Report: U.S. losing ground in science education

[Ms. DNA]

I found this article on CNN's website. Basically, it says that while the number of jobs requiring scientific skills increases, the number of American students who major in science or engineering lags behind other nations. (Finland has the highest proportion of scientists.) Although the U.S. depends on foreign-born scientists, many of them have problems with immigration or are sought by their own countries. Here's the full story:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/06/science.education.ap/index.html

[Lance]

woohoo less competition and more jobs for us.

[fafalone]

Doesn't surprise me at all. Science courses before college are aimed at the lowest common denominator who aren't interested in it anyway; the few that are get bored out of it.

[Radical Edward]

then you have the creationists trying to get their claws in and remove things like evolution from the curriculum too. fun fun fun.

[admiral_ju00]

then you have the creationists trying to get their claws in and remove things like evolution from the curriculum too. fun fun fun.

 

what, you mean with with idiocy such as this:

Oklahoma textbook bill passes -- without disclaimer

On April 28, 2004, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed House Bill 2194 -- a bill governing textbook purchase contracts -- by a vote of 96–0. Conspicuously absent from the bill as passed was the disclaimer provision added to the bill on February 23.

 

The disclaimer provision would have required textbooks that discuss evolution to include a long disclaimer virtually identical to one previously proposed in Oklahoma in 2001 and 2003 and in use in Alabama from 1996 to 2001. The proposed disclaimer describes evolution as "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things" and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things." It also states, "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact."

 

As amended, HB 2194 was passed by the House by a vote of 96–0 and referred to the Senate's Education Committee, which removed the section containing the disclaimer; the amended bill was passed by the Senate on April 13 by a vote of 44–0.

 

When HB 2194 returned to the House, the Senate's modifications were accepted by a vote of 55–41. According to the Associated Press, the vote was primarily along party lines; Bill Graves (R–Oklahoma City), who proposed the disclaimer amendment to HB 2194, urged his colleagues to vote against accepting the Senate's modifications. "I'm angry ... that this evolution disclaimer won't get a hearing out here," Graves said. "We have the government taking away the rights of these children to know they were created by a God, and I think that's wrong." He added, "If you tell kids that they're not any different than animals, pretty soon they're going to start acting like that, and that's what we’re having in our society today.”

 

Opio Toure (D–Oklahoma City), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opined that the adoption of Graves's disclaimer would have resulted in litigation; Victor Hutchison, George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma, explained, "All the major professional scientific societies in this country have issued official statements explicitly supporting the teaching of evolution," adding, "The fossil record is just tremendous. We've got DNA that totally supports what we see in the fossil records. It's overwhelming evidence, and the creationists just say there isn't any or they just ignore it."

 

yep, it's a problem.

[Radical Edward]

precisely the folks over on http://www.iidb.org get rather activist about it

[fafalone]

What's even more scary is that President Bush would most likely support Creationism still being taught.

[blike]

What's even more scary is that President Bush would most likely support Creationism still being taught.

Many of the worlds great scientists have been taught creation.

[fafalone]

Doesn't mean they should have been, especially nowadays when the overwhelming evidence disproves it.

[Skye]

But did it help them? Or conversely, did it hinder them? An invocation of something that is unknowable is a sure end to inquiry.

[blike]

Good question skye. I was just pointing out that I don't think its a major hinderance to a good scientific education.

[fafalone]

Didn't help or hinder, just wasted their time. ..and I'm referring to it being taught as something that actually did happen. It's certainly worth a mention as a ridiculous theory of the past, but absolutely shouldn't be taught as if it were valid.

[Glider]

It also states, "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any (italics added) statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact."

 

In light of the above, surely the same disclaimer should be printed in the bible and any other religious texts presenting alternative explanations for the origin of life? In which case, the statement:

 

Graves said. "We have the government taking away the rights of these children to know they were created by a God, and I think that's wrong."

 

is fundamentally flawed, because children cannot know they were created by a God, because it is a theory, and not a fact.

