SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Not only in America, teaching evolution is under attack. Indeed, future Turkish children will likely not learn about evolution in school, as soL international reports:
İsmet Yılmaz, the Minister of National Education in Turkey on Friday announced the new curriculum draft for school. After the draft is finalized, textbooks will be published based on the new draft to be used starting from 2017-2018 academic year.
The new curriculum draft brings some radical changes:
[...] Evolution Theory is excluded from Biology courses. The related unit named "The Origins of Life and the Evolution" is replaced with "Living Beings and Environment".
This is actually not the first strike against evolution in Turkey:
In 2013, the government had made a regulation, which let the Intelligent Design model to be included in the curriculum besides the Evolution Theory.
Also at Turkish Minute: Gov't removes evolution theory from new school curriculum
Related: What is Turkey's problem with Darwin?
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:51PM
You can make the same argument about many subjects that are taught in schools (paraphrasing: "it doesn't matter if kids are taught this specific area of knowledge") and it will be true for large proportions of the population.
What makes evolution different is that real scientific knowledge is being replaced with falsehoods.
But back to the question of whether it matters or not if certain subjects are taught: it would not matter if you could identify with 100% reliability and at a young age those kids who will grow up to be hairdressers, etc.. It's easy to look back, not so easy to make predictions. How well did Einstein do in school?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:42PM
Contrary to common myth, very well. [gizmodo.com]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:42PM
What makes evolution different is that real scientific knowledge is being replaced with falsehoods.
Continuing on in devils advocate mode, I can't personally vouch for the curriculum but it claims in writing to be replacing the evolution unit with an environmental sciences unit. Assuming good faith the kids are getting a similar sized bucket of "real scientific knowledge" just a somewhat less controversial topic.
They may of course foul up the environmental sciences unit, although we're assuming they won't foul up an evolution unit...
I don't think the problem of how to handle potential Einsteins in the classroom is solved anywhere, so thats not a Turkish problem or a specific policy problem, and is a bit off topic for high school graduation reqs. Surely not every grad needs to be prepped for Einstein work especially when their economy can't employ them anyway. I think one thing we can agree on is the appearance of an Einstein is unpredictable and not providing an environmental sciences unit is just as likely to prevent an "Einstein of the superfund cleanup technology" from appearing as it is to stop an "Einstein of evolution" from appearing. Didn't we already have an "Einstein of evolution" appear anyway? That would imply we need an environmental sciences one more than an evolutionary sciences one, so careful going down that argument path.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:50PM
You seem confused between what is basic science (evolution) and what is more the realm of specific vocational knowledge (environmental cleanup). We should ensure that children get a grounding in basic sciences. Obviously there is not time to teach every area of vocational knowledge.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:39PM
As the devils advocate for this topic I salute you, no sarcasm thats currently the strongest rebuttal I've seen all day. So far. Not bad.
It needs more justification than "I sez so." Personally I'm not even claiming you're wrong, although as the Devils Advocate I officially have to declare no presented evidence means none exists and mere sophistry will get you nowhere sir.
Also just to be fair I believe the actual environmental topic was unspecified, could be ecology in general or mine runoff in particular or just tree hugging or how to clean up oil spills vocationally. To be fair we should cut both sides the same slack. So compare basic biological topic of evolution to the basic biological topic of ecology. Two basic concepts of biology enter the cage fight, only one leaves alive... Which is more worthy, more important, more rewarding, more deserving, more needed? I donno man you can go thru life not knowing where life came from, but you can't live long in a ruined ecosystem. I mean where would you rather visit, an island of PHD in Ecology neo-druids where its a natural paradise although no one knows where species come from, or a Wall-E like dystopia wasteland where nothing is alive and the air is choking (sounds like China, LOL) but hey at least we got really good genetic engineering, if only the environment were not so toxic.