The Khan Academy is a site and an educational method that is widely used in America. Founded by Salman Khan, it’s free, and consists of a number of videos that are supposed to teach you just as well as, or better than, conventional classroom education. The videos are crude, drawn by hand during the presentation, and accompanied by free exercises to see what you’ve learned. I haven’t done a lot of research on the method, but a “60 Minutes” show a while back said that it was a revolution in education and gave better results that group lessons in a class.
You couldn’t however, prove it by the two evolution videos I’ve watched today (there are seven, actually, that you can find on this site). What bothers me is not the material on evolution per se, which is generally good (though I think I could do better), but the attempt in at least two of the videos to reconcile not only evolution and religion, but evolution and Intelligent Design.
Here’s the first video, called “Intelligent Design and Evolution”
Note that about five minutes into this, the narrator (I don’t know if it’s Khan) begins asseverating that his purpose is not to equate evolution and atheism, or to dispel students’ ideas of God, but to try to “reconcile” Intelligent Design (aka God) with evolution.
After pointing out some of the flawed traits of organisms that suggest that the designer, whoever it is, doesn’t go for perfection, the narrator then begins wading into theology. He claims that if there really is an omnipotent God (and again says he’s not passing judgement on its existence), that god would not focus on designing particular features. Rather, that god would actually design a system (evolution) that could produce complex features, though they may be imperfect. In other words, the narrator’s pushing a notion of theistic evolution in which God’s wonder is suggested not by perfect design, but by an elegant system (natural selection and evolution) that allows “designoid” things to emerge on their own. The video claims that if you really want to appreciate the all-powerful God, you should marvel that he created a “system that comes from simple and elegant basic ideas”: natural selection and mutation. The narrator argues that this is a better god than the old design-each-feature god, saying that evolution “speaks to a higher and more profound design”. What the hell?
That’s straight accommodationism. Although the narrator repeatedly says he’s not taking sides on a God, he keeps emphasizing that if you want to believe in one, the way to do it is to accept evolution as the true sign of God’s cleverness: “If one does believe in a God. . . then this idea of [naturalism] is a very profound design and it speaks to the art of the designer.”
Whoa! What is that doing in a series of instructional videos for kids? Why even mention Intelligent Design and God? You wouldn’t be able to do that in a public school, so why here? Any why push this kind of theological argument which, after all, is rejected by nearly half of all Americans? Is the Khan Academy telling people how they should practice their religion? I see no other conclusion.
The video finishes with a long disquisition about how fractal equations can produce complexity from simplicity—just like evolution does, kids! But that’s just an analogy, and doesn’t really clarify or explain anything about evolution. Evolution is not fractal in any meaningful sense of the word.
After making that video, the narrator apparently wanted to clear up a few points about evolution and ID, so he made a second video, “Evolution Clarification”:
Here he just gets in an even bigger mess, calling the ID/evolution debate (at 5:10) an “artificial one.” Now his criticisms of ID as science are good, but then he somehow tries to reconcile ID with evolution, as if ID were the idea of God itself. Well, ID incorporates the idea of God (they call it a “designer,” but nobody’s fooled by that), but it isn’t God, and you can’t reconcile ID and evolution, period. They are inimical views of nature, and the contentions of ID have been demolished.
Somehow the narrator (or Khan) feels compelled in this video to not be “disrespectful of those who believe in this belief system” (i.e., religion), and that drives the last half of the second video.
Again, why is this stuff part of instruction on evolution? Let the kids and their parents sort out the implications of evolution for God. The job of the Khan Academy, I think, is to teach evolution, not confect a kind of theology that is friendly to evolution. They’re acting like BioLogos here, and I’m surprised they’re not funded by Templeton.
At any rate, if I were a parent, particularly one who was not religious, I wouldn’t use these videos to teach about evolution. They’re full of stuff about the nature of God, and about how a really wonderful God would have used evolution to create life. The videos are enablers of theistic evolution, and thus don’t teach evolution as the naturalistic process that scientists hold it to be.
h/t: Su
Sub
//
It might have something to do with how many charter schools and home schoolers use Khan Academy?
