Archive for the ‘Science education’ Category

More signs that we need good science education here in South Carolina

Sunday, March 26th, 2006

While it’s not nearly as bas as this stunning example, the Greenville News has another painful-to-read letter that shows us why we need to strengthen science education.

Education based on false hypothesis results in faulty logic and reasoning.

Evolution is unsubstantiated theory and problematic with many scientific and mathematical laws. Carbon dating doesn’t allow for appearance of age at creation. Basic scientific facts and medical cures are totally dependent on a constant state of matter. Minor change occurs but everything still brings forth after its own kind. Genetic manipulation confirms creation. Man, created in God’s image, on a small scale imitates God.

I mean, where do you start with someone like this? Carbon dating’s not used to determine the age of the Earth, for one.

Nest, I’d ask this writer why he doesn’t believe that the universe was created last Thursday, since he seems to believe that his god is a trickster who creates things “with apparent age” – presumably to fool folks who honesty try to figure out what is going on.

The writer (ironically) mentions a “constant state of matter” – which I’m guessing means that he assumes that the properties of matter (like radioactive half life) don’t change over time. Of course, he doesn’t like the conclusions that scientists draw from this about the age of the Earth.

In short, he seems confused about every bit of science he mentions.

Of course, I don’t know the writer’s age and if he is actually a product of South Carolina’s educational system – there’s not enough information in the rest of the letter to tell. But if he’s a fair sample, we have a lot of work to do.

Explosion in France

Friday, March 24th, 2006

CNN and BBC are reporting that a chemistry laboratory at the National Institutiuon of Higher Learning in Chemistry at Mulhouse has exploded, killing a professor and injuring others.

Some reported that the explosion could be heard a mile away, and there’s no word yet on what caused it.

The story so far is too sketchy for me to even speculate on what caused the explosion.

A person on the chemical education mailing list I subscribe to posted this opinion.

Apart from this accident, such chemical incidents give a negative connotation to the layman (and future students) – chemistry is dangerous.

Well, chemistry is dangerous – as are many things. That’s why chemical educators should be extremely cautious in the laboratory, especially when working with students who have little laboratory experience.

It’s not the standards

Thursday, March 23rd, 2006

PZ Myers has a post up about how Arkansas sutdents aren’t being taught evolution even though it’s in the state standards.

Arkansas is not alone.

An editor at The State tells us to not worry about science teaching challenging some religious beliefs because teachers aren’t teaching the science anyway.

Dr. Woodall [Union High School principal] learned about Charles Darwin’s origin of life theory at Furman University, when it was still a Baptist school. She didn’t buy the idea that life evolved randomly, or that human beings can be traced back to single-cell organisms. But that didn’t limit her as a teacher, because biology teachers in South Carolina don’t have to teach that; she doesn’t know of any who do.

Well, I guess that explains something about South Carolina’s test scores. The standards aren’t the problem. We’re just not using them.

My head just exploded

Tuesday, March 14th, 2006

I’m sitting here grading chemistry tests and cleaning bits of my brains off the walls after reading one particular student answer.

Here’s the situation: We do a freezing point depression lab involving dissolving dichlorobenzene in cyclohexane and monitoring how the freezing point changes. Pure cyclohexane freezes at about 6.6oC, and when the dichlorobenzene is dissolved into the cyclohexane, the freezing point drops a few degrees. The students use an ice bath to cool the cyclohexane enough for it to freeze while monitoring temperature with a digital thermometer.

On the test, I have a freezing point depression calculation – asking them to calculate the expected freezing point for a mixture of cyclohexane and dichlorobenzene (the same substances they have already used in the lab). To their credit, most students had no trouble with the calculation. One answer, though, just blew my mind.

The freezing point of the dichlorobenzene solution is 170 oC.

One hundred and seventy degrees Celsius. 70 degrees higher than water’s boiling point. For a solution that was frozen in the laboratory in an ice bath.

Ow, my head.

(This is what comes of treating real-world problems as math exercises without stopping to think that these numbers mean something.)

It’s never about the science.

Sunday, March 12th, 2006

As one poster on Panda’s Thumb likes to say, Intelligent Design is an idea doomed to fail because it’s proponents can’t keep quiet about ID being religion, not science. A letter in the Greenville News today (from Dime Hollingsworth) illustrates the point rather nicely.

