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.

[stremba]

Funny, but in your own post of the definition of theory, you posted the following:

the·o·ry

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.

Sounds quite a bit like the definition of theory that is expounded upon in RA's post.

[longshadow]

No offense but are you really not aware that the scientific community......

"No offense," but I was just wondering how it is possible for someone to post what you posted to someone with a screen name like "RadioAstronomer"?

Does it not occur to you that "RadioAstronomer" likely is in a better position to know what's going on in the "scientific community" than you do, especially with regard (but not limited) to the Big Bang?

Has it occurred to you that if your perception of the "scientific community" differs from "RadioAstronomer's" it's more likely due your sources being ill-informed (or intentionally mendacious) than his?

[Proud_texan]

Oh, us social conservatives should just be kept in a closet and only allowed out at election time. Ignorant, Bible thumping, married to their cousin we can't go five minutes without drooling.

What an embarrassment we must be to conservatives that side with the ACLU on trying to suppress ID or creationism. Being on the same side as us on other issues really puts a blanket at those tony cocktail parties.

Kinda makes me glad I'm a drooler.

[PatrickHenry]

Does it not occur to you that "RadioAstronomer" likely is in a better position to know what's going on in the "scientific community" than you do ...

How arrogant of you to ignore the wisdom of the welfare line, the trailer park, and the creation science websites.

[wallcrawlr]

I was just wondering what your view on that source was...no ill intentions were meant.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

You home school your kids yet seem to have no basic knowledge of science or the scientific method, don't know what a double bind experiment is. I hope all your kids want to be preachers when they grow up because you are closing a lot of doors for them unless you have someone else supplementing their science eduction.

[Dimensio]

Kinda makes me glad I'm a drooler.

Yep. You can proudly say that you don't side with the ACLU on this issue.

You side with Islamic terrorists instead.

[wallcrawlr]

funny, but see post #65

[TaxRelief]

Posted by taxrelief to gobucks; PatrickHenry; Strategerist; Finny, on 01/26/2005:

---

Scientific theories rely heavily upon the commonman's faith in the scientific community. That faith is weak at best, and currently it is the fault of weak scientists who put their personal situations ahead of Truth.

For instance, primary- and secondary-school science curricula in this country are polluted with political agenda. Students can clearly see that the extinction of certain species of animals will not affect the earth's ability to be self-sustaining, that rain forests can be replanted, that "old forests" offer no benefit over new forests, and that nuclear power is really the only clean, renewable source of energy currently available.

Undoubtedly, many folks are sucked in by politically-driven science lessons that rely on the "cute, tiger cub factor"; but when they finally realize the Truth they are angry, embarrassed and looking for someone to blame. If they don't entrench themselves in their positions, then the obvious scapegoat will be the Scientific Community as a whole. In other words, they can reasonably conclude that if scientists are misleading folks over one topic, they may be practicing deceit in other areas as well.

Does popular opinion matter, though? The Scientific Community mistakenly believes that if they, who comprise perhaps .05% of the population, know the Truth, then the "opinions" of the other 99.95% of the population are invalid. At the same time, though, the outrage and frustration over the general population's mistrust of Scientists is a regular topic in boardrooms of research organizations and publications across the country. Metaphorically, this dilemma can be compared to the old riddle of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear the 'Bang!', did the tree make a sound?" What use is a theory that only a small majority trust or believe?

What value is public opinion if it is simply wrong? Public opinion in actual fact is The Force that drives public will; and public will is the force that encourages young people to become researchers, technicians and inventors. Public will is the force that funds education, research and medical innovation.

Perhaps the scientific community will eventually accept the fact that it is their duty to improve public opinion, and will work to root out those within the community who perpetrate myths and half-truths for personal gain, whether to win research grants or acceptance of administrations and social peers.

Persuading public opinion will also require the theorists to abandon the practice of passionately defending any theory that has been officially declared a "Theory". They must eventually realize that in the mind of the average reader some of this over-zealous defense is the equivalent of Shakespeare's "The lady doth protest too much!".

