Atheist Revolution

Arizona Rejects School Vouchers

2009-03-31T05:29:00.000-05:00

Image by pmorgan via Flickr

I know that there are many opinions on the subject of school vouchers and that some see them as a perfectly acceptable way of improving the educational experience of their children. I tend to see vouchers, frequently pushed by Christian extremists in the U.S., as a systematic strategy for destroying public education, largely perceived as a secular threat. I have no problem whatsoever with families opting for private schools. I do however have a problem with my government funding religious and other private schools.

I was happy to see the Arizona Supreme Court strike down two school voucher programs in that state in Cain v. Horne. According to Rev. Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,

This important decision reflects our best traditions. It upholds the right of taxpayers to support only the religious institutions of their choice. Public funds should be spent at public schools.

According to AU's press release, residents of Arizona are fortunate in that they are one of 37 states with fairly strong provisions in their state constitution prohibiting them from funding religious schools. It seems that vouchers may face an uphill battle in such states, and that is a good thing.

I know that some people object to funding public education on the grounds that they do not have children and do not like the idea of paying for other people's children to go to school. I invite such people to visit Mississippi for awhile to experience the results of substandard education firsthand. Education not only is a powerful tool for improving the economy and improving our ability to compete globally; it reduces a variety of social ills associated with widespread idiocy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Narrow Victory for Science in Texas

2009-03-27T05:52:00.000-05:00

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

The Texas State Board of Education has rejected efforts by Christian extremists to require that "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution be taught in science classes. The scary thing is just how close this ended up being. The board tied at 7-7 on the motion, resulting in the upholding of a prior decision to remove the strengths-and-weaknesses rule in the new curriculum standards. Texas is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the U.S., meaning that what happens there influences what is available to other states.

H/T to Pharyngula

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Degrading Higher Education in Oklahoma

2009-03-24T05:04:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

One of the things I have always liked about academia, first as a student and now as a faculty member, has been the role of the university in promoting critical thinking. We teach that all dogmas are to be questioned, and we strive to provide students with the tools for doing so (e.g., philosophy, science, etc.). Traditionally, the idea of the university has also emphasized the role of free discourse. We try to expose students to controversial ideas with the goal of shaking up their worldviews a bit. We do this not to convince them to believe as we do (for we are a diverse bunch too) but to help them realize that reliance on authority will only take them so far. In the ideal case, the student is able to set aside the values of his or her parents and church long enough to develop his or her own values.

As you might guess, it pains me to see the Oklahoma legislature pressuring the University of Oklahoma to cancel a scheduled visit by eminent scholar Richard Dawkins. In fact, Oklahoma Rep. Todd Thomsen has introduced a resolution asking the university to uninvite Dawkins because his views "are not shared [by] a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma."

I see that as part of the point of bringing him to campus in the first place. Education is not about keeping people where they are comfortable and reinforcing what they already believe. It is about exposing people to new ideas, hopefully some of which will be uncomfortable.

At this point, Christians are likely objecting that universities should be bringing Ken Ham and Ann Coulter to campus too. Surely they are controversial figures that would spark dialogue too. Perhaps, but one must first make the case that these individuals are qualified to address whatever they are addressing. You see, the whole "teach the controversy" approach is fine as long as there actually is a controversy and as long as the various points of view are credible. After all, we do want students to learn something.

Of course, there is also the matter of politicians interfering with what happens at the university. It certainly does not seem consistent with academic freedom, free speech, or the sort of education to which most universities aspire.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Atheist Homeschooling

2009-03-09T07:15:00.000-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Many parents who homeschool their children do so for the wrong reasons, but I believe that there are good reasons for homeschooling. In fact, the frequency with which Christian proselytizing seems to occur in some public schools makes homeschooling seem like a viable option for atheist parents living in such districts. I see two primary barriers to effective homeschooling, and I would like to hear from atheist parents who have experience with homeschooling about how they have managed them.

I suppose the thing I would most worry about if I were an atheist parent considering homeschooling would be the issue of academic equivalency. As someone who teaches college, I have found that the homeschooled children who end up there are often seriously unprepared to succeed. Granted, this is generally because they have been victims of religious indoctrination instead of education. But I am not sure it is safe to conclude that atheist homeschooling is automatically superior to various Christian versions. One would hope that it would be more reality-based, but I don't know that we can take that for granted.

The second concern involves the social development of the homeschooled child. In many respects, the social aspects of the school experience as as important as the academic ones. Christians who homeschool are probably going to have an easier time finding others homeschooling through their church than atheist parents can find through some alternative. How does the atheist parent attend to social development and prevent his or her child from being woefully unprepared to form positive peer relations?

While I do not see this as a major barrier, I also wonder if it could be argued that an atheist parent who homeschools might be doing his or her children a disservice by depriving them of the opportunity to learn how to navigate the challenges of living as an atheist among a largely religious populace. I am merely speculating here, but it seems like this might be one of those tasks that becomes more difficult if one has little early experience confronting it.

Are there any atheist parents out there who have, are, or are considering homeschooling? I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Reaching Out to Atheist College Students

2009-02-23T07:05:00.000-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

Long-time readers know that I have repeatedly struggled with ways to foster a positive atmosphere for atheist students at the university where I work. I want to provide such students with a safe place where they can find reprieve from the religiously oppressive environment in which we find ourselves. At the same time, I am not particularly interested in going out of my way to alienate the numerous fundamentalists Christian students (and faculty) who walk the same halls of higher learning. I have always been wary of those who use their positions as educators to advance political agendas. The challenge, which remains largely unsolved, is how to provide a welcoming and safe environment for atheist students without alienating the Christians who are equally deserving of a positive learning environment.

You can imagine my delight in seeing that the Chronicle of Higher Education addressed this very topic. Surely I would find some assistance in this highly respected source.

After documenting the need for universities to attend to atheist students, the authors offer some tips for faculty and university administrators:

Create a welcoming environment for atheist students.
Include atheism in student programming.
Ensure that atheists can, like other students, explore their inner development.
Create safe spaces that are "atheist only" for students.
Look to other institutions for best practices.

I appreciate what they are saying, but these recommendations are simply too general to be of much value. What I want to know is how to create a welcoming and safe environment for atheist students. As an individual faculty member, what can I do to help?

I recognize that many campuses have active groups for atheist students. I would be thrilled to serve as the faculty advisor to such a group, but I am not sure how interested students would even know to approach me about doing so. Clearly, I need to be more open about my atheism at work. I'm willing to do so, but I'm still not quite sure how best to do so.

