Must have been warm down there in January. In South Carolina, according to the Palmetto Post and Courier:
Biology professor Robert T. Dillon’s job teaching genetics and evolution at the College of Charleston has little to do with editing, but he’s found himself chasing three adverbs with a red pen for nearly a decade.
Dillon said in an interview Wednesday that he knows he and his advocacy group, South Carolinians for Science Education, are “sensitive” when it comes to pages 49 and 78 of South Carolina’s kindergarten through 12th grade science standards.
But three adverbs on those pages mean more than they appear to, he said, as they ask students to “critically” analyze topics dealing with climate change and evolution. The standards read simply “analyze” in all of the other standards.
“I just don’t like these three … words!” Dillon said in an interview. “How could that be so hard [to change]? They’re trying to make evolution appear controversial, they’re trying to make it somehow different. Well, it is controversial, but the controversy is political or religious, it’s not scientific. It’s this richly symbolic situation.”
So, his bitch is with “critically”? The Uncommon Descent news desk has been engaged in a decades-long war against his “richly symbolic,” which includes carpet-bombing with red pens.
Apparently, Prof Dillon’s peeve is over “alternative theories of evolution,” which he sees as introducing creationism. Maybe where he lives. In general, however, tell that one to Uchicago James Shapiro,who is pioneering discussions of alternative theories of evolution and taking heat for it—but is not a creationist. The Palmetto State could always catch up.
See from just yesterday, for example: Self-organization theorist publishes new paper on non-Darwinian means of evolution
Origin of life: Is RNA world overlapping with self-organization theory (because it is otherwise impossible?)
The big question in origin of life is really “Can we wring information from matter — shake the bit out of the it?”
Re alternative theories of evolution, train left station some while back.
Hat tip: Slawek Bioslawek
Follow UD News at Twitter!
6 Replies to “Darwin’s defender declares war over adverb in school standards”
I agree with the good professor that there should be consistency across the board; simply add the word “critically” to ALL standards of scientific analysis. Unfortunately, Professor Dillon really doesn’t desire for that to occur. He wants simple abject obedience to Darwinism, and there is no need for anything other than acceptance in his mind.
Of related note, it appears the word ‘evolution’ itself is highly superfluous in many papers:
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature:
Another word in need of ‘critical’ analysis, besides the word ‘evolution’ itself, is the word ‘random’:
Excellent. another dust up on controling conclusions that are taught to kids in schools.
He is right. It suggests there is not a settled conclusion on evolution and global warming.
There isn’t according to enough people.
He is not the boss!
They are demanding the nations children etc be taught their truth and that Christian doctrines are not true.
The debate, and the continuing impossibility of a free nation living in a state censored educational system and censoring the wrong things.
Its our kids and our country.
South Carolinas creationists respond to this attack.
They fired first eh?
‘But three adverbs on those pages mean more than they appear to, he said, as they ask students to “critically” analyze topics dealing with climate change and evolution.’
He’s perhaps just ‘into’ positive thinking, considering that even analysis, ipso facto, portending ‘let the chips fall where they may’, just muddies the water. He presumably just gives the highest marks to the most eloquent tributes to said creeds.
A public school classroom consists of twenty to thirty children, who are ignorant of a given topic, being lectured to by the adult at the front of the room.
Should we be surprised that every crank in creation is trying to dictate what that adult says?