The need of education.

[laticauda]

I am a teacher and I tried a new lesson a couple of weeks ago.  I am teaching Juniors and Seniors in high school, who are aged 17-19 yeas old.  The topics were: how do you find correct factual  information in an age of opinion and misinformation and how does learning anatomy effect our knowledge of ourselves.  I decided to tackle these topics by using a different approach.  I used dinosaurs.   I taught the lesson over three days and it was an interesting experience.  Here is the short version of what was discussed. 

First I showed a video from Jimmy Kimmel about a Los Angeles Rams player named William Hayes who does not believe in dinosaurs..  Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M5qTdJWTOg   I also used a clip from Christians against dinosaurs.  Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pggGt8xLFzM&t=247s    

In both cases, we took what was presented and then used real facts to either prove or disprove the opinions that are presented in these videos.  We also explored the idea that if none of the students had done any research, how many of the students would have believe the video clips that we watched.  (Most of them said they would have.)  While doing that, we looked at sauropod anatomy to disprove the assumptions in one of the videos.  We used that information to compare and contrast with what the human body needs and capabilities are. 


I also showed one more video on the topic of information and misinformation.  We talked about all the different places we get our information from and should we trust those sources?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYMw4ldWR2E&list=WL

SciManDan does a great job poking holes in this video:  Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzkjx8ckAU&t=20s

Anyways, the student loved it.  One of the students at the beginning of the lesson stated they didn't believe in dinosaurs either.  After showing a small clip of Dinosaur 13 (showing them digging out Sue) the student was then convinced it wasn't a hoax.   The student were asking questions and engaged in the topic.  I felt that their knowledge on the topic was around Jurassic Park / 60's reptiles level.  (The brief time we discussed feathers and birds blew their minds)  They had no idea on almost everything we talked about.  A couple students asked me why they didn't learn this information in any of their science classes. A fellow teacher who shared a room with me thought the lesson was brilliant.

So please weigh in.  What do you think?  Was it a good lesson?  Do we need to do a better job educating our kids/students on prehistoric animals? Any educational ideas that you would like to share? 

[Loon]

I think, while enjoyable, in the current education system, prehistoric animals will really be stuck as neat images and get a slight mention in most science classes. Consider also, people's backgrounds, socioeconomic status and in the Christian woman's case, religious background can heavily affect the resources offered to children. Hopefully that makes sense.

[Shonisaurus]

Sincerely, I understand that there is a certain misinformation and obscurantism about the existence of life before the arrival of man in all cultures of the world due to religious prejudices. I think that for many people it is shocking that there were existed long before us millions of plant and animal species and for religious people is frustrating because many people believe that man is the center of creation, as in the Renaissance until the arrival of Galileo Galilei. the planets revolved around the Earth, in the sense that we were the chosen Planet and yet human beings unfortunately we are a speck of dust in life on Earth we are irrelevant beings against species like the pteranodon or the deinotherium that survived millions of years with hardly changes, human beings (homo sapiens) is a species "newcomer" in the history of our planet and as Paul Sereno says human beings will become extinct as it has happened to dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals.

On the other hand in front of many species of animals today (beautiful many) we can not human beings compare us in beauty with them, definitely from my honest point of view humans have little to thank nature in front of the beauty of a feline, the majesty of an elephant, rhinoceros or the beauty of any ungulate (horse, antelope) or the beautiful color of fish, birds or reptiles that have no point of comparison with any human being, nor with the best tailors in the world. The human being is to be removed imperfect and fragile animal and yet we mistakenly believe that we are the chosen species and I believe that this is one of the reasons why many people ignorantly or because they do not accept reality they do not understand why they existed. animal and plant species and dinosaurs in this case many of them beautiful before our landing in evolution.

The human beings in front of the majority of the animal species in regard to beauty are worth nothing unfortunately. What ennobles us is our rational intelligence and our creative power incomparable to any animal species. I know that my opinion is controversial but I had to express what I think.

[CityRaptor]

It's kinda funny how those people do not believe in the existince of creatures that actually existed, and still exist today, yet they believe in creatures whose existince is not only lacking any kind of evidence, but is actually extemely absurd.

[Concavenator]

I don't think that the fact of some people not believing in dinosaurs is only due to their religious beliefs,although it could be that, to some extent.Many people who believe in religions are aware of the existence of dinosaurs, because there is very strong scientific evidence supporting that.That doesn't mean there aren't  some people that are extremely narrow minded and don't believe anything besides what their religions/beliefs have to say.I think it's more of a case of ignorance and stupidity than anything else.