 

According to the tripartite (JTB) theory of knowledge, knowledge = Justified True Belief. In order to know something, a) we must believe it, b) it must be true, and c) we must have justification for believing it. Whilst evidence is justification, evidence alone does not make a thing true, therefore, without proof positive, we cannot know how life originated either way, we must decide what to believe based on our own evaluation of the justification (evidence) for believing it.

 

Therefore, if such disclaimers as

(evolution is) "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things" and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."

must appear in science texts through legislation, then it seems reasonable to demand that disclaimers such as "genesis is a controversial story which does not constitute a theory, yet which is presented as an explanation of the origin of living things" and "...the unproven belief that an invisible, omniscient and omnipotent being produced a world of living things." appear in all religious texts presenting a view on the origins of life.

 

If this does not happen, then there is a clear bias both in the legislation and, perhaps worse, in the information with which American students are to be presented.

 

Legislators should note: Passing a law on something does not influence its veracity. I.e. stating the bleedin' obvious (that evolution is a theory) does not make it any more or less true or false, nor does it affect in any way, the validity any evidence that exists for it.

[admiral_ju00]

the biggest problem is that many other states are considering the same or very similar reforms, that's in addition to what some countries are doing to a greater or lesser degree.

 

also if such notion passes in say the state of texas, then you can almost guarantee that most other states will follow, simply because texas is a major school book publishing state, so the books used in texas eventually spread to other states

 

on the other hand, teaching or brainwashing HS (school) kids religions propaganda (as i call it) is perfectly fine.

[Radical Edward]

Many of the worlds great scientists have been taught creation.

 

there is a difference between creation and creationism.

[fafalone]

Creationism should be taught as one of those stupid things the nutjob right-wing religious zealots try to pollute the education system with...

[Phi for All]

The main problem with ANY theory is when it is the only one represented. I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism as long as it is presented along with all the other theories as well. Choosing what to teach doesn't teach learning.

 

Don't teach just one theory of anything. This puts the decision to learn on the teacher, not the student. Only by comparing and contrasting various beliefs will we learn to spot the truth.

 

If I always prompt my five-year-old to remember her coat before going out, I am teaching her to be dependant on me for remembering her coat. If I let her go out without it, she will experience the effects of weather on her own and she will learn that not remembering her coat (and the consequences) is up to her.

[Dave]

Quite - especially not with something as important (and it is important to some people) as religion and scientific topics like evolution.

[Glider]

I agree.

[zhuam]

I just think that the majority of Americans do not care to study about science because they can live relatively well with an easier major. Who woudl bother spending many hours at night solving problems when you can make a decent living just by managing people? NOT MANY!

[badchad]

I agree with zhuam. There simply isn't any money in science. Look at college professor's. If you're good, by the end of you're career you'll top out about 6 figures and thats with a Ph.D. Have only your bachelors and a good technitian will max out about 60 or so. So essentially you'll bust your butt in coursework for peanuts. Not very attractive.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"Only" 6 figures?

 

ahaahahahahahahahahaahaha!

[admiral_ju00]

I agree with zhuam. There simply isn't any money in science. Look at college professor's. If you're good, by the end of you're career you'll top out about 6 figures and thats with a Ph.D. Have only your bachelors and a good technitian will max out about 60 or so. So essentially you'll bust your butt in coursework for peanuts. Not very attractive.

 

Many scientists place SCIENCE and Scientific Research above financial benefits they may have received should they chosen a different profession.

[badchad]

Thats not a whole lot, considering it takes 9-10 years of school to get a Ph.D. Plus an additional 3-4 during a post doc. After that if you land a faculty position, you start about 50-60. You'll probably move at least once, and then it'll take approx. 10 years to hit full professor and get tenure, which may only pay you 70-80 for a while. You don't get near 6 figures until the end of your career. For all the work that it takes, it's not that much money.

[bloodhound]

the moral of this tale: Do maths and enter the financial market. Get Bloooody RRRIIICHH