The Washington Post on Evolution Teaching in the Science Classroom 2011-01-29

Wow.  Just Wow. Valerie Strauss writes in "Study: Most High School Biology Teachers Don’t Endorse Evolution"(2011-01-29):

"in the same week we learned that most American students did not do well in science on a test known as 'the nation’s report card' [...wherein] 34 percent of 4th graders and 30 percent of 8th graders were deemed proficient or better in science [so MOST were NOT proficient!...] a study about biology teachers in public high schools was published [...stating that] most high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse [...] the central theory of biology [...] evolution [...] here’s the position of the National Science Teachers Association on evolution: 

'the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K–12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and many other scientific and educational organizations. NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, 'creation science,' and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.'"

Note: we need our country to be great.  Not mired in crap.

Supernaturalism Doesn't Belong in a Science Curriculum - Illinois Federation of Teachers, 2010

here, I quote from the position statement of the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) regarding the inappropriateness of having supernaturalism in a science curriculum / classroom [see 001., below]; then, I connect this to naturopathy, which incorrectly places, AT THE DOCTORAL REGIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEL, the supernatural as WITHIN science [see 002., below]:

001. the IFT states in "Resolution No. 11 - Keep Supernaturalism Out of the Science Curriculum" [saved 2010-11-03]:

"it is the responsibility of the Illinois Federation of Teachers to preserve the integrity of science in the classroom; therefore be it resolved [...] supernaturalism is not a scientific endeavor and [...] is inappropriate for inclusion in the science curriculum [...] science is a systematic method for investigating natural phenomena through experimentation, observation and measurement leading to falsifiable explanations that are open to continuous testing [...and] proceeds on the basis of methodological naturalism and assumes observed phenomena of the universe are real, nature is consistent and understandable, and nature is explainable in terms of laws and theories [...] there have been attempts in some states to include supernaturalism in the science curriculum as an alternative to scientific explanations of nature, particularly as an alternative to evolutionary theory [...] arguments that invoke supernaturalism are grounded in religious or philosophical considerations outside the realm of science; and [...as such are] also attacks on the validity of using reason and experimentation to understand the universe [...] legislation that conflates supernaturalism [and science], or limits, or prohibits the teaching of any scientific theory negatively impacts our ability to make informed decisions [...] adopted at the 2010 Illinois Federation of Teachers Convention."

Note: hoo-ya.  IFT expressly states that this is not a statement regarding belief or non-belief in god, or promotion or retardation of any other religiosity.

002. meanwhile, in naturopathy-land [for instance, in my State of Connecticut], the supernatural [as a general epistemic and ontological mode and type] is placed improperly within the scientific.

NCSE Spanks Dr. Larry Dossey (2010-04-26), and the Pseudoscience of Vitalism (1995):

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] response by NCSE to a recent HP post concerning science by Dr. Larry Dossey [see 001., below]; then, I do some archeology and quote from a classic NCSE page that strikes at the heart of naturopathy's belief amalgam -- vitalism [see 002., below]:

001. the National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steve Newton states in "In Defense of Scientific Methodology" (2010-04-26):

"in a recent piece titled 'The Scientific Method: An Educational Train Wreck?' Dr. Larry Dossey made a number of statements so factually inaccurate, so misrepresentative of the nature of science, that it reads like some ill-conceived parody gone awry [...a] rot [...] Dossey accuses scheming educators of trying 'to inculcate children with the scientific method' [...] I plead guilty. There is great value in [...] teaching [...] students about scientific methodology and nature of science [...] students come to the classroom with a host of misconceptions about the world [...] it is the proper job of science educators to help [...] student[s] see the world as it really is, rather than to reinforce their prejudices [hear, hear]. Biology students should learn that the theory of evolution is correct and that vaccines do not cause autism [...] chemistry students should understand why homeopathic claims about 'water memory' are not true. [hear, hear]. Science education can -- and should -- help students understand reality [...] a scientific understanding of the world brings food to the table [...] science has reduced human suffering and needless deaths, and produced longer and better lives [...] the misconception of scientists as cold, remote individuals comes from movies and television, not reality [...] science fiction is a poor basis for characterizing all scientists [...] there is a place for everyone in science [...] Dossey's essay misrepresents science, scientists, educators, and students. It is Dossey, not science, who has jumped the rails."

Note: now THAT is a spanking [verbally, of course].