Some people don't care about dinosaurs at all , and some of them could even get to believe they didn't even exist ( ignorance).However, even in spite of that, it's pretty rare to find someone who  actually thinks dinosaurs didn't exist, when they even live today.

Also,some people will deny any evidence that's shown to them just because they're plain stupid.Someone may not believe in something because there is no scientific evidence supporting it,but if there actually is scientific evidence behind it,yet that person doesn't believe in it, that's stupidity.

It all comes down to the quality of the teaching.In some of science's careers, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, being a teacher is often an mistakenly associated with being a "frustrated scientist", one who couldn't end up investigating, and thereby, became a teacher just to have an income and having something to do.That leads to most teachers not being passionate at all at what they teach, and most importantly, their lack of interest leads to ignorance and on some extreme cases, misinformation.And the problem comes when they pass on those ideas to coming generations.I truly believe that the day that teachers ( or in this case, science teachers ) become actually interested in whatever they have to teach, the problem of ignorance and stupidity will almost certainly disappear.In order to achieve that, being a teacher ought to stop being envisioned as being a " solution" as what to do if you're a scientist and don't end up on investigation.

Also, @laticauda , you should have showed your students some pics of Borealopelta's fossil specimen. 

[Cretaceous Crab]

[Hopefully, I'm not overstepping any boundaries here by weighing in...]

I whole heartedly agree there is a lot of ignorance and misinformation out there.

To give some background, I was raised as a Christian and still consider myself one. I was homeschooled for all of my education pre-college. Of course, I was a dinosaur geek since before I can remember. Growing up, I rented every book at our local library about the subject. Courtesy of my parents, I was heavily influenced by The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, the teachings of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Heck, I went to every event when Mr Hovind was in town speaking.

I know some of you are already rolling your eyes, and considering reporting this post to the admins, LOL. Stay with me!

Over the years, I grappled with the whole issue of how dinosaurs & evolution, etc, fit into what I was taught within my religious beliefs. I have accepted evolution as a reality for many years ago, but only in the recent few years, I really shifted my view on how to interpret what the Bible said about the subject. I can tell it still causes some small level of grief with my parents, especially my mom. Christmas before last, as our oldest child was just starting to get into dinosaurs, she gave him a book written by Ken Ham. Bless her heart, I know she means well. I was mostly okay with the book, and could forgive the sub-par artwork & discrepancies on dates. But there was a statement on one of the pages that said there was no evidence of feathered dinosaurs. This book was published in 2012. After discussing it with my wife, I discreetly removed the book from my son's personal library [LOL, he hasn't asked about it once!].

In short, I feel that denying the process of evolution, or feathered dinosaurs, is akin to stating that the earth is flat, and we live in a geocentric universe. The scientific evidence is there. I feel a lot of ignorance on the matter is not only from a strict devotion to religious beliefs, but also no understanding on the geological processes and dating methods we use to determine the age of a fossil, or the earth itself. This is why I have recently been studying radiometric dating.

And truthfully, many religious folks don't even understand what the Bible actually says about the subject, and go off assumptions. I will not delve into the specifics, as I think it goes too far into prohibited topics and I don't want to come across as trying to discuss or push religion. But in summary, I feel it comes down to interpreting the word of a book written over the course of thousands of years...thousands of years ago in a language not really spoken today.

I know I'm kinda of an "anomaly" when I tell people I believe in evolution and creation, hoping to use it as an ice-breaker into the topic.

[ITdactyl]

I feel this is also a topic we need to be careful with.  10 years of experience in adult education has shown me one of the reasons people refuse new information is because of the way that information was given to them.  Sometimes, when a person is fed facts, they will tend to view it as indoctrination - especially if they already have an established mindset.  The end result is resistance to the new information.

Demons are easier to believe for some people because they are related to religions/regional myths.  Yetis are also easier for people to believe, because they don't go against a lot of established beliefs.  The discussion about dinosaurs will inevitably include a discussion of evolution which goes against some beliefs about creation.  It will also go against preconceived notions established by popular media.

I do think we are going in the right direction though.  More shows with the latest information.  More outlets for discussion.  More scientifically up-to-date toys/collectibles.  More books.

@laticauda, thanks for sharing your experience.  I think your story's brilliant. To answer your question, I don't think we need additional lessons about prehistoric critters but I do think that classroom discussion about prehistoric life should be more open.  If I were talking about pneumatization and how it helps birds fly, (if the discussion permits) I'd also mention how the same system helped dinosaurs grow to enormous sizes - as an example.

