Reader Robert Seidel sent two photographs along with biology anecdotes:
Here two photos on the prowess of organisms: First, a buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) short-circuiting a honeysuckle (Lonicera caprifolium). Meant to be pollinated, so I read, by nocturnal moths, this flower is too long for this species’ sucker. So it gnaws the base, and “steals” the nectar of the flower, without pollinating it. Other species I’ve seen doing this as well, though I’m not sure if all of them are clever enough to invent that technique, or are just using the holes made by the buff-tails. I really do wonder if this is learned behaviour, or inherited?
Professor Ceiling Cat guesses that this is inherited, but you could test that by exposing a naive bumblebee—one who had no experience with the flower—to a honeysuckle, and observed what it did.
Second, the power of pioneering, demonstrated by chives (Allium schoenoprasum). About twelve years ago, my father renovated the wall seen to the left, which is on a first-story roof. He didn’t remove all of the old plaster, and that chives (perhaps escaped from someone’s balkony pots or kitchen garden) took residence soon. No earth was ever added to the spot, it’s just the original centimetre of plaster debris on tar paper.
I also include a link to an interview of professor of evolutionary biology Ulrich Kutschera, about creationism in Germany. The second-to-last question and answer is especially interesting.
Here’s the Q&A that Robert mentioned. Feel free to weigh in below:
How does the United States compare with Germany in terms of creationist movements?In Germany we have ethics or religion classes. Here in the U.S., it’s not allowed to teach religion in public schools, due to your Constitution. When you do not allow the teaching of religion in schools, then this irrational belief remains an uncontrolled private business. Creationists in the U.S. try to introduce their religious dogma into biology classes because they are not allowed to teach religion in ethics classes. It would be better for the U.S. to allow the teaching of Christian religion in public schools, as is the case in Germany and other European countries.
And we have one photo from from Stephen Barnard in Idaho: a Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus):
Gorgeous owl, Stephen!
Chives are tough. There are little shrubs, even trees, that also grow out of crevices in rocks. These are limestone-loving plants.
Love the owl!
I’ll have to start watching the bees at the honeysuckle and trumpet vines in my garden.
We regularly drive by a house, which is occupied, with a lot of tall plants growing up from the gutters on the 2nd story. No doubt they are established in the debris that has built up over the years.
I personally do not think that the formula of teaching religion in public schools would have much effect on dampening the influence of religion over here.
However, it would be an interesting experiment to explain to students, in the units on early human civilizations like Babylon, ancient Egypt, etc., that the seeds for the great Western religions began from various mythologies in those parts of the world.
Robert could be on to something regarding the religious question, it is hard to say. There are probably many more differences that also account for this hard core of religion but maybe it should be tried as an experiment, say in one state to see. I would want to have the teaches follow the same plan and structure as they currently do in Germany and not be allowed to come up with their own version.
If it worked in this one state, that is to relieve or remove this hard core among us, we could then throw it right into all other states. Robert would be due some big awards if this works.
Having been brought up Catholic I often wanted all the religions taught at both the public school and my Catholic school. How else was I to be certain that my religion was the correct one. How else was I to understand why others believed differently. Now exposed to this information I am now a nonbeliever in all of them.
Would France act as a good test for the idea that teaching religion in schools is a bulwark against fundamentalism? They have strict church-state segregation and no (or almost no) religious education in state schools, yet as far as I know they also lack a strong creationist movement.
My own personal suspicion is that it ain’t what you teach, it’s the way that you teach it that makes the diffrerence.
Compared to Europe, America is quite backwards in certain respects, but I’m proud of our strict secularism, especially compared to Germany. The cultural tensions in that country between natives and Turkish immigrants are not being soothed by Germany’s mandatory “ethics” classes, nor by their concept of a secular, Enlightenment-principled “guiding culture.” Why? Because it’s not actually secular. In certain states, crosses still hang on public classroom walls. I’m not saying Germany is wrong, but I really don’t see the appeal in imitating them.
“When you do not allow the teaching of religion in schools, then this irrational belief remains an uncontrolled private business.”
1. The notion of controlling people’s beliefs is rather disturbing.
2. Religion (ideally) is supposed to be a private business.
Plus, which version of Christianity would be taught?
For the children of “Turkish immigrants” mandatory [sic] Islamic religious instruction has been introduced in a good number of German states.
Several state universities (Tuebingen, Muenster, Berlin, Hamburg, Erlangen etc.) and (state) teachers’ colleges now have chairs and departments of Islamic theology. The government thus hopes to breed a sort of mild-mannered “Euro Islam” compatible with the German constitution.
Needless to say this policy doesn’t help to loosen the grip of religion on Germany’s church-ridden society. The fact that some of the chairs have a rather radical background (as judged from their earlier writings) doesn’t help either.
Please also note that in Germany “ethics” and “religious instruction” do not enjoy the same legal status. “Religious instruction” is compulsory in all German states (with the exception of the city state of Berlin), in all types of schools (including vocational colleges) and on all levels of schooling – the same doesn’t go for “ethics”. “Religious instruction” can also be chosen as ordinary A-level subject whereas this isn’t possible with “ethics”.
From the personal experience of a good German:
It’s very difficult to opt out from “religious instruction” at a public school once you have chosen it (in lieu of “ethics”). Under the school law of my native state of Baden-Wuerttemberg I was allowed to give up “bogus subjects” such as biology, chemistry, physics, English, Latin, French, geography, social studies, music and art but had to follow “R.I.” (two lessons per week) for the last three years of my secondary schooling.