H/T to Friendly Atheist

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

How to Select a Psychologist or Counselor: A Guide for Atheists

2009-02-22T08:38:00.001-06:00

Image via Wikipedia

I guess it was the title of Friendly Atheist's post ("Can You Avoid Religious Psychologists?") that struck a nerve and necessitated this response. As an atheist, it ticks me off when people spread misconceptions about atheists, and as I psychologist, I feel similarly when it comes to my profession. It is a hell of a lot harder to find a psychologist who will push religion on their clients than it is one who would never dream of doing so! I'd like to use Friendly Atheist's post as a springboard to give you some tips on selecting a mental health provider.

A reader contacted Friendly Atheist and had the following to say:

Something just happened that I’d like advice on (from you or your readers). My son has been diagnosed with ADHD by his pediatrician and I figured we’d go to a child psychologist for more info (an idea the pediatrician encouraged). I picked the closest one on my insurance’s coverage list and set up an appointment.

Luckily, we got an informational packet in the mail from this psychologist (actually a Licensed Professional Counselor) before we actually went to meet with her. Let me quote some of the things that were in her packet.

The counselor’s responsibilities are:
* Spending personal time with the Lord
* Praying for the client
* Studying scriptures
* Listening to client concerns, facts, feelings, faith position
* Sharing scripture and personal walk appropriate to client concerns
* Praying with the client, acknowledging God’s available presence with him/her

She holds a Master’s degree in Religious Education from a Baptist theological seminary (in addition to other more valid sounding degrees). She signs off by saying, “I have already begun to pray for our times together…”

I was dumbfounded by this. I mean, I do live in the Bible Belt, so I shouldn’t have been surprised. But I am still dismayed that this person appeared on a list of medical providers supplied by my insurance company!

I guess my question is, how do I keep this from happening again? (I cancelled the appointment, of course.) Do I need to call and explicitly ask each psychologist (or whatever other health care specialist) if their practice is based in reality or superstition?

The reader did the right thing by canceling the appointment. Fortunately, this sort of thing is actually fairly easy to avoid. There are some nutjobs out there, but they are the minority. This is true even in the Bible Belt.

First, I'd like to clarify some credentialing terminology. The provider described by the reader was a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) and not a psychologist. The LPC is a master's-level designation as opposed to the doctoral degree psychologists have. There are many excellent LPCs out there, and they are a cheaper alternative when one does not need the additional expertise of a psychologist.

So when might one need the additional expertise of a psychologist? First, a psychologist will generally have more extensive research training than a master's level clinician. This does not necessarily mean they are better, but it does mean that they are more likely to operate as scientist-practitioners than master's-level clinicians who are going to focus on the practitioner side. The more complex the problem, the greater benefit can be derived from someone with this additional training. Second, psychologists can do psychological testing. I mention this not only because it is a critical difference but because it might be relevant to Friendly Atheist's reader. Medical doctors routinely overdiagnose ADHD, and psychological testing is likely to result in a more accurate diagnosis.

For the atheist who needs a mental health professional, psychologist or counselor, I offer the following recommendations:

When first calling to schedule an appointment, inquire about the provider's degree and the institution from where the degree was obtained. Steer clear of anything that does not have "psychology" or "counseling" in the degree.
If the provider is an LPC, ask directly whether this person provides "Christian counseling." If so, move on. You are not asking whether the counselor is Christian but whether they provide "Christian counseling." This is an important difference and one which you are well advised to heed.
View the initial appointment as an opportunity to evaluate the provider. If you do not feel comfortable for any reason, ask for a referral and move on. Reputable providers tend to encourage this sort of evaluation - they want to make sure they can be helpful to you and that you feel comfortable with them.
Recognize that many mental health professionals will ask, on questionnaires or in person, something about your religious affiliation or the importance of spirituality in your life. They tend to do this to help understand your worldview and not to convert you. However, if the provider should make disparaging comments about your lack of religious participation, spirituality, and the like, move on. This represents a violation of the provider's own professional ethics, and you deserve better.
If you are seeking therapy and want to make sure that your provider will utilize scientifically-sound methods, look for someone who provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. Of all the therapeutic modalities, it has been researched the most extensively and has the most evidence supporting its efficacy.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Tale of a Good Christian

2009-02-11T05:16:00.000-06:00

Image by David Maddison via Flickr

I attended a Christian college not because I was Christian at the time (I was far more public about my atheism then as compared to now) but because the school had a great reputation in the region. I encountered my share of religiously-motivated bigotry, certainly more than I would have at one of the state universities in the area, but this ended up being good preparation for life in Mississippi. In fact, there is not much I would change about the experience. It wasn't always pleasant, but it helped to make me who I am today. In this post, I'd like to tell you about a particularly outstanding Christian professor who I admired and respected a great deal. If nothing else, this may serve as a reminder that even devout Christians can be wonderful teachers and good people.

The professor in question had his appointment in the departments of philosophy and held degrees in both religion and philosophy. The course I took with him was an upper-level philosophy course, the philosophy of religion. I ended up minoring in philosophy after being unable to figure out what I would do with a philosophy major.

I went into the course as a fairly rabid anti-theist with a chip on my shoulder. I suppose I expected to be penalized for expressing what I really thought about religion. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Well, that's not entirely accurate. You see, I did take plenty of shit from the other students, nearly all of whom were Christians. But the professor was nothing but accepting, encouraging, and genuinely helpful.

As we studied the various arguments for and against the existence of gods, focusing on classic and contemporary Christian apologists, the professor was clear about what he believed but equally clear that we were to arrive at our own conclusions. He never preached or attempted to impose his beliefs. Students were expected to wrestle with the material and critically evaluate it.

In hindsight, this was probably my favorite class from my time in college. It was quite difficult, both intellectually and emotionally, because it forced us to fully engage the material. I saw more than a couple Christian students break down and cry in class when one of their cherished arguments was effectively demolished. I remained an atheist but certainly became more thoughtful and mature about my atheism.

Best of all, I experienced support and guidance from someone who clearly did not agree with me but was nevertheless committed to helping me. Whenever I am tempted to lump all Christians together and apply categorical statements, I recall this professor as the exception that shatters my stereotype.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Science Education in Mississippi Jeapordized By Creationist Nonsense

2009-01-09T11:44:00.000-06:00

Image via WikipediaThings are buzzing today over at Mississippi Atheists. I am focusing my efforts there on mobilizing the small reality-based community in our state to oppose House Bill 25, the latest effort in our state to affix disclaimers attacking evolution on science textbooks. If passed, this bill would require the following text to be attached to any textbook in which evolution is discussed:

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

Study hard and keep an open mind.