[stargatedalek]

A lot of educators wright off paleontology as little more than the "fun facts" section of influences cited for pop-culture iconography. And while that is obviously a real shame for those of us who are invested in the topic, I can understand that perspective.

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually end there for the students. The thing about paleontology is that even though most people don't know much about it, they still hear about it. Every third discovery cited or paper written becomes the latest wave of click-bait tabloid articles. When your average laymen is scrolling through articles about sportsball and they stumble upon "T-Rex didn't have feathers, Jurassic Park was right all along!" they go "Hah! Stupid scientists, I knew all along! That would have been so lame.". And through this process in repetition people become conditioned. Person A who doesn't understand why scientists "suddenly" say dinosaurs had feathers, might take person B a little more seriously when they suggest global warming is fake.

And while yes, any scientific misunderstanding can cause this, paleontology is especially culprit as it has such a strong cultural image established in peoples minds. Increased education about paleontology, especially coming from schools, is going to lead to increased acceptance of scientific process.

Lessons like yours are especially important, with focus on forming logical interpretations and combating misinformation. THIS is the skill set we should be being taught in junior high and high school, not super advanced math equations we will never use.

[Tyto_Theropod]

[Deleted previous content.]

I think that @laticauda is onto something here. The most important thing this lesson did was to encourage the pupils to be use their brains, assess how good an argument is and make informed judgements. I agree that it's important to teach kids not to believe everything they hear or read, no matter how authoritative the source. However, I love how you've worked some education on prehistoric animals into that and, by the sound of it, enlightened a few people.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

As someone who is studying education (albeit art education, which is a subject that has been, and can be seen as a non-academic subject as well) I think you're onto something. I'm sure as a teacher you've heard this time and time again but I think biology is tailored too much to preparing students for standardized testing and doesn't have enough of what you're doing here. If I had a science class (and had a choice in the matter, which I know doesn't happen often if at all) I'd set it up more as a natural history class with units on rocks and minerals; insects; fossils, deep time, and evolution; and other subjects that would catch students' interests. Especially in high schools, students are stuck with learning about cellular respiration, the Krebs cycle, biochemistry, and the like. They're not bad subjects by any means but I think it would definitely be better for the kids to learn more about what they would find more relatable and interesting. After all, natural history museums are very popular.

As for guiding students to better evaluate facts-- I agree. In this age of information there is so much misinformation being passed around as fact when really the science has progressed past it or never accepted it at all. I don't want to really get into politics but there are a lot of times stories are twisted or facts selected for political gain, and I think people should be able to understand the difference between propaganda and facts.

[Tyto_Theropod]

As someone who is studying education (albeit art education, which is a subject that has been, and can be seen as a non-academic subject as well) I think you're onto something. I'm sure as a teacher you've heard this time and time again but I think biology is tailored too much to preparing students for standardized testing and doesn't have enough of what you're doing here. If I had a science class (and had a choice in the matter, which I know doesn't happen often if at all) I'd set it up more as a natural history class with units on rocks and minerals; insects; fossils, deep time, and evolution; and other subjects that would catch students' interests. Especially in high schools, students are stuck with learning about cellular respiration, the Krebs cycle, biochemistry, and the like. They're not bad subjects by any means but I think it would definitely be better for the kids to learn more about what they would find more relatable and interesting. After all, natural history museums are very popular.

As for guiding students to better evaluate facts-- I agree. In this age of information there is so much misinformation being passed around as fact when really the science has progressed past it or never accepted it at all. I don't want to really get into politics but there are a lot of times stories are twisted or facts selected for political gain, and I think people should be able to understand the difference between propaganda and facts.

I agree with everything you're saying here. I was bored senseless by my biology GCSE, for example. It was mostly just health ed (e.g. "here's why you shouldn't take drugs!") and really basic human anatomy (e.g. "Label the pancreas and the liver,  but we're not going to tell you any cool bone names because that would be a waste of time."). It even mentioned some things (I can remember ribosomes being one) without explaining what they were or how they were important. I actually took some OU courses to learn more about evolution, behaviour, anatomy, etc., because the basic GCSE basically didn't tell you much at all.