I’m trying to find hard numbers on usage but am coming up short but a simple google search of khan academy and charter schools brings up plenty of charters that are touting their use.
This might simply be Khan Academy not wanting to alienate a large part of their user base.
That is almost certainly a major reason, but I don’t quite understand why this is dismissed as, “simply.” By many, not just you. In fact this is a major problem and precisely one of the things that is being criticized. And it is precisely what should be criticized.
Telling people their delusions are okay so that they will give you money should not be an excusable behavior in any context.
I have several ideas on why Khan Academy treats evolution this way but it is sheer speculation.
If any readers are interested in learning more about the good and nood (not good) of Khan Academy a search using Khan Academy pro and con will reveal almost more than a body would want to know. Valerie Strauss, who writes and education blog for WaPo has an especially nice piece. The blog is named “The Answer Sheet.”
Khan doesn’t seem to know much about what has been learned about how people learn and it shows. I have recommended Khan to others but try to point out some problems, at least in my view.
I find this incredibly disappointing. I’ve used Khan Academy in the past to reintroduce myself to a lot of basic mathematical concepts that I have forgotten/never learned properly in the first place. I enjoy the site’s structure and the way it presents lessons. However, I’ve never watched videos from the Science or History subjects. I agree that he should have never brought the topic up to begin with.
Oh, and I can confirm that it is indeed Khan narrating the video. I believe he does so for nearly every video on the site.
The Math ones I’ve seen have seemed quite good, but have never looked at science ones.
Khalid at betterexplained.com is also pretty good for Math.
> Rather, that god would actually design a system (evolution) that could produce complex features, though they may be imperfect.
And if that god were really good he’d be able to make the system look exactly like one that developed without design.
It’s a bit like the ontological disproof of god: God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. A god that created the universe even though He doesn’t exist, is greater than a god that created the universe while existing. Ergo, God doesn’t exist.
Well, who created the God that does not exist?
I agree with the points that jerry made. However, as far as I know khan academy is very popular in places like Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. They are a non profit organisation and they want to make education avalible for poor children all over the world. Now some of these children live in places that like to ban websites, like Pakistan. So yeah it is accommodationism but I think this way maybe more children are allowed to view the videos. Perhaps some of these children have already been lied to about evolution and this “soft” approach from Sal Khan (who is originally from Bangladesh I think) may be the only way that some kids can get an introduction to evolution.
I think maybe this is the only way to keep religious nutters at bay so more kids can at least watch the videos on math and do the exercies.
I apologize for my spelling and grammar mistakes.
IMO that’s a poor justification for this kind of BS. It would allow instructional material for medical education to include attempts to incorporate homeopathy and for astronomy texts to have chapters titled “How astrology is compatible with astronomy”.
I have to agree with GBJames here. Regardless of the circumstances or one’s motivation, it is never okay to teach misleading information or to make unfounded claims about science. Misinformation is not a viable educational alternative.
Like GB says the justification is not there.
Kids are not afraid of learning facts. If they learn religiously inspired nonsense as children they grow up become insecure adults who will be afraid of knowledge that could undermine their beliefs.
It is not the kids who are afraid of learning facts. It is the government/religious leaders. My sister was in the Peace Corps in Ecuador. She could not talk about birth control. The women in the village she was working in came and asked her about birth control. She would have been arrested for talking about contraception.
I have recently been in countries where websites are blocked for religious reasons. Richard Dawkins site is blocked in some countries.
From Khan’s background, I’m not sure he even cares about the US “market.” Like Benjamin, I strongly agree with everything Jerry said in this article, however, reality sucks.
This sort of lukewarm accommodationism never keeps the nutters at bay, which is why it’s such a terrible strategy.
True. It is not to keep the nutters at bay. It is a game of chicken to see what you can get passed the censors. Just like the Smothers Brothers show, Star Trek, and many movies in Hollywood during the Hays Code years.
Note: Salman Khan comes from Bollywood, which has in some ways and even more restrictive code than Hays.
Correction: wrong Salman Khan. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Khan_(educator)
Also: he seems to be taking critics seriously-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/22/khan-academy-using-contractors-to-check-websites-videos/
So your argument is that adding a dash of liberal theology to material on evolution is a way to get past censors who would otherwise ban it. What is your evidence that this is so? Can you point to even one instance of evolution material that was initially rejected, but then accepted after some liberal theology was added? Governments who ban material on evolution usually aren’t the kind who are appeased by liberal religious views, which they view as illegitimate.