I contacted the National Center for Science Education this morning to make sure they had heard about the bill. I just posted information for persons wishing to contact members of our state legislature's education committee. Next up, I'll be posting at least a couple sample letters.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Glorifying Stupidity is Bad for Society

2008-11-29T06:08:00.000-06:00

Image by tskdesign via FlickrIt is no secret that religion and science are at odds. Attempts to reconcile them have been popular but also in vain. Most of us recognize this now and may have even tuned out some of the continued noise in this area. However, I would hope that everyone would sit up and take notice when the religious community attacks education itself. Yes, religion has long been the enemy of reason, but there is something truly despicable about religiously-motivated anti-intellectualism. It reminds us that the lessons of Galileo have not stayed with humanity. Indeed, the Catholic Church is once again condemning knowledge in order to preserve itself.

In looking at our modern world, it is difficult to see how anyone could argue that what we really need is less education. And yet, the institutions of organized religion seem to have little choice. They have painted themselves into a corner by clinging to their "god of the gaps."

Religious belief does stand in opposition to reason, science, critical thinking, and education (as distinct from indoctrination). Increasing numbers of people are realizing this and either leaving superstition behind or embracing a watered-down version of various religious traditions void of actual belief.

Because the churches depend on the ignorant masses for their very survival, they oppose what we as a society most need. It is time for the trumpet of reason to sound. Our neighbors need to see what is at stake here.

H/T to Spanish Inquisitor

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Free Speech Under Assault at Texas Community College

2008-11-10T05:44:00.001-06:00

Image via WikipediaAs a college professor and an atheist, you can imagine how sensitive I am to issues of free speech in academia. Failing to protect free speech in such an environment seriously undermines the mission of higher education. And yet, the assault on this basic freedom at our nation's universities is nothing new. In this post, I will address a disturbing case from Temple College, a community college in Texas, that may be of particular interest to my readers.

Kerry Laird, a first-year professor of literature and composition, was recently reprimanded for placing a sign that said "Gott ist tot" (German for "God is dead") on his office door. Astute readers may recognize this as one of Friedrich Nietzsche’s most famous quotes.

The college has informed Laird that he may not post this quote on his door on the grounds that it might be offensive to some. Laird and many of his colleagues see this as a violation of academic freedom.

According to Inside Higher Ed,

He [Laird] said that, as a student and instructor, he always enjoyed the way professors use their office doors to reveal bits of their personality and to challenge students with cartoons, artwork, and various phrases. So when he started at Temple, he put a cartoon up showing Smokey the Bear, a girl scout and a boy scout and the tag line: “Kids — don’t fuck with God or bears will eat you.” He received a complaint and decided that he understood why the college “might not want the f-word” in the hallway, and so he decided to put up something else.

This time he turned to Nietzsche and, striving to challenge while being more subtle, he only used the German version of the quote, not the English translation. “I didn’t want to be too blunt,” he said.

Was it appropriate for Laird to place a cartoon containing the word "fuck" on his office door? Probably not. I wouldn't have done it. It is harder to make an argument that a word commonly considered profane falls under academic freedom, although I suspect such an argument could be made. After all, Laird's students and colleagues are adults.

But the Nietzsche quote, in German or English, strikes me as very different. It has literary value and overwhelming cultural familiarity in that nearly everyone will have heard it. To say that a college professor may not use a quote that can be found in any book of great quotations is absurd.

When Interim Vice President of Educational Services, Mark A. Smith, demanded that the quote be removed, he offered the following rationale:

Temple College as a public institution cannot be represented as showing preference toward any religious philosophy/perspective or toward the opposite, being atheism. The same practice goes for politics. The decision to have the quote removed was that the quote can be considered very controversial and offensive to others. In fact, other people have already expressed that the wording is offensive!

According to Smith, a professor has the right to discuss such a quote in class but not to have it displayed on his/her door. Does this mean that professors who want to display pro-religion messages or religious symbols on their doors would also be asked to remove them? Evidently not, at least not according to the students at Temple. Smith's explanation? Nobody has complained about the Christian quotes.

I think there just might be a new addition to my office door tomorrow.

Updated 11/11/08: It turns out that this one had a happy ending, thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Educational Prerequisites for Political Office?

2008-09-02T05:23:00.000-05:00

Should a college degree be required of anyone seeking national office in the United States (e.g., Congress, the Presidency, etc.)? Believer or nonbeliever, I expect that many of you would answer "yes." We've all known smart people who never went to college and dumb ones who managed to graduate, but I suspect that a majority of you would agree that college should be prerequisite. This brings us to the real question: why? Assuming you think that some sort of minimal educational attainment should be prerequisite to hold national office, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why.

I do believe that a college degree should be considered a minimal prerequisite for holding national office. Most of our elected officials have gone well beyond this, earning MBA's, JDs, and other graduate degrees. That is fine, but I would have trouble voting for someone with no college at all. Why? I'll save that for another post because I want to hear what you think without influencing you.

I should also say that I recognize that I might be more inclined to vote for someone with no college than someone who attended one based on religious fundamentalism. Still, I'd be likely to view neither individual as sufficiently qualified.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

The Myth of Equal Ability in Academia

2008-08-28T05:24:00.000-05:00

One of my many responsibilities at work involves providing academic advising to undergraduate students. For many, it is as simple as recommending electives or providing information about how to strengthen one's application to graduate school. For others, it is an emotionally charged experience of explaining bad news about academic probation, the odds of graduating when the student had hoped, and the like. It has become increasingly due to the widely accepted myth of equal ability.

In the United States, we pay a great deal of lip service to the notion of equality. We repeat the mantra, "All men are created equal," seemingly without realizing that we are born rather than created, that we have never been very good at treated supposedly equal people in an equal manner, and that the idea that we are equal in any way at birth is a destructive myth. Much like religious belief, it makes us feel good while concealing the truth.

At the genetic level, we do not come into the world equally equipped to face the demands of life. And it is obvious to any reasonable person that the environments in which we are raised are far to variable to be equivalent in any way. We differ from birth, are raised in a wide range of environments, and unequal on virtually every attribute which can be measured.

When we say that all people are created equal, we are trying to say something about what should be - about how people should be treated - rather than about what is. This ideal is a fundamental part of our democracy. Noble as it may be, it can create problems when we pretend that the ideal is the actual.

During the course of working with a variety of college students, I have repeatedly been faced with the undeniable truth that not every student in college has the requisite ability, interest, and/or motivation to succeed. I suspect that this statement may strike most of you as fairly obvious. It is not always so obvious for the affected student. I have heard the following from students about to flunk out of the university on more occasions than I care to count:

But I need a diploma to get a job.
But my professors don't like me.
But my parents say I have to finish college.
But my tuition pays your salary.