Whilst I personally find most of it about as interesting as paint drying, I can kind of see sense in the focus on molecular and cell biology, because that's where most of the jobs are ATM. However, I don't think it's a ideal area of biology to be doing at GCSE level, because it's one of those things where trying to simplify the explanation of what's going on ultimately just makes it way less clear and harder for a beginner to understand.  For me, it was only when I had to take some mandatory modules on the subject at uni that I really grasped the concepts being taught. Sixteen-year-old me would definitely have enjoyed the subject matter you're suggesting way more, not least because most of it would have tapped into interests I already had.

[stargatedalek]

That there are religious people who refuse to accept a worldview based on scientific evaluation of evidence and that there are scientific people who want religion abolished. Both are ignorant in their own ways, with the latter basing their view of religion entirely on a handful of extremists and cults. In a way, these two needlessly opposing sides reinforce each others' views.

As someone who could arguably be described as the latter, I just thought I would chime in and explain why there are people who find religion so distasteful. I want to make it clear I don't mean to discourage anyone's belief, rather that is something deeply personal that everyone should have the ability to chose for themselves, I'm just trying to shed some more light on "the other side".

Firstly, I and many others stand firmly with the idea that religions and beliefs are two distinct concepts that are often conflated. Beliefs are largely cultural, belief in a particular creator, particular mythology, or a particular afterlife. Religion is a structure of organization wherein members typically share a singular set of beliefs, and that is designed to encourage the application of those beliefs in the day to day lives of the groups members and often of those outside the group.

I was raised as a Jehovah's witness, and grew up in fear of retribution from the church for who I was. Frankly, evolution vs creationism felt a lot less important when faced with the very real fear of conversion therapy. And they are far from the only ones doing things like that. A lot of large religious organizations and companies are allowed to spread messages of fear and hate under the guise of practicing their religion, all the while receiving tax benefits and even promotion from governments. Despite making over eighty million dollars a year (in Canada alone!) in donations, the Jehovah's Witnesses get massive tax cuts, and are absolved from their promotion of bigotry and hate crimes in their produced media (as a recent example, they produced cartoons for children encouraging them to bully their LGBT classmates).

If this massive international corporation can get away with acting like this, I think it's fair to say this is not based on "extremists and cults". Religious organizations abusing their religious influence to wield secular power is very real, and a lot of people are hurt by it.

When people speak of abolishing religion, we don't mean abolishing beliefs, we mean abolishing the secular benefits that religious organizations receive, and holding them accountable when they promote bigoted or otherwise destructive messages. It's not a true separation of church and state if the church gets tax benefits.

[RobinGoodfellow]

That there are religious people who refuse to accept a worldview based on scientific evaluation of evidence and that there are scientific people who want religion abolished. Both are ignorant in their own ways, with the latter basing their view of religion entirely on a handful of extremists and cults. In a way, these two needlessly opposing sides reinforce each others' views.

As someone who could arguably be described as the latter, I just thought I would chime in and explain why there are people who find religion so distasteful. I want to make it clear I don't mean to discourage anyone's belief, rather that is something deeply personal that everyone should have the ability to chose for themselves, I'm just trying to shed some more light on "the other side".

Firstly, I and many others stand firmly with the idea that religions and beliefs are two distinct concepts that are often conflated. Beliefs are largely cultural, belief in a particular creator, particular mythology, or a particular afterlife. Religion is a structure of organization wherein members typically share a singular set of beliefs, and that is designed to encourage the application of those beliefs in the day to day lives of the groups members and often of those outside the group.

I was raised as a Jehovah's witness, and grew up in fear of retribution from the church for who I was. Frankly, evolution vs creationism felt a lot less important when faced with the very real fear of conversion therapy. And they are far from the only ones doing things like that. A lot of large religious organizations and companies are allowed to spread messages of fear and hate under the guise of practicing their religion, all the while receiving tax benefits and even promotion from governments. Despite making over eighty million dollars a year (in Canada alone!) in donations, the Jehovah's Witnesses get massive tax cuts, and are absolved from their promotion of bigotry and hate crimes in their produced media (as a recent example, they produced cartoons for children encouraging them to bully their LGBT classmates).

If this massive international corporation can get away with acting like this, I think it's fair to say this is not based on "extremists and cults". Religious organizations abusing their religious influence to wield secular power is very real, and a lot of people are hurt by it.

When people speak of abolishing religion, we don't mean abolishing beliefs, we mean abolishing the secular benefits that religious organizations receive, and holding them accountable when they promote bigoted or otherwise destructive messages. It's not a true separation of church and state if the church gets tax benefits.