I understand your general point, I just don’t see it being applicable here at all. The speculation that the theology was added to get around censors needs to be backed up with citations.
That’s definitely Salman Khan speaking in the video.
It’s too bad, but since the separation of church and state doesn’t apply to Khan’s YouTube channel, I’m not sure that there anything we can do. But then again, Khan Academy has become something of a big deal in education innovation (and rightly so), that there may be protest over this. The depends on a lot of factors, so it’s hard to tell. And the fact that nobody is forced to use Khan Academy videos (that I know of) in school make it somewhat less likely for anyone to stop him.
Khan’s YouTube math lectures have long since expanded into a whole range of material. He’s very good at teaching the subjects he knows. His videos have inspired a huge range of instructional material from other teachers. Particularly in math, which the format is best used for, one can get good instruction an basically all math through college level calculus. There also a time of good stuff stuff on basic chemistry and physics.
The excellent Vi Hart is affiliated with the Khan Academy and has contributed a number of good recreational math videos.
professor jerry is not a cat, he’s a working dog. I’m amazed by how fast and the amount of work he produces. If profeesor comes in town, I would bring his book and wait in line for him to sign. :))
“I don’t know if there a god, but I certainly know what he/she is thinking and know all the reasons why he/she did everything. ”
Can people really be this ignorant as well as arrogant?
The idea that natural selection points to “a higher and more profound design” seems like a complete non sequitur. Natural selection is a logically inescapable consequence of heritable variation. It’s like giving God credit for the fact that 1+1=2.
Who is, of course, responsible for that marvelous fact!
I wonder what sorts of religious thinking, or religious assumptions about the world, are most likely to drift into irrelevancy as one leads ones life. I assume this is not part of the motive, but it would not surprise me if the “God is so great a creator that the world appears to not be created” would dissolve into an atheistic viewpoint with a general assumption of ‘reverence for the real world’ pretty easily.
Reading Jerry’s article and being an engineer, I kept being reminded of the old saying, “The devil is in the details.”
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with many of the commenters above and say that I remain highly suspicious of anything that comes out of Khan Academy, including its mathematical material.
A couple of years ago there was a push by some people in my department to incorporate some Khan Academy videos into one of our university’s courses in integral calculus. All the proposed videos I saw contained fundamental conceptual errors, and consequently did not teach what they were supposed to (and sometimes just obfuscated the issues). I objected quite loudly at the time and it actually seemed to make a difference, although I haven’t taught that course in 2 years, so I don’t know what is being done with it now.
I admit that my exposure to Khan Academy videos is pretty much limited to those dealing with basic probability and calculus, but of those subjects I have been very disappointed in the content. I have assumed that this disappointment would extend to other disciplines as well, and that certainly seems to be the case now with biology and evolution.
Also, I need to comment on this: “a “60 Minutes” show a while back said that it [Khan Academy] was a revolution in education and gave better results than group lessons in a class.” I didn’t see that show, but I’ve seen a lot of the literature out there on what makes one pedagogical method superior to another. I have yet to find anything that convinces me that this type of instruction is, generally, as good as (let alone better) than typical, lecture-style classes presented by a knowledgeable member of the field. There is evidence that it is a good method for adult students and continuing education. There is also evidence that students tend to like this type of instruction. What many administrators and researchers then fail to distinguish is that a student “liking” something doesn’t imply anything about how effectively they are learning it. Khan Academy (and other flexible-learning style programs) probably has a place in the adult and continuing education sector, but I constantly fear its continued encroachment into ordinary primary, secondary, and post-secondary education.
One would obviously like to have data in support of a claim that some instructional method M1 is more effective than some other method M2. But if you’re claiming that students’ learning performance is completely uncorrelated with their level of engagement, well, I’d want to see evidence in support of that claim too, since it seems fairly implausible on its face.
