Wednesday

Today I was able to write two paragraphs on the possible effects of a scientifically illiterate country. I will try to finish this section by Friday and maybe start the third section, which is possible ways for scientists and educators to teach the public. I will have time later today to be able to work on it.

Inclass work

Today I finished the first part of my paper, which is a quick overview of the scientific illiteracy in the United States, especially with regards to creationism. This included mentioning a couple of the cases in the past couple of years about teaching intelligent design in public science classes. For next time I will start writing the next part of my paper, which is the possible harms and fallouts of a scientifically illiterate country.

Thesis and outline

Thesis- In this day and age, when so much of our society depends on the development of scientific progress, it is absolutely essential that kids are exposed to the truth in school. The problem, though, is that a large percentage of the citenzry of the United States buys into pseudoscientific ideas; seen no more clearly than the amount of people who believe in creationism, or as it has recently started to be called in an attempt to appear scientific, intelligent design.

Outline-
1st point- I will first do a quick overview of the amount of people who believe in creationism, as well as other bogus sciences such as astrology and seances. Then I'll mention a couple of the recent cases where people have tried to get creationism back into public schools. After that, I will review why in all of those cases the judge and jury ruled in favor of evolution instead of creationism.

2nd point- I will next focus on the problems and outcomes of having a scientific illiterate country. I will reference history as well as the present. This will include European countries such as Sweden, France, and England, and how the majority of their populations have grown pass infantile beliefs and turned instead towards science and reason. And how becuase of this, in certain scientific aspects, they are more enlightened than the United States.

3rd point- My third point will focus on what educators and scientists can to do to address this problem. And also briefly talk about what the role of education is.

Revisions for annotated bibliography

The first revision I have to do is arrange the sources in category headings. I also have to add more in my summaries of how I am going to use a certain article in my paper. I kind of focused more on just summarizing the article than explaining how I will use it. There are a couple of spelling errors that I need to correct too.

Annotated Bibliography

Cracraft, Joel (2004). The New Creationism and Its Threat to Science Literacy and Education.
Bioscience, 54 (1). Retrieved October 31, 2007, from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=104&sid=877c77c5-183f-48e1-b23c
faf66d5436d8%40sessionmgr102

This short article out of the journal Bioscience deals with creationism and gives a brief explanation of the problems that teaching it in public science classrooms poses. The author mentions in the beginning that there is a large percentage of the population of the United States who buys into pseudoscientific theories, whether it is UFO landings, astrology, or séances. But obviously from the title the author’s main focus is creationism, or as it is beginning to be called in a desperate attempt to appear scientific, intelligent design theory. He talks about the intelligent design (ID) movement and how, when all the appearance of science is stripped away, it is a calculated attempt to get God and religion into public science classrooms and impose a state religion, which of course clearly violates the First Amendment. The author shows that there is hope for the future though. He references some statistics that the percentage of people who accept the theory of evolution is on a continuous rise. Also that a substantial majority believes evolution should be taught in schools, and another substantial majority that believes evolution is not incompatible with a belief in god, which seems to have always been a main argument by creationists. Since this article is from a journal called Bioscience, the author is obviously happy about the fact that acceptance of evolution is on the rise. As he says in the last paragraph, “A religious worldview, under the pretext of science, should not be imposed on children in the public schools--hence the need for science education that deals squarely with the nature of scientific inquiry.” Since the article is brief it will not be my main source. It does not further expound on the quote above, about how educators can confront the problem of scientific illiteracy in the United States. I will be able to pull out some main facts from the article though, such as the rise of the percentage of Americans accepting evolution which I mentioned above.

Wapshott, Nicholas (2005). A New Age of Unreason. New Statesman, 134 (4762). Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=104&sid=877c77c5-183f-48e1-b23c-faf66d5436d8%40sessionmgr102.

This article uses the trial in Dover between evolution and intelligent design as an example to illustrate a larger point of scientific illiteracy. As the author of the article says, "It is evidence of a wider malaise, the emergence of a new age of unreason which glorifies the irrational and dignifies ignorance." The article also briefly mentions what the harm was when American schools did not teach evolution and other scientific theories in the first half of the 20th century. This refers to 1957, when the Soviet Union launched a satellite into space before the U.S. That was an extremely humiliating moment for the United States and Eisenhower, and it was after that, that our government investigated science teaching and issued new textbooks that were based on real science. This included putting evolution firmly at the center of biology class. The author also touches on how most European countries are no longer having this debate; the majority of them accept evolution. This could be why most of the nobel prizes for scientific fields have gone to Europeans in the past two decades. Overall, this was a really good article that had many statistics I will be able to use in my paper.

