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.

[TaxRelief]

I am an electrical engineer, if that helps. :-)

[Tax-chick]

You're pretty superior for someone who can't even type "double-blind experiment."

We have science textbooks. At my children's educational level, these focus on factual knowledge: algae and fungi, mammals and reptiles, rodents and ruminants, etc. We have books with experiments to illustrate basic concepts: freezing, melting, and boiling, for example.

Even at higher levels of science instruction, most instruction is simply (as an earlier poster mentioned) memorization-based. Learn the periodic table. Learn the classification of animals and plants. Learn the geologic properties.

Most "experimentation" in science classes is merely repetition. You know the water will boil when you heat it - "testing" the premise is simply a formality. You know what the heat or sound will do, if you've worked the equations correctly. You know how the rocks will react to various physical and chemical tests.

You'll notice that none of what I've mentioned - the basic content of a high school science education, and of a college class for a non-science major (in other words, most people) has anything to do with the origins of the universe, or the development of human and animal life as we currently observe it. The boiling point is the boiling point, whatever I think about evolution. The algae is not a fungus, and don't eat that mushroom, whether its qualities depend on natural or supernatural processes.

Yes, I am ignorant of the characteristics of a double-blind experiment (although I'm going to read that link, after I make a spaghetti sauce), but that was irrelevant to my degree in Business Management, and to my pre-maternity career in Life Insurance State and Municipal Premium Taxes and Regulatory Compliance. Funny how that turned out.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

You're pretty superior for someone who can't even type "double-blind experiment."

Consider me properly admonished. Sounds like you have things well in hand there. I worry about the quality of education some home schooled kids get and your posts led me to believe you less capable than you probably are. For a brief time I taught high school math and physics and after that I was a private tutor for home-school kids. Working with some home-schooled kids I found HUGE gaps in knowledge that reflected the parents scholastic deviances in particular areas.

I admire anyone who takes on the task of home schooling, it is a very big task. I wish you and yours the best, and apologize for being a little BI#$H!

Out of curiosity, will you cover evolution at all with your kids or skip it entirely?

[Proud_texan]

Cool, that's another one to add to my list, an Islamofacist.

Stupid ignorant drooling Islamofacist Christian Bible thumper.

I'm collecting quite a resume, thanks for the addition!

[balrog666]

Whether or not Darwinian evolution occurs has no relevance to whether or not there is significance in the Romans executing an "irritating Jewish rabbit" some two-thousand years ago.

Bugs Bunny is dead?

[TaxRelief]

"Double-blind" means simply that neither the staff nor the subjects of the experiment know to which group each subject is assigned.

So for instance, if an experiment involved feeding one group of rats the substance being tested and the other group of rats a placebo, the staff would not know which rats were getting the placebo, and neither would the rats. :-)

[TaxRelief]

Ignatius,

Your evaluation of Tax-chick, and her abilities to homeschool, are certainly not based on any actual hands-on contact or the use of the "scientific method".

I have met and spent time with EACH of her children, as have most active FReepers in NC, and I can assure you that Taxchick's children will be better prepared to enter the "real world" than most.

I agree that homeschooled children have gaps in their education, but so do public school and private school children. They just seem odd to you because they are different gaps.

[Proud_texan]

Aw, it's okay, I've never even brought up my religious beliefs, just what, to me, were unanswered questions about Darwin and his theory and I got called all of those (there were a couple more but they weren't really very creative and they didn't make the cut) so there's no special requirements to join the club but a sense of irony helps.

So now I simple embrace all those things up front, silently bemoan the questions asked but not answered and figure that if I just show up I'll pick up a few more choice appellations to add to my list.

Now I find I side with Islamic terrorists.

Welcome to the shallow end of the gene pool, you're more than welcome here, just watch out for the drool.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

You are correct sir, I did pop off without justification and certainly came off as being superior as she pointed out. From her post and yours it seems she does have things in hand. I hope Tax-Chick will accept my apology. I would also encourage her (or any other home schoolers) to seek outside help in areas they feel beyond their capabilities. From experience one particular area many seek a tutor is Math, especially once they start getting into geometry, algebra, trig and calculus.

I would like to add that although I did see gaps in certain areas with home schoolers I should also say that I found that overall the kids had better educations than the average public school kids in the school I worked in. The kids were a lot more respectful and willing to learn what I was teaching as well.

I'm glad to here your positive appraisal of what is going on in Tax-Chicks school.

