11 students (out of 43 who took the survey) who disagreed with a
statement that the theory of evolution is essentially true. To keep
from getting a journalist-like report and to inspire them to examine
their own beliefs, I gave them an option to challenge the theory and
to attempt to earn a lot more points than someone who does not
challenge it. I asked them to state their case, but that the "bonus
points" would only be awarded with their arguments are valid and based
on accurate premises. I suggested that they find out by reading
criticisms of those arguments.

If they chose to do this, they would find out what's wrong with the
arguments either from critics or from me when I provide them with
feedback. It's due soon, so I'll let you know if anyone chose to do
it.

This was an extra credit assignment and several options were
available, but I think it could be adapted to serve as a required
assignment.

-Barb

[kil...@gmail.com]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:49 AM, badrescher <badre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Uh, just what IS the plan?

I think we're still working on that... but overall 'plan' at D*C I guess is to have the group represented, heard, acknowledged and help out a bit with challenging some of the preconceptions out there?

 

This was an extra credit assignment and several options were
available, but I think it could be adapted to serve as a required
assignment.

Okay, I'm contacting Martin now - you can read and hear Mike's interview with him on Radio National, about two-thirds into the show? He talks about a similar experience here in Australia - it is fascinating to see this as a world-wide issue for educators!

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2008/2371766.htm

[Matt Lowry]

I know that Phil Plait, president of JREF and "Bad Astronomer", will
be at DC and be participating in the SkepTrack. I also know he's
interested in participating in the teacher track (spoke with him at
the JREF Forum about this). If you all would like, I can try keeping
in touch with him via PM over at the Forum.

I also like that PZ Myers will likely be there. We should have
someone serve as "point" to keep in touch with him as well.

Btw, Barb - your evolution extra credit assignment is very
interesting. I suggest bringing it to DC.

Cheers - Matt

[kil...@gmail.com]

I have Phil Plait's email address and already told him about this group twice. :( I must be not liked at all!!

What I'd suggest is going via Derek? Simply because, Derek was the one who told me about PZ Myers and I'm certain that if there needs to be particular guests added, he'd be best to contact? Because Derek (and the other Track directors) seem to hold the reins in terms of 'who does what' - I guess at the moment it's probably best to actually sort out what we're doing first! :)

Would, for example, PZ Myers / Phil Plait be much use on a panel primarily about non-tertiary education? Would they be more relevant on a discussion about 'how we are fooled'? Plait would be excellent on adding to a discussion on paradolia, I'm sure, since he's talked about it in relation to astronomy several times!

I also know that guests are 'allocated' a certain number of panels and have to meet that requirement... so perhaps sorting out topics and sending them to Derek will be the first step as to whether they're relevant (or even interested or feel they can contribute)?

Worst gets to the worst, there's clashes with panels... which'd be awful. I had two cases where I had to choose what to attend last year and thankfully one cancelled. So, maybe wiser to set something more 'in stone' first? Because I'm of the opinion that despite the 'stars of skepticism' - the most important element is you guys first. After all, you're doing all the hard work so far! :)

[badrescher]

On Feb 19, 7:20 pm, Matt Lowry <lowryc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Btw, Barb - your evolution extra credit assignment is very
> interesting.  I suggest bringing it to DC.

On Feb 19, 7:20 pm, Matt Lowry <lowryc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Btw, Barb - your evolution extra credit assignment is very
> interesting. I suggest bringing it to DC.
>

I certainly have something to say about it.

Apparently, I have at least 5 Fundamental Christians this semester. I
think the class is down to 43 students, and there are probably more,
so this is an interesting proportion.

Three tried to argue against evolution, but one of these does not
disagree with the theory, she just enjoys a challenge. She did a great
job arguing one point only, integrating the course material
beautifully. The assignment certainly turned the critical-thinking
button on for this one. Her entire argument rested on the fact that
science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty. She discussed the
whole reasoning behind deduction and induction and first principles.
Where this argument fell flat was in the conclusion: that this fact
levels the playing field.

The other two failed to follow my strongly-worded recommendation to
read criticisms of their arguments, so I had fun breaking them down,
but I have no way of knowing if my criticisms will be considered.

The first one I read got her arguments from windmillministries.org,
and they were some of the weakest I've seen. All of the common
misconceptions were there, so it was a great opportunity to straighten
her out, but I had to say that she didn't understand the theory at
all.

The last of the three was the worst, though, and it came from one of
my best students. Her premise: "The idea that “ all life evolved from
non-life”, as Darwin claimed, is not only a premature statement but
also very unlikely."

They might as well have tried to argue that the sky could not possibly
be green.

Another student tried to give an account of a panel discussion that I
attended, but she mostly just talked about how she didn't believe in
evolution because she's a Christian.

Although I think it is appalling that so many students make it to (and
through) college without learning even the basics of evolution, but
what really disappoints me is that they will complete an assignment
choosing to refute it without even knowing what they are trying refute
- even when instructed to find out first.

The positives, though, outweighed this. Of the other 10 students who
chose to do the assignment:
- one who knew nothing about evolution learned ALL about it
- one who wanted to learn more about the arguments given by the ID
movement focused on their arguments refuting the evolution of the eye
- one who tried to describe the evolution of the eye discovered how
little she knew about evolution & the eye, but marveled at the
processes that resulted in what we have today.
- one who accepted the theory did her best to find at least one flaw,
even asking a panel what they thought were holes (of course they said
their weren't any and discussed questions of detail)
- three wrote great summaries of what is known about the evolution of
the human eye

The rest were either boring accounts of a talk they attended or a poor
report on the evolution of the eye.

I think that's a pretty good result!

-Barb

[Skepticality]

Don't fret too much, Phil is now so damn busy he has hardly the time
to talk to anyone these days!