Library Sources

Articles on individual cases

-AU Protests Creationist Presentation At Mo. Public School System
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

-Time article- The Judge Who Ruled for Darwin
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

-Science and Spirit article- Only in America
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

Articles on the problem of a scientific illiterate country

-New Statesman article- A New Age of Unreason
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

-Education Week article
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

-Chronicle of Higher Education- Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

-Bioscience article- The New Creationism and Its Threat to Science Literacy and Education
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

-Education Digest- the teachers' lounge
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=107&sid=8917c4aa-5789-4df8-ab6b-a316c3d95c15%40sessionmgr106

Primary/Secondary sources

Primary sources- A potential primary source for my topic could be to interview a biology teacher. And to get the other side of the argument, I could interview a priest or some other clergyman to get his view on the topic.

Secondary sources- My secondary sources will mostly consist of scholary research from either the internet or the library. I have already found a couple real good sites and articles by quailified authors on the topic. I will also probably incorporate court cases dealing with the subject, to show that there is still a controversy going on.

Research So Far

I've been able to find a lot on the subject of why creationism should not be taught in public science rooms. That if you allow creationism to be taught in public schools, you have to open the door for all pseudosciences to be taught as well. I've also read up on the ways that religious networks teach kids at a very young age not to believe in evolution, and how that sticks throughout a lot of their lives. This connects with my overall topic, which is what is the role of educators and what is their responsibility in teaching the truth. The fact is that there are many teachers that are afraid to teach evolution because they are scared of pressure and backlash from parents. Recently there were a couple high school teachers in Colorado, that after teaching evolution in science class, there was so much of an outcry by parents and so much pressure put on them, that they were forced to resign and relocate.

I would say that my research paper will be under the category Advocate in a Controversy. Instead of just evaluating the debate whether creationism should be taught in public schools or not, my paper will defienetely be taking a side in the argument and have a purpose. Part of my paper, though, will have instances of Reviewer of a Controversy, Analyzer and Evaluator of a Controversy, and also Analytical Thinker Positioned in a Critical Conversation.

List of potential sources

List of sources-
Carl Sagan site called Does the truth matter
Sites that cover recent cases dealing with the topic
Article from the Anti-Defamation League on the topic
Anything else I can find on Google Scholar

List of keywords-
creationism in public schoolos
intelligent design
creationism vs. evolution
pseudoscience

Plans to say/do

Plans to say

Since I'm doing my paper on the debate of whether creationism should be taught in school or not, my audience would most likely be academics and people in education. But since the academic community has almost universally agreed that creationism has no place in a science classroom, I will not just focus on the science of it.

Plans to do

Since a recent poll had the United States population almost split down the middle in belief between evolution and creationism, I can address the larger issue of scientific illeteracy. That scientific illiteracy is a bad thing for a country to have because it is through knowledge of how things are and work that makes it able for a country to fix their problems. Also, how the proponents of intelligent design theory have helped to give the false-belief that creationism has scientific validity. The thing that can tie this all together is the idea of what the purpose of education is, and how educators can address this problem and what they should do about it.

Exploration

Part 1: Exploration

1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your research project.

The topic I chose is does "creationism" have any place in the public school system.

2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?

My interest in the topic is that I think it is extremely important that truth and facts are taught in school, and creationism goes completely against this.

3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?

My opinion is that creationism has absolutely no place in the public school system, especially in a science class. All of the tenets of creationism and intelligent design have been disproven by the entire scientific community, so teaching it to children would be teaching them lies intentionally.

4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?

I know about the history of the struggle between teaching evolution or creationism in school. I followed a case just a year ago about a public school trying to get intelligent design taught in school, fortunately the court deemed it unconstitutional. One thing I'm curious about is how is it possible this argument is still going on, at least in the United States, Europe has almost universally accepted evolution. With all of the knowledge we have obtained in the past one hundred and fifty years about earth and life on it, it's almost hard to believe it is still going on.

6. Within what scholarly discipline (such as history, biology, psychology) do you expect to do most of your research? How does this discipline approach or study this topic?

The three main scholarly disciplines I will focus on are biology/science, theology and education. Biology because of evolution, theology because of creationism, and education to decide which one should be taught.

7. How could you research this topic outside the library (for example, through interviews and/or observations)?

I could go to the Field Museum which has a whole section on evolution, and talk to the scientists there and get their views on creationism. I guess to be fair I could talk to a cleric and get his views on the topic.