Again and again, I face the student who never should have graduated from high school, the student with a D average who insists that they are planning to go to medical school, the student who believes that they are owed a diploma for effort. But we aren't supposed to assign grades based on effort of award diplomas for fear of inconveniencing someone.

The common thread connecting these students is often one of entitlement. They believe they are owed something. Why? Because they have been convinced that all people have the ability to succeed in college. This simply is not the case. There are plenty of students on our nations campuses who lack the requisite ability to succeed regardless of interest or motivation. It is a sad truth which makes us uncomfortable to acknowledge, but it remains true nevertheless.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Education as a Model for Atheist Activism

2008-08-24T08:01:00.001-05:00

All griping aside, the first day of classes in college is fun. Maybe my perspective is skewed now that I am the one teaching and not the student whose summer vacation just ended. Still, many of the students seem eager as they listen intently and evaluate what we will be like as teachers, whether they will enjoy the content of our course, and make initial judgments about how difficult the material might be. I remember the mixture of excitement and trepidation well from my years as a student. Seeing it now in my class is a vivid reminder that learning can be fun for everyone involved in the process.

The students seem so open and receptive on the first day of class. I can challenge preconceived notions, dismiss widely held beliefs as myths that will be debunked during the semester, and even pose questions to initiate debate and discussion. I see several smiles and nods. The students are engaged and optimistic.

And yet, I realize even now that I will lose some students over the course of the semester. Some will decide the class is too difficult and drop. Others will earn poor enough grades that they give up. And others will simply tire of the routine, becoming too busy with their other obligations to maintain focus and enthusiasm.

My goal, and it is not always an easy one to reach, is to teach to the students who remain interested, engaged with the material, and hope to acquire knowledge or skills. In some classes, they will be the minority. But it is them with who I must connect. Their enthusiasm connects with mine and provides me the energy I need to remain passionate about what I am doing.

I do not simply give up on the students whose interest wanes, but I recognize that I will not be able to stimulate everyone equally. By providing the interested students with the best experience I can, my enthusiasm will infect some of the others.

Perhaps there is a lesson in here somewhere with regard to atheist activism. Might stimulating thought be accomplished more effectively through means other than firing barrages of criticism at believers? I recognize that such criticism is important to dispel the erroneous notion that religious belief is off limits to critique. At the same time, it is probably not particularly conducive to genuine learning on the part of believers. Even a cursory review of some of the stories in the news lately indicate that learning is vital:

An atheist activism which focuses only on criticizing religious belief is doomed to fail. While necessary at least to some degree, it is not sufficient. Effective education requires us to bridge the gap between nonbeliever and believer.

H/Ts to Unscrewing the Inscrutable and Oz Atheist's Weblog

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

No Church-State Separation in Kearny: Matthew LaClair Revisited

2008-07-21T05:33:00.000-05:00

When the story of then 16 year-old Matthew LaClair first broke, I was captivated. Perhaps it was because I vividly remember what it was like to be an atheist in school. Or maybe it is because I am now on the other side of things, teaching and observing how atheist students are treated by their peers. I am happy to see that Matthew, now 18, is in the news again. However, I am appalled to learn that Matthew's ordeal 2 years ago "bitterly divides the town of Kearny, a community of about 41,000 that’s located across the Passaic River from Newark." Does this mean that there are still many Americans who failed to learn anything from Matthew's case?

I did not learn of Matthew LaClair until roughly a year ago. Here was how I opened my post about him in July of 2007:

High school is a turbulent time for many, and I think we'd all agree that there are plenty of things that can interfere with the learning process. If you are a high school student or the parent of one, you know the myriad difficulties in navigating this period. But the list of potential obstacles rarely includes the teachers. Imagine that you are a 16 year-old public high school student and one of your teachers spends considerable class time proselytizing, explicitly promoting Jesus, threatening sinners with hell, telling the class that dinosaurs accompanied humans on Noah's ark, and that evolution is a lie. What do you do?

During his junior year at Kearny High School in New Jersey, Matthew found himself in an accelerated history class taught by David Paszkiewicz (public school teacher and Baptist pastor). After his initial complaints about Paszkiewicz's proselytizing were ignored, Matthew bravely taped eight classes. These recordings revealed Paszkiewicz telling his students that their salvation depended on their acceptance of Jesus, "that if they do not believe that Jesus died for their sins, they 'belong in hell'," and that there is no scientific evidence supporting evolution.

When Matthew brought his tapes to school officials, he became the target of harassment and death threats. He was even subject to retaliation by the school administrators who should have been on his side. The even refused to punish the students harassing him.

As the story hit the national media, the school finally agreed to settle. Part of the settlement included providing training for teachers and students on topics such as the scientific basis of evolution and separation of church and state.

Now the Telegram & Gazette (Worchester, Massachusetts) has printed a follow-up on the case, noting that Paszkiewicz (still the youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church) is still teaching at Kearny High. The part of the report that caught my attention was as follows:

What happened almost two years ago still bitterly divides the town of Kearny, a community of about 41,000 that’s located across the Passaic River from Newark. It also has provided further fodder in the long-running debate about the role of religion in public classrooms.

How could something this obviously inappropriate still be dividing the town? Wouldn't that have to mean that there were still plenty of people in Kearny who believed that Paszkiewicz was somehow in the right and that separation of church and state was invalid? Sadly, that appears to be exactly what it means.

Interviewed for this report, Matthew LaClair said that he was surprised that most of Kearny supported Paszkiewicz. That makes two of us, Matthew. Then again, I am not sure I would describe what I am feeling as surprise. Outrage seems more fitting.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Science Education Endangered in Louisiana

2008-07-07T05:36:00.000-05:00

I feel terrible for the parents in Louisiana who want their children to receive an adequate education and realize that science is an important part of such an education. After Gov. Bobby Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and signed the Louisiana Science Education Act into law, it is going to be increasingly difficult for Louisiana's children to receive the education they deserve. If you have not been following this one, the new law permits local school boards to approve the use of supplemental materials by public school science teachers when discussing "controversial" topics such as evolution. While the law was deliberately vague on what such supplemental materials might look like, details are now emerging.

For a brief and informative analysis of Louisiana's new creationist bill, I recommend Panda's Thumb. Clearly, this law is terrible for science education in Louisiana. Teachers in the state are understandably concerned that this will permit creationism in the classroom.

Probably the best outcome to hope for now is a series of lawsuits throughout the state with Dover-like outcomes. I am just a bit less confident in predicting the success of such suits in a state like Louisiana. In any case, it is going to be the taxpayers of the state and their children who get screwed in this one.

It really is baffling that battles like this are still being waged in 2008.