[Dimensio]

Cool, that's another one to add to my list, an Islamofacist.

I didn't say that you were an Islamofacist, I'm just pointing out that you are endorsing a position also endorsed by Islamic fundamentalists, just as you "point out" that we on the evolution side take the side of the ACLU.

[johnnyb_61820]

Exactly. And we should equip them with the baloney detector.

[Dimensio]

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

And, as has been pointed out, you are merely dishonestly using different definitions than the ones that are actually intended in the context. This has been explained so many times that there is no excuse for you to repeat this bogus argument. You are, without question, a liar.

You've been told before that when a word has multiple definitions, the applicable definition depends on the context. You, however, are pretending that you can use any definition that you want and apply it whenever you want to "prove" a point. This is classical creationist dishonesty, and I notice that you completely dodged the issue where, by your "logic", I "proved" that the Christian God is a tyrant, predisposed toward cruelty and the cause of suffering.

[little jeremiah]

Ping to self for later pingout.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you for your very civil response ... it's a hot day, and I had a lapse of Niceness for a minute :-).

I know that I have gaps in what I'm able to teach effectively; these reflect my personal interests more than any deep philosophical issues. My children know more about accounting, finance, and economics than the average ... not to mention housecleaning, baby care, and Arabic. On the other hand, my husband is an engineer, and he emphasizes subjects (such as math and programming) that are not my strengths.

We also have other resources, such as community college and private schools that register homeschoolers, to provide courses that are difficult to offer at home.

As to whether we will cover evolution, I'd have to say "probably not," at least in our home instruction. As I said earlier, it's really not relevant at all to the majority of subjects, and even to most science instruction. On the other hand, if one of our children is taking a course in a school environment, they are likely to be exposed to an evolutionist perspective. We will not reject an educational opportunity for that reason, any more than we reject books that are evolutionist, if they have other material that is interesting. We teach what we believe to be true, while acknowledging that there are other perspectives, and that we are probably not totally right about everything, and contrary views totally wrong.

Got a little muddled there, but I'm saying that we're not afraid to acknowledge that the evolutionist perspective is out there, and that it is commonly held. Similarly, we are not afraid to have our children learn about other religious beliefs, and to understand that the adherents of other faiths are as fervent in their beliefs as we are in ours. Ultimately, we care about what is True, and we recognize that our limited understanding will always be erroneous in some respects.

[js1138]

After reading that I have nothing to say.

[narby]

This reminds me of a session we had with Dataman, I think it was. Where he quoted a dictionary as saying that "Theory" meant "guess". Turns out that was the 4th definition in the dictionary after three that were very much more applicable.

Quite a deliberate distortion for the Lord.

The creationists that hang around after their first "It's only a theory" post, really don't do any good for the reputation of Christians.

[johnnyb_61820]

Everyone I've met in psychology has a horribly bad idea of what a control should be. They tend to choose controls that are guaranteed to show whatever they want to prove.

For example, on a test here was the question:

"If someone were to try to come up with a relaxation technique to try to HELP IMPROVE the ability of people to fall asleep, and they had everyone in class attempt the technique at their desks, what should the control be?"

My answer: "have a group of students who simply were to try to go to sleep by whatever method they deemed appropriate at their desks"

What was the official answer? "The control group was supposed to just SIT at their desks."

So, if this experiment was performed like the book wanted, you could have proved that people trying to go to sleep were more successful at falling asleep than people who were sitting down minding their own business. Great. That's real useful information. This sort of idea is probably the source of most of the crap theories in psychology. "Let's make the control group jump off of buildings!" "Oooh, great idea -- that would make an excellent control to whether or not our counseling methods increase lifespan!"

[Alia]

say what?

[b_sharp]

Hell, you can rag on psychology all you want, I got tired of listening to other people's problems (counselling was all I could find) so changed to CS 18 years ago. Now I'm getting sick of that so I'm considering going into biology next. If that doesn't work out I'll start my own religion.

[blowfish]

Yeah, if 99% of the people decide that Pi = 3, then it must be 3!
And if 97% of the people think that all chemicals are evil and dangerous, then it must be true!
And if 98.6% of all people believe in ghosts, then they must be real!
That will save a lot of research time and money. Just conduct a poll, and you're done!
"Excuse me, Mr Doe, do you think that stars are large aggregations of plasma, or little holes punched in a big shell? Little holes, you say? I'll make a note of it."