Another Steve, Novella, in "Dossey on the Scientific Method" (2010-04-27) also spanks Dossey.  Included is this scathing criticism:

"Dossey is in no position to lecture about the deficiencies of the scientific world-view. He disguises his ideological problems with science in borrowed legitimate observations, and mixes them with howling straw men that no scientist would recognize in themselves. The result is not even 'a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship,' because no one would confuse this for scholarship."

PZ Meyers in "Another HuffPo Pontification on Science as It is Not Understood" (2010-04-26) states, in summary:

"he's a credulous magic man."

002. NCSE states in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995): Scientific Integrity" (Board of NABT, 1995-03-15):

"the credibility and utility of science, and therefore biology, depend on maintaining its integrity. NABT has a special obligation, to promote this integrity in life science education. The data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

 Note: seeing NCSE quickly activated in response to the HP Dossey post is quite inspiring.  Seeing that NCSE maintains the NABT 1995 position paper, which trashes naturopathy's supposed scientific position of vitalism, is quite awesome.  What's coolest about the whole thing is that UB established their ND program after that date, and likely didn't even bother to pass their ND contents across the desk of any legitimate science organization for review.  So, from the get-go at UBCNM, naturopathy was falsely labeling the hugely science-ejected [e.g., vitalism, supernaturalism] as "health science."  Here we are, in 2010, and UB still labels vitalism science.  If anything, vitalism is more and more exterior to science.  

So, a higher education institution trades upon false premises, and that is truly morally repugnant.

Obama & Creationism / ID, NCSE-NABT & Scientific Integrity, & Naturopathy's Vitalistic Woo:

President-elect Barack Obama is on record favoring upholding the integrity of science education, as reported by The Guardian [see 001., below]; the National Center For Science Education [NCSE] recently published a collection of position statements from major science organizations as regards "scientific integrity" [see 002., below]; naturopathy's vitalistic woo falsely labeled as scientific when truly profoundly science-ejected is a textbook example of a threat to the integrity of science [see 003., below]:

001. The Guardian's Adam Rutherford reports in "The Evolution of Science Teaching: Keep Creationism Off the Curriculum But Train Teachers To Deal With Questions About Intelligent Design" {2008-11-07}:

"[quoting Obama, likely from the York Daily Record interview of 2008-03-30] 'I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith [...] they're two different things [...] it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry'

[...and, Rutherford writes, as regards some UK science teachers claiming that creationism is a valid scientific theory] we potentially have one fifth of science teachers who don't understand their subject [their 'blatant science illiteracy'...overall] we have two problems

[...#1] a proportion of science teachers are not fit for purpose [i.e., a situation of 'academic malpractice']. [E.g.,] those who think that creationism and evolution should be considered equally in a scientific context do not understand evolution [...moreover,] they do not understand science and need either to be rigorously re-educated, or removed from the science classroom [!!!]. [Obviously,] the process of teacher training has failed these poor deluded souls, and they should not be allowed to pass on their ignorance to pupils

[...#2] creationism [...] despite clearly being unscientific [...] does have a relationship with the only valid rational explanation of life, namely evolution by natural selection. [So,] science teachers should be able to deal with it in the classroom, succinctly and without endorsing it. Creationism should not be part of the national curriculum for science but should be included in science teacher training [...teachers, therein] can be fully tooled-up to explain why [scientifically speaking] evolution is right and creationism is wrong."

Note: so, claiming the nonscientific [belief / articles of faith & kind] as scientific [what survives scientific scrutiny] 'clouds scientific teaching' / 'undermines scientific integrity' -- according to the President-elect. Rutherford additionally points out that within the ranks of UK teachers there's blatant science illiteracy & academic malpractice, as forms of delusion & ignorance that are just plain factually wrong in the context of science are being claimed to survive scientific scrutiny!

002. NCSE states in "Voices For Evolution" (ISBN 0615204619; 3rd. ed., 2008):

"[per the] National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) [NABT]: Scientific Integrity [...] the data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes.

Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [p.154]."

Note: overall, teaching as science what is profoundly not science is harmful to scientific integrity -- "vitalistic theory" is one of these nonscientific concepts.

003. naturopathy is an example of harming scientific integrity by posing what's profoundly science-ejected as scientific:

naturopathy is explicitly centered / obligated to "vitalistic theory" woo, yet claims to be science, while science has HUGELY ejected vitalistic theory.

004. the math:

when is something [falsely] labeled what it is not...

the absurdity known as naturopathy.