For more on this important topic, see the following:

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Christian Extremists Seek Religious Exemption to Critical Thinking for Christian College Students

2008-06-18T05:50:00.000-05:00

According to the Center for Inquiry, Christian extremists are claiming success in intimidating college professors who have the nerve to expect their students to learn reality-based information. The right-wing American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is bragging that they intervened to prevent a Christian student at Suffolk County Community College from receiving a failing grade from a professor who allegedly sought to penalize her because of her religious beliefs. As we learn more about the details of this case, I am convinced that anyone who values education should be alarmed.

According to the ACLJ, they were victorious in protecting the religious freedom of a Christian student of Suffolk County Community College philosophy professor, Dr. Philip Pecorino. They claim that a letter sent by one of their attorneys to the college prevented the student from receiving a failing grade from Dr. Pecorino. They insist that Dr. Pecorino was going to assign a failing grade to penalize a student for her Christian beliefs.

The Council for Secular Humanism has called these allegations baseless.

"The ACLJ's spurious claim of a legal 'victory' is just slightly less outrageous than its brazen attempt to intimidate a philosophy professor from doing his job—which is to get students to think critically," commented Ronald A. Lindsay, Executive Director of the Council of Secular Humanism, who has talked to the allegedly biased professor. "As far as I can tell," observed Lindsay, "the ACLJ's letter accomplished nothing other than providing an excuse for soliciting donations."

Dr. Pecorino's academic credentials and reputation among the approximately 13,000 students he has taught over 36 years certainly do not seem to fit the ACLJ's claims.

Indeed, after the ACLJ made its baseless accusations, students in Pecorino's class, including religious students, defended him, stating that he does not pass judgment on students because of their beliefs, but simply challenges them to examine all beliefs critically, including their own.

Evidently, most of Dr. Pecorino's students are mature enough to handle this. That one Christian was not tells us more about her and the nature of her delusion than it does about her professor.

"I would not be doing my job as a philosophy professor," explained Pecorino, "if I did not require students to think about their beliefs and provide reasons in support of their beliefs— not my beliefs or anyone else's beliefs. Critical examination of beliefs, including one's own beliefs, and training in reasoning are among the primary objectives of a philosophy course, and of a liberal education in general. Only professors who are negligent or indifferent allow students to earn good grades simply by providing as a reason for an assertion 'well, this is what I believe'."

Indeed. In case the reason why we should all be deeply concerned about this sort of thing is not already apparent, it has to do with the ACLJ's claim that Christian students deserve to be exempt from a college critical thinking requirement.

As Dr. Pecorino observes, "Essentially, the ACLJ is claiming a religious exemption from the obligation of students in public colleges to engage in critical thinking, and this claim strikes at the core of higher education. If permitted to go unchallenged, this claim will weaken our democratic and pluralistic society."

When extremists groups such as the ACLJ attempt to weaken education, it is good to see that organizations such as the Center for Inquiry and Council for Secular Humanism are there to oppose them. They deserve our thanks and support.

Subscribe to Atheist Revolution

Creationism Lingers in U.S. High School Biology Classrooms

2008-05-22T05:38:00.000-05:00

Quality secular education is essential for a society to function well. It serves as an effective antidote to ignorance, irrationality, superstition, and many other social ills. Thus, you can understand my disappointment over a recent survey by Penn State University researchers which found that one out of eight high school biology teachers in the United States teaches creationism as a viable alternative to evolution (see Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait).

My heroes have always been teachers (not cowboys). They play an indispensable role, and I have so many excellent teachers to thank for my love of learning, passion for critical thinking, and ability to apply the scientific method to a variety of problems. This is a big part of why I support increased funding for public education even though I do not have children of my own. Teachers deserve better pay and expanded benefits. But even more, they should be recognized as heroes, for theirs is one of the most important and poorly rewarded vocations.

When I examine the results of the Penn State survey, I am dismayed. Of the 939 biology teachers surveyed, 25% indicated that they spent time in class covering creationism. About half of these agreed that creationism was a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species" and that "many reputable scientists view these as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory." This means that approximately 12% of U.S. high school teachers hold these erroneous views.

If there is one thing I have learned from the excellent teachers throughout my life that has had the biggest impact, it is this simple fact: Just because someone believes something does not make it true. Such a simple truth and yet so powerful when used to dissect irrationality and superstition.

As Brandon Keim of Wired Science correctly points out,

...teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution, as if religious explanations had even a fraction of the scientific validity of evolution, is unacceptable -- it promotes fatally flawed, uncritical thinking.

That the 12% of high school teachers in this survey have not learned that their beliefs do not turn falsehood into truth is unfortunate. However, their willingness to teach this falsehood as if it were true is criminal. This is no longer education but indoctrination. It has no place in our nation's schools.

Tags: secular, education, superstition, irrationality, ignorance, Penn State University, high school, teachers, creationism, evolution, classroom, America, United States, public education, science

Christian Privilege in the Public Schools

2008-04-23T05:34:00.000-05:00

A student at Capistrano Valley High School in California has accused his AP European history teacher of making disparaging remarks about Christianity in class. This really is a shame. The teacher needs to realize that when truth and Christianity collide, Christianity must prevail. But sarcasm aside, bigotry, and this includes anti-Christian bigotry, has no place in the schools. Is this a case of bigotry or something else entirely?

According the FaithNews Network, Chad Farnan, a Christian student, has accused history teacher, James Corbett, of making remarks hostile to his religion. This sounds serious. bigotry is almost as deplorable in the public schools as it is in state government. So what exactly did Corbett say?

The Christian student cites an incident from last December when Corbett stated that conservatives do not want women to avoid pregnancies because that interferes with God's work. In another statement, recorded by Farnan, the teacher claimed that when people put on their "Jesus glasses," they cannot see the truth.

I have a difficult time seeing how Corbett's alleged remarks, even if Farnan's allegations are true, constitute hostility to Christianity. The first comment concerning conservatives seems accurate to this observer, and if anything, would reflect on conservative politics rather than Christianity. The second comment is difficult to evaluate without context, and this brief report provides no information about the context in which such statements were made. According to Farnan's attorney, Corbett frequently makes comments along these lines. Another alleged example:

He's said things like 'Aristotle argued that there has to be a god. Of course, that's nonsense.'

Nonsense that there has to be a god? Well, yeah - of course this is nonsense! It does not sound as though Corbett is saying anything negative about Christians here at all. If Christians (or anybody else) wants to believe that there are gods, so be it. This is very different from saying that there has to be one or more gods.

Farnan's attorney says,

At stake really is a Christian student's rights to go to public school and be able to express their faith and hold their faith without being discriminated against in the classroom.

