First Intelligent Design, Now This
About a year and a half ago I discovered The Flying Spaghetti Monster and immediately became a believer. Ladan and I even preached to the heathen masses in San Francisco's Castro section on Halloween two years ago, distributing flyers and informing people that the FSM loved them.
I found the entire intelligent design debate ridiculous, because as an atheist, I just don't understand embracing faith over science, especially when taking it to the point of insisting that the principles of Darwin's evolution cannot sufficiently explain the development of life on this planet. Lots of people confuse atheism with an absolute rejection of everything spiritual or so-called supernatural - which is just not true; the two are not equivalent. I definitely believe in realities beyond our own and the existence of things that cannot be explained in normal terms; I just firmly reject the notion that there is a single or multiple god(s) who created and now watch over all of humanity, and I reject all of the religious belief and lore that ensues.
The intelligent design debate, to me, was an embarassing testament to the state of our educational system. However, last night, in a sociology class that Ladan is taking, a new low standard was set, making intelligent design seem trivial.
Her professor, who has a master's degree in sociology, was attempting to make the point that the population of the United States uses a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. When beginning the discussion, she made the comment that the population of the US comprises 25% of the world population yet uses approximately 75% of the total resources.
Twenty-five percent of the world's population.
Now, it was my impression that most people of at least average mental ability and experience over the age of say 10 would intuitively know, even if they don't know the actual population numbers, that the US's percentage of world population could not possibly be 25%, a full quarter of the total. However, clearly this was a blindly optimistic assumption on my part, because not only did the professor believe this, but no one in the class objected to the statement.
Seeing this, Ladan raised her hand and pointed out that the world population is roughly 6 billion, and that the US does not contain even close to a quarter of that. The professor's response? "Well, there's been a lot of immigration in the recent past, and it's significantly increased the total population."
WHAT? Are you kidding me?! Surely you are joking, right?
As Ladan continued to debate this, it was clear that the professor was just not going to get it. She ended the discussion by saying that "I'll have to track down the references I came across years ago that gave that figure." This is a sociology professor - aren't they supposed to know about, uh, percentages, and populations and stuff? At least rough numbers? Instead, she went on with the example, using 25% as the percentage.
When Ladan got home, she found the US Census Bureau's World Population Clock and e-mailed her professor the link, including an explanation of how the US population of 301 million represents only a mere 4.5% of the world's 6.578 billion. Surely, seeing this, the professor would understand that her figures were wrong and that getting this number correct, the US population as a percentage of world population, was critical to the point she was making, right?
Wrong. Her response: "let's not dwell on the number alone", and instead focus on the point she was trying to make, as [paraphrasing] "even if that number is correct, you'll probably see that it still provides evidence of my point." Um, that number is absolutely essential to the point you're trying to make! Clearly, she has no idea what's going on here. If the real percentage of population is five times lower than what you're saying it is, then is there any doubt about whether that will reinforce or repudiate your point? And why do you not immediately understand that 3 out of 65 is not 25%? I mean really, come on!
Incredulous, Ladan told me this story last night and I've been disturbed by it since. I've observed some amazing lack of elementary knowledge and logic in my fellow economics students so far (the topic of a future post) but I can't say I've ever seen such awe-inspiring ignorance in an academic environment, especially on the part of a professor, in my entire life.
Is evidence of shocking and almost unchallenged ignorance being promulgated in our educational system a sign of The Apocalypse? If not .... maybe it oughta be. Who do I talk to about that?
I found the entire intelligent design debate ridiculous, because as an atheist, I just don't understand embracing faith over science, especially when taking it to the point of insisting that the principles of Darwin's evolution cannot sufficiently explain the development of life on this planet. Lots of people confuse atheism with an absolute rejection of everything spiritual or so-called supernatural - which is just not true; the two are not equivalent. I definitely believe in realities beyond our own and the existence of things that cannot be explained in normal terms; I just firmly reject the notion that there is a single or multiple god(s) who created and now watch over all of humanity, and I reject all of the religious belief and lore that ensues.
The intelligent design debate, to me, was an embarassing testament to the state of our educational system. However, last night, in a sociology class that Ladan is taking, a new low standard was set, making intelligent design seem trivial.
Her professor, who has a master's degree in sociology, was attempting to make the point that the population of the United States uses a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. When beginning the discussion, she made the comment that the population of the US comprises 25% of the world population yet uses approximately 75% of the total resources.