Part 2: Focusing
Astronomy is taught in schools, not astrology; chemistry is taught in schools, not alchemy; just as evolution should be taught in schools, not creationism. The reason astronomy, chemistry and evolution are taught in schools, is because all three use scientific inquiry to gather observations and facts, and then are agreed upon by the scientific community at large. Science books in classrooms are then written based on these findings. On the other hand, astrology, alchemy and creationism are all based on ancient superstitions which completely lack anything resembling scientific data to back them up. Now, no one is arguing that astrology and alchemy should be taught in schools anymore, so why should creationism have any place in the classroom either?

Research Paper Ideas

What place should "creationism" have in the public education system?

1. A history of the clash between the teaching of evolution and creationism. (Education, Science, Theology)

2. Since creationism has never been supported by any respected scientist, and everything supporting it has been disproven, it has no place in a science class room. (Education, Science)

3. Teaching creationism in school violates the constitution, and other obvious problems with teaching creationism and intelligent design in public schools. (Education, Sociology)

links to articles for paper

Bibliography-

Appiah-Mensah, Seth. "AU's Critical Assignment in Darfur Challenges and Constraints." African Security Review (2005). 01 Oct. 2007 <http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=&slink_id=1927&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3>.

Barker, Alec. "Between Conscience and Self-Interest: the United States, Sudan and Darfur." BC Journal of International Affairs 09 (2006). 01 Oct. 2007 <http://bcjournal.org/2006/between-conscience-and-self-interest/>.

Booker, Salih, and Ann-Louise Colgan. "Genocide in Darfur." The Nation 12 July 2004. 01 Oct. 2007 <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040712/booker>.

Dagne, Ted. Sudan: the Crisis in Darfur. Congress. CRS Web, 2004. 05 Oct. 2007 http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA457812&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf.


"The Darfur Conflict: Crimes Against Humanity in Sudan." Crimes of War Project (2004). 02 Oct. 2007 <http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-darfur.html>.

List of Sources-

AU’S Critical Assignment in Darfur Challenges and constraints-
http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=&slink_id=1927&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3

The Darfur Conflict: Crimes Against Humanity in Sudan-
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-darfur.html

Genocide in Darfur-
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040712/booker

Between Conscience and Self-Interest:The United States, Sudan and Darfur-
http://bcjournal.org/2006/between-conscience-and-self-interest/

This last article is from the BC Journal of International Affairs. The article focuses on the genocide that is currently happening in Darfur, the western region in Sudan. It's main focus though, is the reasons why the United States and the United Nations have been hesitant to intervene. His first point, and even though it is depressing to think it to be the case, yet there seems to be no other clear reason, is that there is no political and economical interests in Sudan. Even though the situation has been universally labeled genocide, which means that foreign powers must intervene under the Genocide Convention passed in 1948, and the promise after the Rwandan genocide in 1994 that it would never happen again. So far the west has substantially underfunded the African Union, making it impossible for them to achieve any sort of success. No troops have been deployed either, with people like Bush oping for a diplomatic solution instead. The problem is that diplomatic solutions have been attempted, none have worked and hundreds of thousands of civilians are being slaughtered while they puruse these meaningless solutions.

Metacommentary

First off, the title of my synthesis paper is just synthesis, so it is a good bet that a reader would have no clue what it is going to be about. So my title is not an example of metacommentary. The only part of the paper that has a clear use of metacommentary, though weak, is the ending paragraph. This paragraph deals with "So what?" and "Who cares?". There are many parts of the paper that I could add metacommentary that would expand and strengthen the authors as well as my own arguments.

Examples-
At the end of the second paragraph: In other words, with the shift from hard sources, such as textbooks, to the hyperspeed of the internet, students aquire a need for information to be learned and transacted at a more instantaneous speed. This will have a dangerous affect since the brain is better at absorbing and retaining information when done at a more adequate pace, such as when done through books and other literary orientated devices.

Somewhere in the last paragraph: My point is not that we should completely banish technology from the classroom, but that we should be weary of letting it eclipse the true nature and necessities of education. Which to me, forever will be a teacher and students interacting and exchanging ideas through discussions.