How was Farnan discriminated against? Even if he was mocked, and it does not appear that Corbett's alleged comments come close to even that, it is not at all clear how this qualified as discrimination. Was Farnan graded down solely for being Christian? That would certainly be discrimination.

No, the case seems to be about Christian privilege in the schools more than anything. Farnan's side appears to believe that the Christian beliefs of Christian students should be respected at school. By "respected," they appear to mean that Christian students should never be exposed to anything that leads them to question their beliefs, evidence which might contradict their beliefs, or even mild criticism of their beliefs. Why? Because they are Christian. This does not sound very much like education, does it?

Tags: education, public schools, Capistrano Valley High School, California, Christianity, bigotry, Christian, history, discrimination, Christian privilege, religion, Chad Farnan, James Corbett

Pursuit Of Religious Tolerance Reveals...Christian Intolerance

2008-04-07T08:25:00.000-05:00

Whenever I hear the phrase "religious tolerance," I expect I'll be treated to some atheist bashing, as this phrase always seems to mean that we atheists should be more tolerant of believers who wish to delude themselves. You see, the religious rarely seem to think that we are deserving of tolerance, understanding, or compassion. Fortunately, there are exceptions, and this post will report on one of them. However, before you get the warm fuzzies, I'll let you know now that this one doesn't end well.

According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Pine Creek High School is trying to promote religious tolerance. A student group, Students Learning Acceptance Through Education, invited local religious leaders and even a token atheist to speak to 150 students about "tolerance and faith."

Panelists for the 90-minute event were Rabbi Mel Glazer of Temple Shalom; Steve Mahone, a past president of Freethinkers of Colorado Springs; Arshad Yousufi, spokesman for the Islamic Society of Colorado Springs; Christopher Phelps, a Catholic studying to be a deacon at the Diocese of Colorado Springs; and Sam Bhatt, youth minister of the evangelical church The Gathering at Jackson Creek.

Panelists were allowed 10 minutes each to speak about their beliefs and respond to questions. Barely enough time to be worthwhile but possibly still better than nothing. At least the students would learn one important truth before the event was over.

The only prickly moment came when a young woman asked Bhatt how evangelical Christians can say they don't consider themselves better than others when they believe they are the lone possessors of truth.

"You are not equal to my belief system, but I'll love the lost person either way," Bhatt told her.

Glazer turned to Bhatt and asked, "She is not going to heaven?"

"Correct," Bhatt said.

Leave it to the evangelical Christian to be unable to handle the tolerance event without condemning everyone else! Oh, but he didn't condemn them - just their beliefs (i.e., hate the sin, love the sinner). Really? He indicated that other people are "not equal" to his belief system and that they were going somewhere other than heaven. If that isn't condemnation of others simply for having different beliefs, I'm not sure what is.

Actually, I am happy that the students in attendance were able to learn this important lesson. This evangelical Christian, while not necessarily representative of all evangelical Christians, was anything but tolerant.

I suppose the atheist might have said that all the believers were wrong. We don't know this, but I most certainly would have. Still, I wouldn't have felt it necessary to devalue the other people as being worth less than I was, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to point out that they would have a different fate than I would.

Tags: Christianity, evangelical Christianity, Christian, religious tolerance, intolerance, religion, atheist, Colorado, Pine Creek High School, Students Learning Acceptance Though Education, Colorado Springs

Oklahoma HB 2211 Would Be Disaster

2008-03-11T06:00:00.000-05:00

Cleverly masquerading as a measure to promote religious freedom in the schools, House Bill 2211 is currently making its way through the Oklahoma legislature. This is one that should be watched by all who value education over indoctrination. Like many similar bills in other states (some actually passed), HB 2211 was written by Christian extremists and requires public schools to allow students to express their religious beliefs in class and in their homework without penalty. The implications of such a policy would be disastrous to the quality of education students receive.

According to a great op-ed in the Edmond Sun,

If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

Thus, the bill would require teachers to award grades out of respect for students' religious delusion rather than their mastery of the material taught.

Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

At the risk of sounding overly dramatic here, it is the opinion of this author that such a measure would effectively signal the end of public education in America. How could we expect our children to compete in a global economy if we were to teach superstitious drivel over factual information?

H/T to Atheist Media Blog

Tags: Oklahoma, HB 2211, education, religion, Christian extremism, school, science

Complaining About God in School Can Have Dire Consequences

2008-02-29T06:59:00.000-06:00

Being open about one's atheism or standing up for separation of church and state are admirable but sadly not always without consequences. A reader sent me a disturbing e-mail describing what has happened to his family after he and his wife complained to school officials that his 11-year-old son was being required by his music teacher to "sing a song of worship" during which he was told to point skyward to "show he loved God." I think we can all agree that he was right to bring this to the attention of the school, but what happened next serves as a scary reminder that speaking out for what is right may have unimaginable consequences.

Matthew, the reader who contributed this story graciously gave me permission to post it here. He could really use some input, and I told him I thought many of you would be as helpful (and probably more so) than I could be. Here is the e-mail I received (unedited except for a spell check and the insertion paragraph breaks):

I have a story to tell and I hope that you are able to advise me in some way that is helpful. A few years back our son came home from school...he was eleven at the time...he had an unusual assignment from his music class. He was to sing a song of worship for a grade. His teacher also instructed him to point skyward at certain points of the song. She said that he was to do this to show he loved God.

This did not set well with us at all. We immediately contacted the school but the teacher would not even speak to us on this matter...neither would the principal. After that I contacted Channel 4 Action News WTAE out of Pittsburgh. They were very happy to speak with us. They sent a camera crew to the school and then to my home. The school backed down from their position and did not require David to perform the song of worship for a grade. We also mandated that we did not wish for David to have any future contact with that teacher.

We thought that that was going to be the end of the subject. We simply wanted to get on with our lives but it did not work out that way. We lived in a very small rural area with several churches. Our neighbors turned on us. We endured threatening phone calls and even had trash thrown on our front lawn at night. School became unbearable for David. Teachers would single him out and he would get reprimanded on a very regular basis. We then received a notice from our landlord informing us that we were to be evicted for non-payment of rent. We were completely paid in full and he knew it. His only response to this was "God Bless You". We left our home and moved into another community but our troubles followed us. David was still harassed on a regular basis.

It was at this point that we decided that if David were going to have any type of an education then we would have to homeschool him. We contacted the school to arrange this but they were not very helpful. We finally located what we were led to believe was a substitute teacher and she was to arrange this for us. We paid her $150. A week later I met with her again and she informed me that all of the paperwork had been filed and we could begin David's homeschooling. That was one problem out of the way...or so we thought.

