From Arizona State University, a classic in propaganda masquerading as research:
In a first-of-its kind study, scientists from Arizona State University’s School of Life Sciences have found that a majority of professors teaching biology in Arizona universities do not believe that helping students accept the theory of evolution is an instructional goal. In fact, a majority of study participants say their only goal is to help students understand evolution. researchers at work School of Life Sciences assistant professor Sara Brownell (left) and graduate student Elizabeth Barnes are studying the perceived conflict in the classroom between evolution and religion.
According to the study’s authors, this finding was surprising. The exploratory research, published May 18 in the scientific journal CBE—Life Sciences Education, looked at how instructors perceived their role in helping students accept evolution. It also looked at the extent to which professors address the perceived conflict students may have between religion and evolution.
“Evolution is one of the key concepts in understanding biology,” said Sara Brownell, senior author of the study and assistant professor with the school. “My own view is why would we want to teach evolution, if we don’t want our students to accept it? We teach them that cells have membranes and we expect them to accept that. Why should evolution be any different? Yet instructors in our study don’t see it that way. For most of them, evolution is separated — first, in understanding and second, in accepting the concept.”More.
It is reasonable to think that Brownell means by ‘acceptance” indoctrination in Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutation generates huge levels of information). That proposition has never been demonstrated and functions mainly as a metaphysic.
So one must “accept” that never-demonstrated processes have occurred, as opposed to understanding what happens when demonstrated processes do occur. Despite Brownell’s use of the interrogative (?), she is not really asking a question; she is appealing to Darwin’s thugs for enforcement against skeptics.
Other proposed mechanisms of evolution, by contrast, are fact-based and do not require indoctrination. If one were teaching a genuine subject in evolution, such as horizontal gene transfer or devolution, one would focus on helping people understand what happens. Because, unlike Darwinism, they can be demonstrated.
Skinny: People are sick of Brownell’s minority religion dominating the science.
See also: Royal Society to announce guest list for “rethink evolution” meeting – at last It isn’t shaping up as a nice, quiet place to sleep. Stay tuned.
Nature: Mendel holds back genetics teaching? A post-Mendelian view might be better suited to the current drive toward rethinking evolution. (The author is really talking about Darwinism of course.)
Follow UD News at Twitter!