Recently, two writers have claimed that “to say evolution of the species did not happen is very disappointing for an educated person” and that evolution has “massive evidence from every corner of serious scientific study.”

However, neither writer presents any actual evidence to make their case. As an educated person, I used to believe in evolution because I was taught to believe it. But I have since found much more scientific evidence supporting creation rather than evolution.

The writer believed evolution “because [he] was taught to believe it”? This would certainly be evidence that evolution (and science) education in the state is in need of improvement – and certainly not be weakening the science standards in ther ways proposed by South Carolina’s EOC. But I digress …

The writer’s claiming that no evidence exists for evolution. How much does he want? We have

  • the fossil record
  • genetic similarities between organisms
  • numerous examples of selection at work
  • observation of new species
  • synthesis of life’s precursors from simple chemical compounds (Miller-Urey type experiments) – more relevant to abiogenesis than evolution
  • etc., etc.

And of course, you can find lots more evidence for evolution conveniently tabulated at talkorigins. What more does he want? But he’s already given his motivations away – even as he’s trying to frame his letter as scientific – with that lovely term “creation”. Expect something about Genesis to follow.

Creationists do not deny that organisms “change” over time, and are sometimes even classified as new species. We only deny that these changes can go beyond the basic genetic makeup of the organism’s DNA.

This argument always amuses me. Creationists have been whacked on the head so many times by evidence for evolution that they will say “Okay, okay … things evolve. But they can’t evolve that much“. It’s sort of like saying “Okay, I believe that we can send a man into Earth’s orbit, but it would be impossible to send him to the Moon!”

The only changes to DNA occur as mutations or copying errors. A copy machine cannot make a new intelligent sentence no matter how many times you make a copy. Likewise, mutations do not lead to more complex information, much less more complex organisms. No mutations have ever been proven to lead to more complex life forms; thus, evolution of species from one-celled organisms to humans over time would be impossible without intelligent intervention.

What does the writer mean by “complex”? What is meant by “intelligent”? For that matter, what about sex and its ability to shuffle genetic material around?

And why, even if evolution as we currently understand it were somehow to fail to describe what the writer is complaining about, wouid the idea of “intelligent intervention” be supported? This is a false dilemma, since there might simply be another means of natural genetic variation we haven’t discovered yet. To hammer home the point, let’s say that I tell you my name is not Steve. Does that mean my name has to be Fred? Of course not. There are more than two choices. The writer’s argument has the same basic problem.

All educated people should take a good look at scientific evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution debate. I have found the scientific evidence to be consistent with creation by God as described in the Bible.

And at the end of the letter, we arrive back to the first sentence of my post. Our writer has revealed his true colors – and that his argument is really about his religion and not about the scientific facts. (I really would like to see some scientific facts that support “creation”, because these sites contain nothing of the sort.)

Scientists are a bunch of liars?

Wednesday, March 8th, 2006

The State (Columbia SC newspaper) is running a letter from Rep. Bob Walker that essentially calls scientists liars.

Currently we teach only the science that supports evolution. Much of this science has unanimously been considered outdated, false, and even fabricated to show evolutionary strengths, while actually leaving out science that exposes weaknesses in the theory.

(emphasis mine)

Fabricated? There you have it – according to Bob Walker, science folks are a bunch of liars. Not what I wanted to read before teaching my science classes this morning…

Edited to add:

This just in: SC’s board of education doesn’t fall for it, rejects EOC changes to the science curriculum.

Comments are closed on this post due to spambot abuse

Let standards evolve?

Monday, March 6th, 2006

Steve Reuland has already posted about this, but since I have just finished grading lab reports (which makes me even more annoyed than usual at attempts to dumb down science education), I’m going to take a stab at this letter from a member of SC’s "Education Oversight Committee", too.

Karen Iacovelli (which I’ll abbreviate as “KI”), the letter’s author, begins by supposing that the science community does not want SC students to learn.

It has appeared from the onset of first attempts to revise the standards that a well-rehearsed group of opponents do not want South Carolina students to venture beyond what is currently prescribed.