Our new landlord sent us an eviction notice for non-payment of rent...it was unbelievable...so we simply paid it again...($550)...three days later we were served with a notice from the magistrate. We lost...and we lost our home once again. We were forced to live in a small dump of a motel for the next seven months. It was unbearable. I left my mother's address for our mail and that was when our troubles really began. The school was sending and calling...you guessed it...no paperwork had ever been filed for David's homeschooling and now we have serious problems. Even though we now have a beautiful home in the country we are uncertain how we are going to deal with this situation. Any advise or help that you can offer in this situation would be most helpful.

- Matthew

Have you, especially those of you with children, ever faced anything like this? What advice could you offer for Matthew?

Tags: atheism, church and state, school, education, anti-atheist bigotry, parenting, atheist parenting, children, harassment

Guest Post: Teaching Lies Jeopardizes America's Future

2008-01-21T07:16:00.000-06:00

This is an invited guest post by Billy (A Liberal Disabled Vet), a regular commenter on Atheist Revolution. I continue to appreciate his many thought-provoking comments and am happy that he agreed to write another guest post.

A few months ago, vjack was kind enough to ask me to write a guest post. I wrote a piece which vjack named "Fear of an Idea" (I think I am pretty good at writing, but coming up with titles has always been tough for me) which generated some interesting comments. Vjack said I could write more, and so I planned. I planned to write about hypocrisy, both on the personal and institutional level. And writer’s block hit hard. That being said, I decided to write about something completely different.

My son is about to enter college. He is studying history and secondary education with an eye toward becoming a high school teacher. I have begun paying a little more attention to the subject of education and have become more than a little bit concerned. My concern is more about "Christian" education (home, parochial or ‘bible’ schools) and the possible damage this education (or lack thereof) may be doing to the future of America. This potential damage comes on more than one level: social, economic, and political.

Two stories from my past help illustrate my misgivings (and yes, you may have read these stories before from posts at various blogs, but trust me, I am going somewhere with this (have faith?)):

In high school freshman biology, I was paired up with a young lady whose father was a preacher at a local church. It was a very conservative church. So conservative, in fact, that he dropped his church out of the Southern Baptist Coalition because they were too "liberal." She needled me constantly about my church (Unitarian) and my beliefs (at that time the best way to describe where I was on the road to atheism was universal deist (though I had no clue what that meant at the time). On day, I decided to turn the tables on her. I asked, "What bible does your church use?"

She answered, "The bible."

"Yeah, but which translation?"

"We use The Bible!" I could hear the capitalization.

Really? I had no idea you could read Hebrew, Latin, and Koine Greek."

She freaked out and began screaming, "You are going to burn in hell forever you Satan-worshipping non-believer how dare you persecute Christians you will burn in hell . . ." for about five minutes (for a good idea of how this sounded, listen to Arlo Guthrie’s "Alice’s Restaurant," especially when the sergeant is explaining to the ‘group "w" bench’ how to fill out the questionnaire regarding his arrest) and just would not shut up. My poor teacher (he was in his last year of teaching) tried in vain to stop her. Eventually, he escorted her out of the room and to the principal’s office.

She was suspended for a week. Had a baby nine months later. Eventually (by my junior (her senior) year) she became a rather nice person. Never "left the fold," but developed a fondness for theological discussions. She became much less judgmental and more accepting of differences.

Last September, I was sent to Idaho to provide support for the Elk Complex (a 150,000 acre forest fire north and east of McCall) as a Security Specialist Level 2 (SEC2). As a level 2, I don’t carry a sidearm, so I don’t do road patrols. I do, however, spend a lot of time at roadblocks. Twelve to 14 hours per day sitting by the side of a road in a National Forest, relaxing, reading, smoking cigars, and dealing with anywhere from one to one hundred non-fire cars per day, making sure the fire vehicles are headed to the right place, and trying to tell people that the hot springs is closed.

One fine morning (90 degrees, no humidity and a wind which could make jerky in five minutes) a Cadillac pulled up. Inside was a man, a woman, and in back a little girl. He asks, "Can I drive through to Riggins?"

I answered, "No sir. The road up to and past the hot springs is closed. You’ll have to take the long route west out of McCall."

He developed a surly expression. "Why?"

I explained about the 150,000 acre forest fire (which became 200,000 before I left), the danger due to helicopter and air tanker activity, fire engines and other fire equipment, and the fire itself.

He waited until it was obvious that I was not going to run out of reasons and interrupted me. "Are you Saved?"

I ignored him. I figure I’m on the federal clock and I work for all Americans, believers or not. Off duty, I would be happy to discuss why I’m an agnostic (I was, back then). I paused, and then started to explain that if I let him through, and something happened to his vehicle, his insurance company would tell him to pound sand if he was on a closed road.

The little girl in the back seat pipes up and says, "He’s going to Hell, isn’t he, Daddy?" I looked back at her. She was holding a book which had the standard Aryan Jesus on it and across the top it read "Second Grade Reader" (or equivalent). My mind immediately dropped her into a mental pigeon hole marked "Christianist home school."

I paused for a moment, then began telling dad how to get around the fire. From the back seat I hear, "Daddy, we can drive through 'cause Jesus will protect us, right?"

Eventually he turned around and drove back to McCall.

These two stories show (to me at least) what has changed in America over the last 25 or so years. The girl I knew in Maryland had been indoctrinated from birth to see no problem in damning anyone who thought differently (heretics) to hell. She was so convinced of her righteousness that she could not conceive of another point of view. Through contact with the real world, though, she eventually became more accepting of reality. The little girl from Idaho, though, (and I am assuming that she was home schooled in a Christianist and/or fundamentalist and/or Dominionist milieu) will most likely never be exposed to competing world views. The narrow glimpse she gets at church and at home and on play dates with approved friends will never allow her to mesh with the rest of the world. (I am not completely down on home schooling. If it is done well, children can excel academically. My wife and I home schooled our kids for a year during a time when my son was having severe developmental difficulties (a mild form of autism). It didn’t work for us, but for some it can.

Over at Tales of an Ordinary Girl, ordinary girl has done a couple of excellent posts regarding Christianist curriculum wherein all subjects are taught in such manner as to be fully in line with both scripture and a Dominionist view towards American history.

This trend, which seems to be accelerating, is creating two Americas. On the one hand we have the 'reality-based community' (which does include many theists) which views the world in a naturalistic, evidence based manner and views American history in a manner based on actual documents and writings of our founding fathers. On the other hand, we have the Christian Dominionist and fundamentalist faction which views the world in a god-centered creationist manner, taking the bible literally (which bible? and what about the places the bible contradicts itself?) and views American history in a god-centered manner, taking out of context bits and pieces of the documents and writings of our founding fathers to support a Christianist theocracy.