I’m not claiming that a correlation doesn’t exist there (I don’t know one way or another). Moreover, I don’t think that a student “liking” a particular pedagogical method is a reasonable proxy for their level of engagement. Students tend to like methods that they feel comfortable with and that accommodate their initial biases and knowledge.
Much of the research I’ve seen that compares a method to another in education focuses on the student’s own perception of how they are engaging in, interacting with, and learning the material. None of these translate in a reasonable way to how engaged they actually are, or how much of the material they are actually learning. It makes sense though that this is most of the data we see because it is the easiest to get (just survey a bunch of students about their impressions and opinions). But then the research speaks to the students’ perception of their education, not that actual education itself. That’s my main problem.
You should check out Reasoning Mind (www.reasoningmind.org) – they are a flexible-learning program built by a team of PhD mathematicians who reverse-engineer a very strong curriculum. They have a terrific approach and collaborate with tons of top researchers. So I’d say they are exception to the rule for technology-based instruction for K-12. Just had to put in my 2 cents as I’m a teacher and have seen tons of bad tech programs for math (including Khan Academy).
I think Khan has a natural charisma that comes across in video very well.
In the math videos I’ve seen, he gives very conventional presentations of the material. There is nothing revolutionary about the content itself.
He is not always a particularly careful or well prepared teacher, and it seems to take a major mistake or stumble to prompt a retake, as minor flaws are almost present.
As he extends his site to material well beyond his expertise, I think we can expect the over all quality to drop. He doesn’t seem to be realistic about his limitations in that regard.
The use of short video lessons in education is not a new idea, it goes back to the VHS and CD-ROM eras. The web makes such things a little easier, and allows integration of automated exercises and progress tracking. But past experience shows it’s just not going to be a silver bullet difference maker for most students.
I learned mitosis and meiosis, in part, from 8mm film loops. I think the Bio Department may still have them in a drawer somewhere.
“that a student “liking” something doesn’t imply anything about how effectively they are learning it.”
Ha, great point. Having material well-presented to you is not enough to have it learned…it’s also important to have a person involved who can hold you accountable to learn it.
I can’t believe no one has posted this comment yet, Khaaaaaaaaaan! 🙂
I agree that this is a completely wrong way to teach evolution; there is no need to speculate about a designer because there is no evidence that that has anything to do with evolution. Just teach the facts – things that we have evidence for.
I wonder if the donors to Khan Academy influence the content. It would be interesting to find out if any of the donors had theological strings attached to their gifts.
Speaking as an educator, this kind of thing really really really pisses me off. Just teach the science. If a student asks but what about God, tell them they’ll have to figure it out for themselves. This Kahn fellow (or any any such teacher) has no more idea about what God might be than anyone else, so his student’s guess would be as good as his.
And telling a believer that evolution is compatible with belief in God is doing them a severe disservice. If you’re really concerned about upsetting someone’s faith, warn them: if you want to keep your faith, for heavens sake, don’t study this subject.
+1
Salman Khan is an actor in Bollywood. A down side of free speech is that anyone including Kent Hovind can be a Youtube educator. The down side of the World Wide Web is that American schools and homeschools can use unvetted material.
Wrong Khan Bob J. This one was educated at MIT and Harvard.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Khan_(educator)
No one is perfect, Sal is doing a lot of good I think. He maybe could have done better with the evolution presentation.
Watch his Ted talk to get a better idea about what he is doing and why.
sub
From what we know about ‘GOD’ he would be absolutely pissed at the notion his work is second rate and subject to flaws..
Khan and the ID’s had better watch what they are implying, they may not get their ticket clipped at the pearly gates.
Where is the evidence from ‘HIMSELF’ that ID is the official line for teaching the word anyhow.
Or, are all interpretations of equal value?
Accomodationism is an imperfect lie, it is an untruth trying to explain a truth, and that is:
evolution is true.
It must be tiring tying to get a square peg into a round hole.
Its a wonderful example of how afraid we are to think for ourselves and to point out clear problems in an attempt to be ‘nice’. False dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, straw man, is there a formal phrase for back pedalling? It ruined a good opportunity for education. I suspect he just doesn’t want to piss people off but we lose out in the end. Ignorance wins in this case.