Officially, “R.I.” in Germany is devoted to the “scholarly analysis” of religious practice – a rather practical formula as it comes to preventing students from opting out for conscientious reasons. In practice, “scholarly analysis” is then carried out with song and prayer books as well as “punishment prayers” (“Strafgebete” – no joke).
Which brings us to Zado’s fundamental question “which version of Christianity would be taught?”
Well, that one is easily solved. According to German law “R.I.” is given in accordance with the teachings of the respective state church(es). So, in the state of Bavaria only a member of the (Lutheran) Bavarian state church (who holds a university diploma in Protestant theology)– but not a Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian or (God beware) an unaffiliated person – would be allowed to teach. Likewise in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg only a member of the (Lutheran) state church of Wuerttemberg (territory of the former Kingdom of W.) or the (United) state church of Baden (territory of the former Granduchy of Baden) etc. pp. As we see, “scholarly analysis” is not an easy thing and therefore has to be restricted to a happy chosen few.
Please also note that religious affiliation of German Protestants is determined by territory rather than personal conviction (since 1555 those in power proudly stand by this tradition): A Protestant taking residence in the region of Lippe automatically becomes a member of the regional Presbyterian state church, in Bavaria he’s turned into a Lutheran and in Hesse into a member of the United state church. (To opt out of the system all you have to do is to pay a fine, sorry fee, to the appropriate state [sic] authority. You’ll then be free to join a so called “free church” (Protestant or else)
I consider myself a patriot; there are many aspects of German culture of which I am proud. That having said, it absolutely eludes me as to why a German scientist would advocate – and even propagate abroad – a system as moronic and anachronistic as German “Staatskirchentum”.
Creationism is indeed not a big issue in Germany. But that’s IMO (thank goodness) not due to compulsory religious instruction and the exercise of punishment prayers in German public schooling.
Here endeth my monologue. Thank you very much for your patience.
Steven’s photos are always fabulous. He must live in paradise.
I wouldn’t get too proud of all the separation in the U.S. without looking a bit closer. There are tons of private religious schools in the U.S. where they teach religion everyday. Then there are the new charter schools where it goes on as well. The FFRF has a full time staff working all the time to get religion out of our so called separated religion free public schools.
Best to look at reality and not get too proud of the laws.
As you said, private schools. Our tax dollars don’t pay for them as they do in Germany (where they also have “church taxes”). As for charter schools, I find it heartening that Christians have to go to such lengths to weasel their way around the establishment clause. Yes, they’re siphoning public funds into religious classrooms. But that says something about certain states’ education systems and their fetish for privatization. The law itself, I think, still stands as an ideal.
But, after all of that we are the ones with the religion problem and not Europe. I would be happy to trade places with them and forget about a law that is hardly working. Idealist tend to take a back seat to reality.
Thomas Jefferson once said he did not worry much about the religious because is neither broke his back or picked his pocket. But he too was an Idealist.
If you’re not allowed to teach religion in schools, then you’re also not allowed to refute it. To dispel false beliefs, you first need to refute them before supplying the alternative. So I’m with Larry Moran (and Canada, and Germany, and Scandinavia) on this one: that it’s a failing of the US constitution to disallow the teaching of religion in schools and universities.
I think there should be lessons about the beliefs of different religions in ethics classes, and they should be taught by properly qualified teachers. Religion itself should not be taught in schools.
Many state schools in NZ have ‘Religious Instruction’ taught by volunteers who are usually evangelicals. It’s an appalling situation, and one our Secular Education Network is trying to stop.
Kids who are pulled from those classes by their parents are often bullied, or left to sit alone during the lessons, or even told to pick up rubbish around the playground.
I agree with Ultich Kutschera (and it seems with Robert), but it is hard to tell whether official religious education would work in the USA. It may not work forever in Germany, either.
For historical reasons, Germany only has two main Christian demoninations, Lutheran Protestants and Catholics and they are embedded in culture, and over the centuries were “tamed” like the Anglicans. Germany is small enough that society can have a cultural “cohesion” that prevents sub-cultures to veer off too far, which keeps the religious on a shorter leash as well.
There are smaller “free churches” similar to Evangelicals in the US, Latter-Day-Saints, Presbyterans, …, and they stand out like “sects” — they are not embedded and unfortunately grow like weed (wheras mainstream churches are shrinking). Despite that they are a tiny minority, they appear to have good connections into politics. It broke to the surface a few times, when certain politicians out of the blue stated creationist leanings (several high ranking politicians and ministers of the CDU).
While I am it: the challenges with Islam are also different than they are in the US. Here, in northern Europe, we have a significant population of very pious believers who are largely outside cultural “cohesion”. It’s not like in the US, where most people are pious and creationists anyway. Here we have a fairly progressive society where religious beliefs are typically (and classicaly) weak, and then in stark contrast the very pious with far-out conservative views, that make even the huntsman from the deepest Bavaria look like a gay progressive. I wish US social justice warriors would get a horizon that doesn’t end at the next sidewalk, for they are largely ignorant about the complications when they yell “Islamophobia”.
If religion, creationism is taught without all counter arguments,SCIENCE, philosophy,history laid out for a student to ponder and assimilate we have indoctrination, not learning. This applies to the US or Germany, Outer Mongolia!
A balanced non bias teacher would be good, he says hopefully trapped in his own irony.
The point I would like to make is, that it above cannot be taught in isolation, otherwise and I can’t help myself.. go to your shackled to a lie institution if that’s what you want.
sub
Robert, thanks for both wonderful pictures and their backstories!
I’m glad the chives have been left to grow. 🙂