A few of these children will wake up, smell the coffee, learn to question, and become a part of the reality based community. Most will not. Most will educate their children with the same natural and historic fairy tales and continue to widen the split with factual reality. If these children existed in a vacuum, I could blow it off as just another form of child abuse. But they (the children and the adults they become) do not exist in a vacuum.

These are the same people who are trying to push the teaching of natural selection (evolution) out of the Florida schools. These are the same people who want Texas to accept a master’s degree in secondary science education from a creationist (Intelligent Design) college. These are the same people who cost the Dover school district thousands of dollars trying to defend creationism in the courtroom. These are the same people who have made Mike Huckabee a frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

In short, the teaching of out-and-out lies to children has an effect on the ability of this country to govern itself and to keep pace technically and scientifically with the world. At the risk of pissing you off, vjack, do we really want America’s standing in the world (in terms of education) to be analogous to Mississippi’s standing in America?

(BTW, I ran this through spell check and it suggested ‘Chickadee’ as a possible replacement for Huckabee.)

I know it’s a long post, but with due respect, it’s an occupational hazard for me.

Billy (A Liberal Disabled Vet)

Tags: atheist, atheism, education, Christian, America, bible, Christianist, Dominionist, fundamentalist, religion, children, theocracy, Mike Huckabee, Dover, Florida, Texas, Mississippi

The Value Of Education

2007-10-26T05:38:00.000-05:00

Even though I spend most of my working life engaged in scientific research, I do teach and I regard myself as an educator as much as a researcher or a scientist. Thus, education is a topic I hold dear, and threats to education are a frequent source of outrage. I believe that America's children deserve a quality, secular education and that this is essential to ensuring that we remain competitive in the global markets of the future and that we retain an informed citizenry, capable of participating in the American democracy.

I am saddened by the declining educational standards I observe, and I continue to believe that America deserves better. Rather than appropriately funding public education, we have simply lowered educational standards. More children enter college, not because more are academically qualified but because we have gradually made it easier to finish high school and gain college entrance.

In college, standards are lowered to prevent having to flunk out a large majority of the unqualified students who enter. Our democratic ideals tell us that every child deserves a college education, even though reality tells us that not every child is capable of earning one. If we are serious about every child deserving the opportunity to succeed in college, then we need to get serious about making sure they are adequately prepared. Because this entails increases in funding, it has yet to happen.

But the problem goes deeper than inadequate funding. At the center of the problem is the value which we as a society place on education. We celebrate athletic accomplishments and reward athletic talent far more than academic talent. We idolize the jocks and ridicule the nerds. Not even the vast contributions to our society by Bill Gates have altered this pattern. Too many parents raise children who grow up believing that a diploma is little more than a commodity. The educational experience itself is considered near worthless, as it is all about the diploma as a ticket to a job. Learning for learning sake is considered wasteful; one learns to get a piece of paper to get a job to get money to get a big TV and so on.

And consider the example set by our President for a moment. This is a national disgrace and an international embarrassment. That we somehow found this folksy moron endearing enough to elect tells speaks volumes on the degree to which our nation devalues intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, and education. That this statement did not make headlines in every major newspaper and lead every newscast tells me that we have a tremendous amount of work to do if we are to get America back on the right track.

Not only does Bush not appear to be particularly embarrassed by such frequent gaffes, but his administration regularly expresses disdain for science. What sort of model does this provide for our children? The neo-conservatives don't even think government should be involved in educating the citizenry!

Expect to hear more from me on this topic because it is too important to ignore. If we value reason, we must recognize that reason is learned. A strong secular education fosters reason and critical thinking skills. If these are the skills we want our citizenry to apply, then strengthening public education must be a priority.

Tags: education, public education, secular education, reason, Bush, America, democracy, high school, college

Texas Board of Education Unlikely to Include Creationism

2007-09-05T05:51:00.000-05:00

Despite the presence of several creationists on the Texas State Board of Education, it appears that ID will not enter the science classroom. This is good news for Texas children and defenders of science education. Teaching crap and calling it science does not change the fact that it is still crap. Fortunately, board members appeared to understand this simply truth.

Christian extremists have long sought to replace science education with religious indoctrination. If science contradicts biblical teaching (and it most certainly does), then science must go. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, they tried to insure that creationism would at least be included in the educational curriculum, going so far as to claim that it should be taught as an alternative to evolution.

According to The Dallas Morning News,

A solid majority of the State Board of Education, which will rewrite the science curriculum for public schools next year, is against the idea, even though several members say they are creationists and have serious doubts about Charles Darwin's theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Sadly, we can't celebrate the defeat of creationism just yet. Even though it is nice to see Texas board members understanding that creationism (in its various forms) is not science, this is merely one battle in a much larger war.

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community – and intelligent design does not."

Absolutely. It is a national disgrace to see that Texas Governor Rick Perry and President Bush approve of creationism being taught in public schools. Before we praise these school board members for making the right decision, we must realize that they may also be determined to amplify controversy where little exists.

And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

Clearly, more work is needed to make sure our nation's children receive the science education they need.

Tags: Texas, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, school board, Bush, science, education, science education, public schools

Critical Thinking at the University: The Failure of BYU

2007-08-13T05:59:00.000-05:00

University-level education is supposed to be about more than just getting a job after graduation; it is supposed to be an opportunity to learn how to think effectively. Regardless of the academic discipline, students learn the history of their chosen field, recent developments in the area, and current controversies. And yet, most fields of study also extol the virtues of critical thinking. This is what makes university education such a potent friend to the reality-based community. Sadly, there are exceptions, as some universities have abandoned this noble goal in pursuit of ancient superstition.

I recall my college years with fondness as a time of intense self-reflection, wide ranging interpersonal experience, identity development, and discovery. In every subject, the professors who made an impression were those who challenged my preconceptions and encouraged critical thinking. Even in religion courses (yes, I took two courses in religion), nothing was accepted at face value. Students were pushed to consider how we know what we think we know. We learned that asking the right questions was often more valuable than finding an answer.

I credit these experiences as going a long way toward making me who I am today. I suppose this is why I found this article about Brigham Young University (BYU) by Jon Adams so distressing. I join Adams in feeling sorry for the students at BYU. "They are missing out on the marketplace of ideas other universities enjoy."

Religiously-oriented universities do not have to make this mistake. I attended one, and I know that freethought and skepticism can flourish even in such environments. It must also be acknowledged that BYU is no Liberty University. In discussing the legacy of homophobia at BYU, Adams notes that change is possible and that there is some cause for optimism. Still, I think the real tragedy is that BYU often receives praise from the Mormon community precisely because of how it deprives its students of the full university experience.

Tags: college, university, BYU, education, critical thinking, freethought, Mormon