Synthesis

Technology is inseparable from the modern world, finding its way into every aspect of our lives; from the heights of cyberspace to the depths of iPhones. Nothing being quite able to escape its grasp, technology has even found its way into the classroom. A fundemental question that needs to be asked is if techonology, especially computers, is a beneficial or cancerous addition to the classroom atmosphere? Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll, the authors of the two articles "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?", both agree that technology is not only a hinderance when it comes to education and the classroom, but is even universally destructive.
According to Stoll, computers are nothing more than a safe-haven for plagarism. The temptation to just copy and paste websites and the unlimited amount of information at your fingertips is almost too much to bare. Not only this but computers isolate students instead of incorporating them into class discussions, as has been the traditional standard of teaching for hundreds of years. And because of the constant barage of images from computers and other picture orieneted devices, the emphasis on reading and books undoubtedly plumets.
None of these obvious facts seem to occur to the superintendents of public schools in America though. With the belief that technology is an all-mighty, all-powerful and all-wonderful addition to the classroom, schools pour out more and more of their budgets into the hands of major corporations. This is what Ohmann is most hesitant about. The fact that with technological devices being privatized by big corporations, these companies will not only be able to decide how education will be taught, but what will be taught as well.
These interpretations challenge the beliefs of those critics who have long assumed that technology will be a wonderful addition to the classroom. And ultimately, what is at stake here is the future of education, which in a way means the future since people gather their skills that they will use later in life at school. These arguments should also be read by every parent, since it is extremely important that they are aware what their children are learning at school and how they are learning it.

Synthesis Activity

Articles- "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?"

Thesis- Richard Ohmann and Clifford Stoll, the authors of the two articles "Computers and Technology" and "Who Needs Computers?", both agree that technology is not only a hinderance when it comes to education and the classroom, but is even extremely destructive.

Intro- Quick overview of the two author's main points.

Body:
-computers make it easier to plagarize.
-de-emphasizes the importance of reading.
-abandons the standard tradition of teaching.
-business and politics behind school's spending on technology.

Conclusion- Wrap everything up.

"Computers and Technology"

The article "Computers and Technology" is a response to the rapid escalation of technology in the classroom and the belief that this integration is solely positive. The author of the essay Richard Ohmann argues that technology, especially computers, is not only overhyped, but is an actual destructive force to education. He says that the internet just makes it easier for students to plagarize and is a source of distraction in the classroom. But his biggest qualms with technology in the classroom are the economics and politics behind it. He makes a list saying, "education is big business, education is for business, business calls the political tune, and business is privatizing whatever it can." Since technology is being privatized by big corporations, and since many schools are putting more and more of their money into technology, these big corporations not only have an effect on how education will be taught, but what it will teach as well.
Overall I agree with Ohmann's article, even though I don't have quite as an alarmist view of technology as he does. Sure it has made it easier for information to be obtained and shared, sure it can be a distraction, and of course there should be the concern of the economics behind it, but even with all that I still believe that technology, in the classroom and outside, can be extremely useful and productive. And ultimately technology is here to stay, so it is more wise to try to figure out not how to keep it out of the classroom, but how to best incorporate it.

"Hidden Intellectualism"

In the essay “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff argues that schools and colleges are missing an opportunity when they only focus on what they believe to be “intellectual” subjects, dismissing subjects they deem “non-intellectual.” These include subjects such as cars, clothing, sports and TV. The reason Graff believes this, is the fact that students must get interested in education themselves; it cannot be forced onto them. So if these so-called “non-intellectual” subjects were welcomed into the classroom, instead of brushed aside, there would be a lot of students who would have much more incentive to participate, which in turn would have a grass-roots effect. By this I refer to his quote that, “It’s a good bet that if students get hooked on reading and writing by doing term papers on Source, they will eventually get to [John Stuart Mill’s] On Liberty.”
Yet, this is not to further the gap between so-called academic and non-academic subjects. As Graff makes clear, by using his own childhood as an example, the subject’s schools and colleges deem non-academic often not only equal the academic subjects, but can even surpass them. When he was a child in the 1950’s, he read all the sport’s magazines instead of Plato and Shakespeare. Then he and his friends, the "hoods," would have arguments, discussions, debates etc. on everything to do with sports. It was from these interactions that Graff learned "how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation with others." Meanwhile, school was much more solitary, isolating and to Graff even "unreal." In a way, the curriculum in the classroom was only the statistical part of his sports education, lacking the communal aspects, the fun, and the inner laying truth.
Graff's point does make sense when the purpose of education is examined closely. After all, a school's job is not to turn out a group of students who all think the same and have the same interests. Not everyone likes Plato, Shakespeare and Aristotle. The objective of a school is to involve all of their students, and in order to do this the kids need to be interested in the subject. So instead of alienating kids from education by only forcing onto them subjects that they have zero interest in, schools and colleges need to embrace these "non-intellectual" and "non-academic" subjects into the classroom. The result would be more kids included in classroom discussions and with a better attitude and outlook towards education.