[…]

Simply put, do we want our students to engage in intelligent debate?

Sure. But at the level we are teaching in high schools, there really isn’t a whole lot of scientific debate out there. In introductory courses, we teach the foundations, while the scientific debate lies on the fringes.

Perhaps in the “evolution debate”, we might let students discuss the relative importance of different the various mechanisms of evolution? Somehow, though, I do not think that this is what KI has in mind.

So, I began with Darwin himself. In an 1858 letter he wrote to a colleague, Darwin lamented that “evolution will be grievously too hypothetical.” I concluded reasonable doubt from there, but was unaware of the lies and more damn lies that lay ahead.

Aside from the fact that this Darwin quote is misquoted and out of context, the date alone tells us something. “On the Origin of Species” was published in 1859. Darwin’s proposed a rather radical idea, and it would take a long time for all the details to be worked out. Is it any wonder that Darwin would admit that he didn’t have all the answers?

What this has to do with modern evolutionary theory I can’t fathom.

I want the Board to understand why I voted to revise the biology standards to include critical analysis, and why I believe we will utterly fail in our intellectual and ethical obligations to our students if we deny them an expanded learning environment, where the goal is, indeed, critical thought and intelligent debate.

Sounds good, right? But why single out evolution? All scientific theories are constantly being evaluated by scientists. (Scientists do this every time they conduct an experiment, if you want to get technical.) A basic understanding of the scientific method already includes critical analysis (how does KI think something becomes a “theory”, anyway?) – so why single out evolution for special treatment unless you have some sort of axe to grind?

Online I went, ordering books and more books, reading both sides of the issue, asking lots of questions, receiving interesting answers and becoming more frustrated and confused. Was it really my purpose as a mere creature of the EOC to decide if evolution is valid science?

Apparently you seem to think so, KI. And it’d really help if you listed some of the evolution or biology books you read.

Books mentioned by name in the letter:

  • James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (the title should give this one away)
  • Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (creationist/ID book)
  • John Wilson / William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent (creationist/ID book)
  • What The Bleep Do We Know? (seems to me to be a bizarre choice, but … haven’t read this one, but it doesn’t seem to be very relevant)

So much for studying “both sides”…

There on the internet were thousands upon thousands of pages of intelligent, scientific debate regarding the science or nonsense of evolution.

Now, how much of that debate is actually scientific? You can find darned near anything on the internet, but that doesn’t make it scientific.

KI goes on and starts rambling at this point about a conspiracy of scientists (she calls it the “internal thought police” at colleges). She’s essentially making excuses for running to the Discovery Institute (the Intelligent Design group) for speakers when South Carolina scientists wouldn’t do.

Thirty-nine years later in an interview at Berkley, Townes called upon all scientists and students to “explore as much as we can.” It was those 5 words that convinced me that everything else I had read by self-anointed experts in the field of high school biology and evolution was nothing more than scientific arrogance.

Must … resist .. urge … to … point … out … counting … mistake …

Now, these “self-anointed experts” you have read. Did any of them happen to be, perhaps, biologists? You know – peoiple who have studied the field?

I am saddened by the efforts of some university professors to personalize this issue, using, especially Senator Fair as a target.

Well, I can certainly see why science types are a bit peeved at Fair, what with his constant attempts to water down science education. (S.909 ring a bell?)

KI’s about to go off the deep end again…

Is censorship at work? I must also ask if basic First Amendment guarantees of free speech are not only being blatantly violated on university campuses, but will be violated should The State Board of Education deny free speech to high school biology students.

So … not wanting to teach bull at the expense of science is now a free speech issue? What next, equal time in chemistry class for atom-deniers?

What happens when a student conducts the same kind of search I did on my computer and locates, not hundreds, but thousands of books and articles that contradict what he is taught in the classroom?

A good opportunity for a learning experience, I think. There’s plenty of bull on the internet. Hopefully, the student will have learned enough about the workings of science to tell science from bull.

What do opponents of critical analysis intend to do? Burn all of the books, except the ones they choose? Ban internet searches? Because that is what the opponents of revised biology standards are asking us to do with every written opinion that opposes their view of science.