Twenty-five percent of the world's population.
Now, it was my impression that most people of at least average mental ability and experience over the age of say 10 would intuitively know, even if they don't know the actual population numbers, that the US's percentage of world population could not possibly be 25%, a full quarter of the total. However, clearly this was a blindly optimistic assumption on my part, because not only did the professor believe this, but no one in the class objected to the statement.
Seeing this, Ladan raised her hand and pointed out that the world population is roughly 6 billion, and that the US does not contain even close to a quarter of that. The professor's response? "Well, there's been a lot of immigration in the recent past, and it's significantly increased the total population."
WHAT? Are you kidding me?! Surely you are joking, right?
As Ladan continued to debate this, it was clear that the professor was just not going to get it. She ended the discussion by saying that "I'll have to track down the references I came across years ago that gave that figure." This is a sociology professor - aren't they supposed to know about, uh, percentages, and populations and stuff? At least rough numbers? Instead, she went on with the example, using 25% as the percentage.
When Ladan got home, she found the US Census Bureau's World Population Clock and e-mailed her professor the link, including an explanation of how the US population of 301 million represents only a mere 4.5% of the world's 6.578 billion. Surely, seeing this, the professor would understand that her figures were wrong and that getting this number correct, the US population as a percentage of world population, was critical to the point she was making, right?
Wrong. Her response: "let's not dwell on the number alone", and instead focus on the point she was trying to make, as [paraphrasing] "even if that number is correct, you'll probably see that it still provides evidence of my point." Um, that number is absolutely essential to the point you're trying to make! Clearly, she has no idea what's going on here. If the real percentage of population is five times lower than what you're saying it is, then is there any doubt about whether that will reinforce or repudiate your point? And why do you not immediately understand that 3 out of 65 is not 25%? I mean really, come on!
Incredulous, Ladan told me this story last night and I've been disturbed by it since. I've observed some amazing lack of elementary knowledge and logic in my fellow economics students so far (the topic of a future post) but I can't say I've ever seen such awe-inspiring ignorance in an academic environment, especially on the part of a professor, in my entire life.
Is evidence of shocking and almost unchallenged ignorance being promulgated in our educational system a sign of The Apocalypse? If not .... maybe it oughta be. Who do I talk to about that?
posted by GregP at 11:49 AM
5 Comments:
I would have cc'd the whole class on the email to the professor.
Well Greg, I know how you feel about intelligent design but why should the Theory (not law, by the way) of Evolution be taught as fact in schools when there are flaws in it as well. Have you taken an objective look at Evolution and critiqued it as closely as you did for intelligent design? I would hope you would apply the same fervor to your analysis of evolution as you would to your analysis of intelligent design.
Regarding Ladan's professor . . . WOW! And talk about ego! She wouldn't give in. What a fool.
Along B's lines, I think you should mail the class this entire post. Yes, it's disturbing, but it makes for a damn funny story.
No but you guys are missing a key part of the story here - NONE of the other students objected to this figure. They had no clue. Thus they can't possibly 'get' why the entire thing is so ridiculous.
Regarding your point, richardc, I actually don't believe that the theory of evolution should be taught as fact; it's a theory, backed up by lots of studies and evidence, but is, in the strictest sense of the term, just a theory. As far as objectively looking at the theory of evolution and subjecting it to the same rigorous evaluation as intelligent design, the answer is no, I haven't; I actually own Darwin's book but haven't read it yet. However, to my way of thinking, I immediately write off any theory or explanation that even remotely relies of the interdiction of religious figures or concepts and is not based entirely on science. That's just me. So, I don't feel that it's even necessary to be thoroughly familiar with the details of evolution (although I would like to be) to be able to completely discount intelligent design. My overall view is that religion and religious concepts have no place within an academic or scientific environment, unless of course, the subject itself is religion.
had to reply to Rich's comment.
The reason for teaching Evolution and not ID is not because it is fact, but because it is science. Using the Scientific method. There is no scientific method to ID. Therefore it is not science.
Here's a good article:
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
To Greg,
just because the other students didn't object, it doesn't mean that they agreed and couldn't comprehend. It could just mean they don't like talking in class, and don't in fact care about the issue as fundamentally relevant to why they are there. I mean, they didn't argue with Ladan either.
Post a Comment
<< Home