Pg. 38 Exercise 2

In his article "Don't Blame the Eater," David Zinzenko stresses more than once that fast-food restaurants are the only affordable option for teenagers in America. He says, "Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I guarantee you'll see one of our country's more than 13,000 McDonald's restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit." Though I agree that fast-food restaurants are in abundance in this country, I feel it is absurd to claim that there are no affordable, convenient and healthy alternatives. There are healthy food stores such as Wild Oats which are opening all across the country. On top of that, there is some form of a grocery store in every town in America, and healthy meals can be bought there at affordable prices if picked out correctly. So even though it might take a little longer than pulling up to a window, there are healthy affordable meals for teenagers in America, if they only take the extra time and responsibility to choose them.

David Zinczenko mentions an alarming fact in his article "Don't Blame the Eater," that Type 2 diabetes has increased since 1994 from 5 percent to 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in the United States. Then there is the fact that McDonalds and Burger King spend $1 billion each year on advertising; a large portion of that aimed directly at kids such as Ronald McDonald, happy meals and the playgrounds that accompany the restaurants. There are many other examples along this line and when added up it is clear that fast-food restaurants play a substantial role in youthful obesity. Though I agree with David Zinczenko on that part of his argument, where we disagree is on his belief that bringing lawsuits against the companies is a legitimate response to the problem. He believes parents of the obese children suing the companies will be a useful tool in bringing awareness to the unhealthiness of fast-food. I disagree. I see that as merely people looking for personal gain without any intention of changing the fast-food companies. The way to combat these corporations is by joining together to force them to put the nutritional information on their products, spreading awareness of the health risks in eating their food, and by educating children much more on what food is good for them to put in their bodies.

"The Surge Has Been Completely Useless"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-surge-has-been-comple_b_63111.html

I found this blog on The Huffington Post by Cenk Uygur titled, "The Surge Has Been Completely Useless." It clearly uses the they say/I say method since its opening paragraph declares, "It's maddening how effective Bush administration propaganda is. They say the surge has been working. They repeat it a million times. Then they get a couple of their cronies inside think tanks, who are paid to say how great they are, say the surge is working. Then they get a couple of generals, who were promoted to say how great they are, say the surge is working. And voila, all you hear in the news is how well the surge is working." The next paragraph the author then says how he feels about the surge, "This so-called surge is a disaster, with zero results. Yes, I said zero."
I agree with the author's view. This is because what everyone seems to be forgetting about the surge is that it was never supposed to be a military tactic but a political one. The ultimate goal of the surge was to secure a stable Iraqi government. This has not happened. The Sunnis have left the government, and the remaining politicians are still on vacation. Yes, there has been a decrease in insurgent violence in areas such as Al Anbar province. No one is arguing with that. America does have the greatest army in the world, so it is to be expected when an increase in our troops are deployed to a certain area. The problem is that we are not fighting an army in the traditional sense. This isn't World War II where it was obvious that the Nazis were evil people, and they had an army that we would have to defeat in order to end their reign. In Iraq, we are fighting militia groups with no central unity, and because of this we will never be able to truly defeat them. It's like a game of Whac-a-Mole. We lower the violence and opposition in one area, and it just pops up in another. The time has come to admit that we will never outlast the insurgents. These are people who are still arguing over who was supposed to inherit Muhammad's throne 1400 years ago. Plus, we don't have the amount of troops it would take to keep the surge going. Some of our troops are on their 5th deployment already. Our enemies don't have this problem. In many areas across the Middle East young boys are brainwashed from an early age and raised to fight for groups such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, among many other fundamentalist terror groups.
It's because of all of this that it has become even more clear that the War in Iraq was never a military battle in the first place. It was always a diplomatic one. But because of poor strategy the Bush Administration believed that America would be welcomed as liberators. And here we are again being led to believe that there is hope in this quagmire we got ourselves into. Over the past couple of years the government has kept trying to make believe that there is an end in sight. It's sad that they are doing it again and everyone seems to be falling for it. General Petraeus is going to give his report (through the White House speech staff of course) in two weeks, and he will say things are getting better and that we just need six more months. And people will fall for it, and in six months it's going to be another false hope that dupes the American public into allowing more time and casualties for an un-winnable conflict.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070907/ap_on_re_au_an/bush_bad_day_at_theater_1

This article I found on Yahoo News doesn't use the they say/I say method. The writer does talk about what Bush said at the forum, but he doesn't contrast that with something he is saying. He is just simply restating Bush's gaffes and explaining the context they were said in. Even though it is obvious that the author is not a pro-Bush guy, he actually keeps himself out of it. Maybe he realized Bush's mispronounciations were so bad, that he didn't need to comment on them to make the point.