« | Main | If We Must Have Intelligent Design, Let's Not Let It Be A Stupid Accident On the Information Superhighway »

August 24, 2003



Well said (despite cooking not being your usual area). Any idea what's taught in Singapore schools?

I taught (English) in the PRC for about six years, and many classrooms had paintings of Darwin right up there next to Marx and Engels in the classrooms (up where Washington and Lincoln go in US schools, although I was teaching in colleges and universities).

But I don't actually know what the biology textbooks said. Most people I happened to talk to on the subject had only the most rudimentary understanding of evolution, and indeed many misconceptions about it, but that's probably the case anywhere in the world. I never got the chance to talk to any biologists about it.

It was "common knowledge" that Darwin was "a great scientist", i.e. that's the phrase that was almost invariably parroted anytime his name somehow came up in conversation, but I wouldn't be that surprised if the textbooks taught Lysenkoism (although it wouldn't be called that, of course) or some other such relic of official ideology.

Anyway just curious (plus there's a lot I miss about China, so I often try to go back there vicariously via your blog and other websites).


Mitch, I honestly don't know the answer to your question. I'll ask some of my students.

Derek James

I wound my way here via Matt Yglesias' site. I blogged about this a couple of weeks ago:


Basically, I don't see what the big deal is. The revised question is superior to the previous one. You found lots of creationist sites with your Googling, but I also found plenty with legitimate alternative scientific theories. So one Google does not a search make.

And one question, that prompts students to seek out alternative hypotheses, is not anything to fear or object to.


Your point is well taken, Derek. Especially given my complaints of late about committing science for entertainment purposes only, my google search might be faulted as a shoddy experiment conducted for entertainment purposes only. You are quite right that the question is scientifically interesting and very open. And you do show that students can easily enough find good stuff. But I think the spirit of my objection still stands, so let me refine its letter: it is predictable - and indeed the case - that picking this subject, of all scientific subjects, as a 'search the internet' question will result in a huge volume of loopy hits. And, of course, good use can be made of bad material in class discussion. But that's no reason to go out of one's way looking for bad material. (You can teach well even with a crummy textbook, most of the time.) The advantage of the first version of the question over the second is that it tried to put up some guardrails, in effect. But I do concede to your basic judgment that it's not such a catastophe, and maybe I shouldn't be spilling so much internet ink over it. (It's easy to get too worked up.)

The question won't be: is this study question important enough to stand and die over? Obviously it isn't. The question will be: is this study question a dead canary in the coal mine, a sign that things are going the wrong way in the textbook battle. Honestly, I don't know the answer.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Email John & Belle

  • he.jpgjholbo-at-mac-dot-com
  • she.jpgbbwaring-at-yahoo-dot-com

Google J&B

J&B Archives

Buy Reason and Persuasion!

S&O @ J&B

  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing items in a set called Squid and Owl. Make your own badge here.

Reason and Persuasion Illustrations

  • www.flickr.com

J&B Have A Tipjar

  • Search Now:

  • Buy a couple books, we get a couple bucks.
Blog powered by Typepad

J&B Have A Comment Policy

  • This edited version of our comment policy is effective as of May 10, 2006.

    By publishing a comment to this blog you are granting its proprietors, John Holbo and Belle Waring, the right to republish that comment in any way shape or form they see fit.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to the following as well: by leaving a comment you grant to the proprietors the right to release ALL your comments to this blog under this Creative Commons license (attribution 2.5). This license allows copying, derivative works, and commercial use.

    Severable from the above, and to the extent permitted by law, you are also granting to this blog's proprietors the right to so release any and all comments you may make to any OTHER blog at any time. This is retroactive. By publishing ANY comment to this blog, you thereby grant to the proprietors of this blog the right to release any of your comments (made to any blog, at any time, past, present or future) under the terms of the above CC license.

    Posting a comment constitutes consent to the following choice of law and choice of venue governing any disputes arising under this licensing arrangement: such disputes shall be adjudicated according to Canadian law and in the courts of Singapore.

    If you do NOT agree to these terms, for pete's sake do NOT leave a comment. It's that simple.

  • Confused by our comment policy?

    We're testing a strong CC license as a form of troll repellant. Does that sound strange? Read this thread. (I know, it's long. Keep scrolling. Further. Further. Ah, there.) So basically, we figure trolls will recognize that selling coffee cups and t-shirts is the best revenge, and will keep away. If we're wrong about that, at least someone can still sell the cups and shirts. (Sigh.)