Finally, if the scientific community does desire reparation of its tarnished reputation, it must choose reputable scientists to speak out publically when the NY Times, Scientific American and Science News, for example) print articles like "Air pollution trims fetal growth" that rely on correlation data and indirectly related "rat studies".

---

---

Taxrelief to PatrickHenry 01/13/2005:

---

There was a time when one could confidently state that a "scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an event or occurance, formulated from a specific group of phenomena, tested hypotheses, laws and facts."

Unfortunately, the concept of scientific theory has devolved into political stratagem. Christians, Muslims and Jews are pitted against Evolutionists; environmental whackos against geologists; quantum theorists against big-bang theorists; mathematicians against economists; and so on.

Egos now so driven the current trendy "theories", that it is almost shameful to defame the adjective "scientific" by using it as a modifier.

Defenders of these great, politically-motivated, antithetic assumptions continue to discredit all scientists, myself included, leaving us shaking our heads and wondering how we let it happen.

---

---

More to come...

[RobRoy]

Teaching evolution in elementary school is indoctrination. The reason is simple. You teach things kids can understand with a critical mind. You teach reading, math, etc. They do not have anywhere near enough understanding to ask the important questions.

There is a reason why some studies are left for college.

[ADisciple]

Please don't annoy or feed the Fundies. And whatever you do, don't stick your fingers between the bars!!

[RobRoy]

Censorship only applies to adults. It is not censorship to keep playboy out of schools. It IS censorship to keep it out of stores.

You can keep ANYTHING out of schools and it is not, by definition, censorship.

[Pyro7480]

Oh, us social conservatives should just be kept in a closet and only allowed out at election time. Ignorant, Bible thumping, married to their cousin we can't go five minutes without drooling.

I don't think the "Bible thumper" label applies to practicing, orthodox Catholics who agree with the evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative Protestants on almost all of the same issues. I actually can't think of what names are thrown Catholics way, other than being "Papists," though I've heard some nasty things from secularists over the predator priest issue.

[jwalsh07]

Does it illustrate how giraffes streeeeetched their necks to get taller each generation?

Too long or too short?

[stremba]

Okay, so then you admit that when scientists talk about the theory of evolution they are using definition 1 from your post. So what's your point? The fact that the word theory has other definitions is irrelevant. Scientific terms have very precise technical meanings which in many cases aren't all that close to their common meanings. For example, if you spend eight hours every day pushing on a brick wall and if you get paid to do so, according to the scientific definition of the term, you have done absolutely no work, even though by the common usage of that word, you certainly have done a full day's work. If you admit that scientists mean something more akin to your definition 1 by the term theory, I just fail to see what your point is.

[wallcrawlr]

Point being that Modernman mentions this:

You creationists constantly call the TOE a "religion" without any support for your claim. 27 posted on 05/12/2005 9:22:50 AM CDT by Modernman

He mentions it as a part of a short dialogue early in the thread.

I posted definitions that label the word theory as a belief.

religion = belief, TOE = belief, TOE = religion

Obviously those scientists that dont believe in a a creation model wouldnt want to think of TOE as a belief, but as a Christian I'm not willing to give up that point. I'll call it a theory, you'll call it a theory. I know what I mean and I know what you mean. But we dont agree with what we each mean.

[b_sharp]

"Since you have made science a profession, I'm not surprised. Most people who have taken a year of college science could not design the simplest double blind experiment, nor could they tell you why the concept is important. I could say the same about most people practicing in the social sciences and psychology"

I'm not sure if I should admit this here but my training was in Psychology. Every one of my 'buds' in Psych did know what Dbl Blind is and why it is important.
Experimentation in Psych is much more rigorous than you may think. Psychological experimentation is constrained by its "subjects" you know.

[doc30]

LOL!

[js1138]

My B.A. was in psychology. I could be sensitive about people ragging on psychology, but I'm not. Everyone in my college was required to take grad record exams. The department was built around its counselling program, and nearly everyone failed the GREs miserably.

Experimental Psychology is a young science, but it can be legitimate. It's just rare.

[GreenFreeper]

You should stick to topics you know something about- I assume taxes. How is ecology and such "non-productive"?