A more accurate phrase would be “opponents of bull masquerading as critical analysis”. Regardless, we don’t oppose banning internet searches or books. True, we don’t want to waste money buying every high schooler a copy of “Of Pandas and People”, the creationst turned intelligent design textbook, but we don’t think it should be burned.

And let’s talk about Intelligent Design. Even those outside of science know that Intelligent Design has no “scientific model” by which to measure, falsify, apply, analyze and tweak against the ongoing abundance of new scientific discovery. Intelligent Design has never been on the table for any discussion in regards to our state science standards.

Ahh … that explains why the Discovery Institute was involved! Thanks for clearing that up, KI, and also for reminding us that creationism / intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. Now would you please tell Mike Fair?

Homeschooling science

Thursday, March 2nd, 2006

CNN has a small article on homeschooling today. It says that homeschooling is growing, a trend that I’m not really surprised at – given the current amount of fearmongering going on about the public school system.

The article makes a good point that data about homeschoolers isn’t really very available (which makes sense) – but there is a little.

In the NCES study, 31 percent said they were concerned about drugs, safety or negative peer pressure in schools; 30 percent wanted to provide religious or moral instruction while 16 percent said they were dissatisfied with academic standards in their local schools.

Even the cliche that the majority of homeschooled children are evangelical Christians is outdated, if it was ever true.

I’m not sure if I would be so quick to drop that one – at least not here in the South.

I did get curious when I read the CNN article and looked on the Internet to check out the science texts offered to homeschoolers. While homeschoolers can, I’m sure, use some of the same texts that traditional schools use, the science books I found that were exclusively for homeschoolers were all creationist books. These books systematically deny lots of important science relating to evolution, the age of the earth, etc.

I saw lots of stuff like the odious Accelerated Christian Education curriculum, which I will probably write about in detail later (I suffered under this curriculum for four years at a fundamentalist private school).

So … what do homeschoolers who aren’t religious extremists do? What books do they use? I’m genuinely curious.

The evolution debate in Utah

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006

Utah has torpedoed a bill sponsored by Republican Chris Buttars requiring schools to tell studens that “evolution is not a fact” and that “the state does not endorse evolution”. THe first part of the bill is yet another misunderstanding of the term evolution (which describes both observed facts and tested explanations of those facts – much like the term gravity). The second part of the bill makes it sound like the state’s official policy is that they reject biology – a rather bizarre solution for a state to take if the state presumably plans to then teach its students biology. Can you imagine being a biology teacher that has to read a statement saying that the state rejects biology, then ask students to open their biology textbooks to study?

I think the best point made in the article linked above was made by Republican representative Scott Wyatt:

“I would leave you with two questions,” Wyatt said. “If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?”

It’s refreshing to see a few conservatives describing the antievolution crusade as it is – an assault on all science. That’s why I care about the issue, and it’s why I would continue to care about the issue even if my wife weren’t a biology teacher. Where would it end? There are people out there who, often on religious grounds, deny the findings of almost every modern science. Astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, biology, psychology, anthropology – none are immune. I found, to my disappointment, that even something so basic to science as atomic theory is declared false on religious grounds by some.

Senator Buttars, though, is undeterred by his defeat.

“I don’t believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape.”

… so it looks like there is still more work to do.

Freshman chemistry takes on homeopathy

Tuesday, February 21st, 2006

Homeopathy is an old form of “alternative” medicine that just doesn’t want to fade back into obscurity. One of the admittedly strange central ideas behind homeopathy is the idea that the more dilute a substance, the more potent it is. One homeopathy web site ( here ) explains it this way.

Key to the philosophy is the serial dilution of the remedies that get STRONGER “Biologically” as they get more dilute, or WEAKER from a “chemical” standpoint.

The problem with this line of thinking should be pretty obvious to anyone with some training in either biology or biochemistry – biology is, at the small scale, chemistry.

On the other hand, since many of the actve ingredients in homeopathic remedies are poisonous, perhaps making them weaker is no bad thing!

Homeopathic remedies are made by a process called serial dilution – which actually is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a chemistry lab, as any student of analytical chemistry would be able to tell you. A serial dilution is just what it sounds like – repeated dilutions. Make a solution, then take a small portion of it and dilute it with water. Take a small portion of the new solution and dilute it with more water, and so on. The homeopaths add an extra step between each dilution, a kind of ritual shaking which they call succussion. The website referenced above tell us that this extra step

somehow energizes the remedy and adds “Necessary Energy” to the solution. Experiments have been done with hard physical measurements that have proven that the chemical bonds between the molecules actually get stronger.

