Kids' Book on Evolution Stirs Censorship Debate

Star Tribune ^ | May 12, 2005 | Jill Burcum

[wallcrawlr]

With its lavish illustrations of colorful, cuddly critters, "Our Family Tree" looks like the kind of book kids keep by their bedside to read again and again.

But when its St. Paul author, Lisa Westberg Peters, planned to talk about the book in classroom appearances today and Friday at a Monticello, Minn., elementary school, educators got cold feet.

"Our Family Tree" focuses on evolution, the scientific explanation for human origins that some believe contradicts biblical teachings. Peters' appearances, which were to focus on helping kids learn how to write, were canceled.

"It's a cute book. There's nothing wrong with it. We just don't need that kind of debate," said Brad Sanderson, principal at Pinewood Elementary.

Monticello's assistant superintendent, Jim Johnson, said school officials made a reasonable request of Peters to talk about writing but leave the discussion about evolution to teachers. When she refused, the visit was scuttled.

Across the country, there has been increasing opposition to teaching evolution. Peters said officials at two other Minnesota school districts have asked her not to talk about the book in visits over the past year.

The author believes that she is being censored -- something the schools deny.

"Once you start censoring, it's a slippery slope. Are geology and physics next? You have to stop it right away," said Peters, who won a Minnesota Book Award for "Our Family Tree," published in 2003.

In Kansas, the State Board of Education is expected to require that teachers tell students that evolution is controversial. Bills have been introduced in Georgia and Alabama to allow educators to question evolution in the classroom and offer alternatives.

Last year, the Grantsburg, Wis., school district drew widespread attention when a new policy urged teachers to explore alternative theories to evolution.

[wallcrawlr]

Not even if God himself comes down from heaven,

well, he is coming...so we can find out then. ;-)

[js1138]

I don't know a double-blind experiment from a hole in the head, "like many creationists on this thread."

And yet you would have strong opinions about what should be taught in science classes.

[Politicalmom]

I want to hang out with you. : ) I love your posts.

[Dimensio]

If I'm the only one that uses a dictionary than so be it...but I find it difficult to discuss things with people without first understanding what they mean. I didnt create the definitions, I just use them for discussion.

Stop trying to justify this. Admit your mistake and move on; continually trying to justify using the wrong definition in a context of a word with multiple definitions doesn't make you look good.

In the context of science, "theory" does not mean "belief". That definition is not the one used. It is a correct definition for some uses of the word "theory", but not when speaking of "scientific theory". Stop pretending that we're too stupid to understand this; it is not honest of you to change out the meaning of "scientific theory" and then appeal to "it's in the dictionary!" Dictionary definitions do not apply as you see fit, they apply based upon the context in which a word is used.

[Tax-chick]

From a practical standpoint, there isn't enough time to teach alternative theories and minority viewpoints for every scientific field. From an educational standpoint, the dominant theory is what students will be exposed to in college. If public schools want to prepare their students to go on to higher education, science curricula must be taught with this in mind.

That's a thoughtful point, and I think I pretty much agree with your practical reasoning. (I'm hedging because my kids are all yelling and my brain is foggy, not because of any obvious fault in your reasoning :-).

I would reach roughly the same conclusing by saying, if you send your children to the government's schools, you get the government's agenda in all subjects.

p.s. I agree with you about the sports :-).

[wallcrawlr]

I disagree.

Please continue....

[Dimensio]

Okay. The Christian God is a powerful despot. I know, because the dictionary has a definition of "God" that includes "despot".

Therefore the Christian God is a despot. Proven by the dictioanry.

[Tax-chick]

And yet you would have strong opinions about what should be taught in science classes.

Your slip is showing :-).

Read my posts, if you like. You'll see that I have a strong opinion on what constitutes "censorship" and what doesn't. I also have an opinion on what constitutes "silliness," even on a Thursday.

Aside from that, I teach my children at home, and I have no opinion on what should be taught in science classes we don't attend. That's for the people who attend them.

[Liberal Classic]

Thanks for the reply. I certainly do not say science education is perfect. Science education can and should be improved. Here's a recent thread about science textbooks which I thought was illustrative.

[js1138]

I'm being flippant, but I am sad that you got through school without knowing what a double blind experiment is.

If I had to limit a science curriculum to one and only one major concept, that would be it. Most everything else is memorization. Double blind goes to the heart of how we collect data and what we choose to believe when cause and effect relationships don't hit you over the head.

[doc30]

Wallcawlr, did you even read the full post #51 you wrote? You clearly quote the six usages of the word "theory" in the English language. RadioAstronomer posted a reply to wallcrawlr that expands on definition #1 of the six given:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This first definition given by wallcrawlr is the scientific usage of the word theory. The fifth definition, which reflects the common, or lay, definition equates a theory with belief. Which correctly, and according to RadioAstronomer, is NOT the scientific usage.

Playing word games is, again, blatant dishonesty on the part of creationists to corrupt science as a whole in order to fit their belief in creationism.

[wallcrawlr]

I agree...God is a ruler with absolute power.

You seem to be getting a little "worked up", so for the sake of your sanity...I'm going to reduce my postings to you.

[Tax-chick]

I saw that thread. I think that education in science should focus on what can be observed. When a class spends time on speculation, it's not spending the time on known facts.

Perhaps one problem is that so many of the known facts in science require MATH (not to mention advanced spelling), and that's too much for the average education-school graduate.

[Junior]

Double Blind.

[wallcrawlr]

dude, I just went through it all...read further on and I have the feeling we'll both eventually end up at the same place as post #112.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you both ... I'll look at this later. I recognize that it's an important concept.

I got through the required science classes in (public) high school and (private, secular) college because I'm really good at memorization!

[wallcrawlr]

btw, there is a typo in your tagline.

"Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art"

[Tax-chick]

Thanks! Come up any time for "What's with this casserole, again?" and ultra-right-wing goofing :-).

[Dimensio]

Excuse me, but the dictionary that I read has a definition for despot that is " A person who wields power oppressively; a tyrant.".

I think that it is clear here -- and you have to agree with your logic -- that the Christian God is a tyrant; he weilds power oppressively. And just to further the dictionary game, that means that he is " A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner." So the Christian god is a cruel, harsh ruler, which means that he is "Disposed to inflict pain or suffering."

Or are you the only one who gets to decide what definitions apply and when?

I'm going to reduce my postings to you.

I'm not surprised. The most common response from a creationist, when their logic is exposed as having a faulty premise, is first to dishonestly try to justify their use of a faulty argument, and then to run away like a coward while blaming everyone else for the response that they get to using dishonest and/or illogical arguments.

[wallcrawlr]

I'm not surprised. The most common response from a creationist, when their logic is exposed as having a faulty premise, is first to dishonestly try to justify their use of a faulty argument, and then to run away like a coward while blaming everyone else for the response that they get to using dishonest and/or illogical arguments.

oh whatever...if it makes you feel better, than go ahead. I dont have that level of pride you obviously need...so do whatever it takes to make yourself feel like a winner.

Its been a long time since I've had a discussion on Fr where someone like yourself gets so personal...please do me a corresponding favor and dont post in my threads or engage me directly again.