..from Forum Rules:

7. Topics concerning politics and religion are discouraged.

[stargatedalek]

..from Forum Rules:

7. Topics concerning politics and religion are discouraged.

And you felt the need to remind me of this, and not the five other people who brought up religion before me. Which, as I see it, is violating forum rule #1. No intentional personal attacks, rudeness, or personal provocation.

I have to assume either you have something against me prior, or you didn't like something I said and decided to cite a rule pertaining to other users here as well as myself specifically in reference to me. I would much rather you try to discuss whatever issue you have, as opposed to threatening me. I would have been happy to have a constructive and engaging discussion.

[RobinGoodfellow]

..from Forum Rules:

7. Topics concerning politics and religion are discouraged.

And you felt the need to remind me of this, and not the five other people who brought up religion before me. Which, as I see it, is violating forum rule #1. No intentional personal attacks, rudeness, or personal provocation.

I have to assume either you have something against me prior, or you didn't like something I said and decided to cite a rule pertaining to other users here as well as myself specifically in reference to me. I would much rather you try to discuss whatever issue you have, as opposed to threatening me. I would have been happy to have a constructive and engaging discussion.

Personally I have nothing against you (simply because I don't know you..).

[Libraraptor]

Deleted everything I had written here myself.
I am tired now.
Sad and confused.

[Tyto_Theropod]

Deleted everything I had written here myself.
I am tired now.
Sad and confused.

Ditto.

[stargatedalek]

Deleted everything I had written here myself.
I am tired now.
Sad and confused.

Ditto.

I thought what you'd written was very eloquent and insightful. Sorry if I came across as harsh, or if it felt like I was trying to guilt trip anyone, or things like that. I'd only meant to elaborate on what is a very common misconception, and it's one that's held for good reason! When people speak of "abolishing" things in broad terms it inevitably creates confusion and mistrust.

[Tyto_Theropod]

Deleted everything I had written here myself.
I am tired now.
Sad and confused.

Ditto.

I thought what you'd written was very eloquent and insightful. Sorry if I came across as harsh, or if it felt like I was trying to guilt trip anyone, or things like that. I'd only meant to elaborate on what is a very common misconception, and it's one that's held for good reason! When people speak of "abolishing" things in broad terms it inevitably creates confusion and mistrust.

Not at all. Your argument is also a valid one. I do not think it is right for any individual or group to be intolerant of someone's identity and life choices, no matter what the excuse. It's a disgrace that anything like that is aloud to go on in the 21st Century developed world.

General message: I feel like we've derailed this thread enough and, as one of the people responsible I'd like to apologise to @laticauda. Their discussion really interested me.

[laticauda]

I don't think that the fact of some people not believing in dinosaurs is only due to their religious beliefs,although it could be that, to some extent.Many people who believe in religions are aware of the existence of dinosaurs, because there is very strong scientific evidence supporting that.That doesn't mean there aren't  some people that are extremely narrow minded and don't believe anything besides what their religions/beliefs have to say.I think it's more of a case of ignorance and stupidity than anything else.

Some people don't care about dinosaurs at all , and some of them could even get to believe they didn't even exist ( ignorance).However, even in spite of that, it's pretty rare to find someone who  actually thinks dinosaurs didn't exist, when they even live today.

Also,some people will deny any evidence that's shown to them just because they're plain stupid.Someone may not believe in something because there is no scientific evidence supporting it,but if there actually is scientific evidence behind it,yet that person doesn't believe in it, that's stupidity.

It all comes down to the quality of the teaching.In some of science's careers, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, being a teacher is often an mistakenly associated with being a "frustrated scientist", one who couldn't end up investigating, and thereby, became a teacher just to have an income and having something to do.That leads to most teachers not being passionate at all at what they teach, and most importantly, their lack of interest leads to ignorance and on some extreme cases, misinformation.And the problem comes when they pass on those ideas to coming generations.I truly believe that the day that teachers ( or in this case, science teachers ) become actually interested in whatever they have to teach, the problem of ignorance and stupidity will almost certainly disappear.In order to achieve that, being a teacher ought to stop being envisioned as being a " solution" as what to do if you're a scientist and don't end up on investigation.

Also, @laticauda , you should have showed your students some pics of Borealopelta's fossil specimen. 

The Borealopelta is simply amazing but....the only problem with using it is that the argument that somebody made it and placed it under the ground.  I used the clip of Sue being dug out to show how difficult it would be to fake.  Maybe next time I'll find a way to incorporate it.  Good idea.