Since they don’t say what kind of measurements have been made and where these results have been published, I’m not even going to attempt to evaulate this claim except to say that it’s unlikely based on what I know about the nature of chemical bonds. But even if there’s a small grain of truth in their claims, the homeopaths have another problem: there is a finite number of molecules in a solution. If you dilute a solution too much, you will eventually reach a point where a given volume of the solution is not likely to contain any molecules of the substance you are trying to dilute. Figuring this out should be simple enough for any student with a semester of freshman chemistry under their belt, and it’s an assignment I have given my freshman chemistry classes.

When I first made the assignment, I chose sulfuric acid as the substance to be diluted, mainly because it is a relatively simple molecule whose physical properties (like density) are easy to find. After doing a little more research, I find that sulfuric acid actually is used as a homeopathic remedy – going by the more impressive sounding name Sulphuricum Acidum. The homeopaths don’t seem to be in 100% agreement over the usage of sulfuric acid solutions, but they use it for treating weakness, trembling, skin discoloration, yellow stool, perspiration (after eating warm food), etc. (See here). Homeopathic sulfuric acid soltuions are available in a wide variety of dilutions, and it’s at this point that we need to define the system that homeopaths use to describe “potency” (in homeopathic language, that’s how dilute a solution is).

The system basically tells how many dilution steps were used, then follows it with a Roman numeral indicating the factor the solution was diluted by. For example, a 1X dilution contains one part (I’ll assume a volume here) of substance in ten parts of solution. The “1” indicates that only one dilution step was performed, while the “X” indicates that it’s a 1 in 10 solution. A 1L dilution contains 1 part of substance in 50 parts of solution. A 1C dilution contains 1 part of substance in 100 parts of solution … and so on.

If the number in front of the Roman numeral is bigger than 1, a serial dilution was performed. A 2X solution, for example, would take two steps to make: First prepare the 1X solution, then take one part of that solution and make another solution containing one part of “1X” solution per ten parts. With an “X” solution, each successive dilution decreases the concentration by a factor of ten. For a “C” solution, each successive dilution decreases the concentration by a factor of 100 … and so on.

Here’s where freshman chemistry comes in. Using calculations that any freshman chemistry student should be able to perform, it’s possible to calculate the approximate number of molecules contained in each solution after each dilution. Here’s how it’s done.

First, we assume that the first dilution is made from pure sulfuric acid in water. This may or may not be the starting point for the homeopathic preparations (they don’t say), but this would givw the largest number of molecules of sulfuric acid that the solutions could possibly have. If the homeopaths start from a solution of sulfuric acid instead of the pure subtance, their preparations will contain fewer molecules that we will calculate here.

Next, we’ll need the density of pure sulfuric acid, about 1.85 grams per milliliter at room temperature. We need this to figure out the mass (and later, the number of molecules) of sulfuric acid in the first solution. From a supplier of homeopathic remedies ( here ), we find that sulfuric acid is available in many concentrations. A few of them are 6C, 12C, 24C, and 30C. Our goal is to find out how much sulfuric acid is actually present in these solutions. The largest bottle available from this supplier is 50 mL, so we will do our calculation of the number of molecules based on this volume.

(If you’re not interested in the math, feel free to skip down a bit to the table.)

The simplest way to figure out the number of molecules in a bottle is to first change the “C” notation into a unit that actually relates simply to the number of molecules. In preparing the first dilution (1C), we would dissolve 1 mL of pure sulfuric acid into enough water to make 100 mL of solution. How much sulfuric acid, in terms of molecules, is that?

Since individual molecules are so small, chemical calculations are based on moles of molecules. A mole is simply a large number of molecules, 6.02 times 1023 ( 6.02×1023) of them. (This is no different than egg suppliers selling eggs by the dozen, or fireworks manufacturers selling firecrackers by the gross.) We will calculate the number of moles of sulfuric acid molecules in the 1C solution.

