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.

[Dimensio]

I would simply say that it has varying definitions depending on the group using it.

And when scientists -- who are the ones who work with the theory of evolution -- use the word, they are not using the "belief" definition yet you're dishonestly trying to switch out the definition that they use with the "belief" one because you are apparently of the mistaken notion that you can change reality by simply redefining it.

[John O]

Patrick Henry has posted links to plans to indoctrinate public school kindergardeners with evolutionary beliefs before. Why is that necessary?

Evolution before eight or it's too late?

[Aquinasfan]

Can your argument be tested experimentally?

To what argument are you referring?

"the idea that arguments can be settled by experiment."

[Tax-chick]

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

[Dimensio]

To digress from the topic somewhat, one reason I believe in Biblical Creationism is that it's clear to me that a materialist worldview is logically incompatible with Christianity.

Lack of belief in Biblical Creationism != "a materialistic worldview".

. If Darwinism "must" be correct, because any other explanation is supernatural

False dichotomy.

then what possible benefit is it to you or me that the Romans executed an irritating Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago?

Question founded upon faulty premise.

[DannyTN]

Run-on sentence award.

[blowfish]

Absolutely. And we can finally stop wasting time on those wacky, unproven fields of geology, astrophysics while were at it. An that crazy 'stars other than the sun' theory! Never seen one of those stars in a lab, after all...

[Tax-chick]

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. Bless your heart.

[wallcrawlr]

"...they mean what AIG says they mean."

well, I'm not sure youre using their words correctly, because they call using the term theory a problem. Scientists try to put Evolution on par with other well-known theories and expect us to simply accept it, when Evolution is not a proven fact. What AIG means is

It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

[wallcrawlr]

Sure, generally I'd agree with you.

But not for us that dont accept evolution as fact. In that instance...conjecture is more appropriate.

[bondserv]

Scientific Method

Purpose: Explain topic or need for research.
Question: Put your topic into a question that will be answered by your research.
Research: Find out background information about your topic so that you can predict an answer to your question. (Be sure to prejudice yourself before you begin.)
Hypothesis: After you've done your research, make a prediction as to what you think the answer to your question is. This is your hypothesis. (This part brings in the grant $$$$. Remember: too many incorrect hypotheses will limit future funding.)
Experiment: This is the actual experiment that you will conduct. List your materials and procedure including your constants (control) and variable.
Analysis: This is the data you have collected. Display it in tables, graphs, and be sure to include a significant portion of anecdotal evidence and single, unrepeatable occurrences. If your data does not fit your (grant funded) hypothesis, adjust your norm and eliminate "erroneous" data and anomalies.
Conclusion:State why your hypothesis was correct or incorrect. (Warning: It had better be correct. If it's not, adjust data to fit.)

---

The most widely accepted form of popular science is "consensus science". After all, if 3 out of 4 agree, then it must be so.

If the scientific community wants to regain respect from the majority of "common people", it must abandon the prejudicial "scientific method", it must balk at "consensus science", it must reject conclusions based in mathematical theory and it must return to peer review of repeatable laboratory experiment as the sole determinant of conclusions.

Bookmarked.

[crail]

Scientists try to put Evolution on par with other well-known theories and expect us to simply accept it, when Evolution is not a proven fact.

Evolution is on par with all scientific theories, none of which are proven facts. The Germ Theory of Disease is not a proven fact. In fact, the Germ Theory of Disease will _never_ be a fact. Not even if God himself comes down from heaven, catches a cold, and says "why did I ever invent germs... all they do is give us diseases." A theory is different than a fact, not lesser, different.

There is no graduation from theory to fact. A theory explains things, makes predictions... a fact is simply an observation.

[Dimensio]

But not for us that dont accept evolution as fact. In that instance...conjecture is more appropriate.

Not accepting evolution as fact is one thing. Asserting that it's all conjecture is either dishonesty or ignorance of the evidence presented for it.

Argue that the evidence is invalid, that's fine (so long as said arguments aren't faulty), but don't pretend that nothing has been presented apart from speculation. And this still does not justify dishonestly swapping out definitions when speaking of the theory. You know what scientists mean when they use the word "theory" in the context of scientific theory, so stop pulling out a dictionary and trying to tell us that they mean something else. We're not stupid and we're not logically deficient, so we're not going to fall for it.

[wallcrawlr]

then what possible benefit is it to you or me that the Romans executed an irritating Jewish rabbi two thousand years ago?

answer the question

[Liberal Classic]

There's nothing wrong with having faith in the Creator. On the contrary, I believe it is a Good Thing ®. I have no problem with prayer in school by students or teachers as personal statements of faith during commencement ceremonies or football games. (Though I consider sporting events to be trivial matters in the grand scheme of things, some people place great importance on them and believe them worthy of prayer.) Nor am I opposed to discussions of the merits of evolution versus creationism in philosophy class, or in english class, or on the debate team. However, in science class, the dominant scientific theory is what should be taught. 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.

[Dimensio]

I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

Then perhaps you should word your sentences in such a way that they do not give casual onlookers the impression that you are equating a lack of belief in Biblical Creationism with "a materialistic worldview". As you had phrased it, it appeared as though you had made a binary choice.

[Dimensio]

answer the question

Why? The question is meaningless. It is founded upon a faulty premise. 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.

[js1138]

"the idea that arguments can be settled by experiment."

Perhaps you imagined seeing the word "all" at the beginning of my sentence. It wasn't there.

[wallcrawlr]

seriously dude, you need to stop making this so personal.

You know what scientists mean when they use the word "theory" in the context of scientific theory, so stop pulling out a dictionary and trying to tell us that they mean something else.

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.

[Dimensio]

Oops. RABBI. Not Rabbit. Though the question is still meaningless.