Massimo Pigliucci’s “Rationally Speaking” podcast did a segment on MOOCs and he doesn’t think there’s any revolution coming from that direction. I’m inclined to agree….online presentations are a way to get a shallow understanding of some subject, at best.
I think this is an instance in which reasonable people can agree to disagree, as to a) does this sort of accomodationism at least open the door to the children of fundamentalist religious parents to start learning science; and b) if, as I think, evolutionary processes are the answer to how biology, human design, and in fact human intelligence work in this universe, is it not in fact a more elegant explanation than that such things (creatures, designs, ideas) poof into existence by magic? (The question of whether there needs to be a god to mandate this and start it off being an issue for further thought.)
I would much rather my nephews and nieces had been exposed to this than the anti-scientific bias they got from fundamentalist organizations who have instilled the notion, “Don’t trust anything an atheist says.”
But how are they going to learn to trust atheists if we’re not willing to speak our minds honestly about what we think is true? If we tell them, insincerely, that evolution is compatible with ID just as a ruse to draw them in, don’t you think they’re going to figure that out eventually, and trust us less as a result?
Lying is lying. And if I learn that you’ve lied to me about X I will trust you less when you tell me Y. The whole point of science is to figure out what is true and what is false. Purposefully introducing falsehood into science education is poisonous and you’re asking us to think it is OK because it was only one kind of poison and not four. We shouldn’t be adding any to the educational diet.
Don’t forget to ask the opposite question, which is “Does does this sort of accomodationism start impressionable children down the path of learning to give religious considerations special allowances not afforded to other types of hypotheses.”
Elegant??? Evolution by natural selection is a violent, pitiless, and gory process. Nearly 99% of every species which has ever existed no longer does. Evolution is a wasteful process. An inefficient process. A cruel process. To declare this “elegant” is to do extreme violence to the English language.
I think most of the people like yourself, who see no issue with combining theology with science, do so because they rarely consider the theological ramifications of their position very deeply.
Uh… H.H…. He was calling the theory “elegant”, not the process itself.
The theory is the description of the process. I fail to see how either one is “elegant,” unless that word is being used as euphemism for “more correct.” Elegance isn’t really a scientific concern, so judging theories on that basis is a problematic recommendation.
A theory qualifies as elegant to the extent that it provides a clear and accurate description of the real world it pertains to. The ToE is elegant in this regard and elegance is very much a useful criteria for evaluating theories. Baroque theories full of unnecessary elements are not as useful as those that respect Occam’s Razor.
I actually do mention Intelligent Design in my AP Bio class– and we watch Nova’s Judgment Day about the Dover trial. I want my students to understand what science is, and why Intelligent Design is NOT science.
I think the criticisms here are too strong. Given the diverse audience he speaks to even saying that he takes no side in whether there is a god could be a radical step.
For people who don’t believe in a god, there was nothing threatening. For those who do, and there are a lot, and a lot of variation in the ‘kind’ of god, the science was accurate.
Even the common misconception of evolving to something ‘better’ or more advanced was explained.
He also clearly stated what was and wasn’t science.
Providing an explanation, for those who believe because of the wonder and complexity of nature was a subtle way of encouraging real scientific learning. Complexity and beauty emerging from simple rules is a valuable lesson.
I think he did it pretty well.
And, I am an atheist who thinks almost any kind of tolerance of religious thinking is misplaced.
I disagree, Michael. Introducing ID and the matter of deities as a legitimate possible position in science education material is simply dishonest. There is no reason to incorporate these elements other than to make a theological statement, even if it is a mushy and bland one.
I looked at a couple of Khan videos about biochemistry and molecular biology (my specialty). They varied from superficial to flat-out wrong. And that’s not a surprise. Khan isn’t an expert on anything; he’s someone who reads Wikipedia.
To be honest, he probably gets accommodationism wrong. If I were interested in the subject, I’d certainly look to Ken Miller, George Coyne, or NCSE before I’d waste my time with this stuff.
I think an omnipotent god who created evolution as a mechanism would then design the environment so as to allow this mechanism to be rampant throughout the Universe. My assertion is just as valid as any other of the infinite assertions that don’t directly contradict what science has shown us. The whole thing speaks well to the point that religions simply make things up.