It is known that 98.09 grams of sulfuric acid contains one mole of sulfuric acid molecules (this is the called the molecular weight of sulfuric acid). We also know the density of the sulfuric acid, so we can calculate the number of moles of sulfuric acid in a milliliter.

So, the 1C solution will contain 0.01886 moles of sulfuric acid in every 100 mL. Chemists routinely describe the concentration of solution in terms of molarity (abbreviated as M) – which is simply the number of moles of substance dissolved in a liter of solution. We have prepared 100 mL (0.100 L) of 1C solution, so the concentration is

If the concentration of the 1C solution is 0.1886 M, then each liter of the solution would contain 1.13 times 1023 molecules (which sounds like a really large number, right? We’ll compare it to plain vinegar later). 50 mL (0.050 L) of the solution – the biggest bottle of homeopathic sulfuric acid available from our supplier – would contain 5.68 times 1021 molecules. This still seems like a really large number, but remember that molecules are really small.

Each serial dilution requires one mL of the previous solution to be diluted to 100 mL. That means that each dilution will contain 1/100th of the number of molecules of sulfuric acid as the solution before it. Here’s a table of some dilutions of sulfuric acid and the number of molecules that a 50 mL bottle of each would (on average) contain.

Dilution Number of molecules in 50 mL
1C 5.68 times 1021
2C 5.68 times 1019
6C 5.68 times 1011
11C 56.8
12C 0.568
24C 5.68 times 10-23
30C 5.68 times 10-37

To put this in perspective, even the most concentrated (1C) dilution of sulfuric acid contains only about half the acid that the same amount of plain vinegar does (and that’s including the fact that sulfuric acid itself has two acidic protons while the acetic acid in vinegar only has one). So the 6C dilution is about 1/20,000,000,000th the strength of plain vinegar.

Another way to look at the numbers is to think about how many bottles of remedy you would have to buy to get a single molecule of sulfuric acid, For the 6C dilution, that’s not a problem – but for the 12C, 24C, and 30C solutions it is! If each bottle of 12C contains on average half a molecule of sulfuric acid, then you’d need to buy two bottles of remedy to be reasonably sure of getting a single molecule of active ingredient. That might not be too expensive, but you’d need about 2 times 1024 bottles of the 24C, and 2 times 1036 bottles of 30C. (Better open your wallet!)

Some homeopaths are at least a little honest about the fact that most of these bottles they sell contain nothing but water and perhaps some alcohol. Here’s what one web site ( here ) has to say on the matter.

Higher potencies of homeopathic remedies (anything higher than 12C) have been diluted past the point that molecules of the original substance would be measurable in the solution.

It’s not that the substanes aren’t detectable, it’s that quite likely a bottle will simply contain no molecules of the substance. Getting a molecule of the remedy, for the higher dilutions, would be like winning the Powerball. Occasionally, somebody wins – but how many people buy Powerball tickets and get nothing?

This is a major stumbling block for skeptics when it comes to understanding and accepting the idea of homeopathy.

Skeptics being defned as the set people who can do solution calculations?

Homeopathic remedies, when correctly chosen, clearly work—but not in the way that drugs do (through chemical actions that affect the body processes).

Or is it more likely that the most “potent” of the homeopathic medicines do not do anything at all and any “healing” that patients see is a result of the body’s ability to heal itself? Maybe some of this healing is simply the power of persuasion – people are told by a respected authority that thry’ll feel better, so they do.

If I bruise my arm, for instance, I could (if I weren’t very bright) decide that drinking one drop of toilet bowl cleaner dissolved in an eight ounce glass of water each day would make the bruise heal. If I did this, the toilet bowl cleaner probably wouldn’t do me any serious harm, and the bruise would heal in a matter of days. Can I claim that my “homeopathic toiletum bowlium cleanerum remedy” helped my arm to heal?

It is not completely understood why potentized remedies can work so deeply and specifically, but many likely theories have arisen through research and observation. It appears that they function on an energetic level to stimulate the body to heal itself more efficiently.

It is by no means proven that these remedies work at all, but look at the mechanism that is proposed: these remedies, many of which contain nothing at all, “function on an energetic level to stimulate the body”.

We have a name for things like that: the placebo effect.