Are textbooks really outdated?

[Mithcoriel]

We always jump on creationists and scold them for claiming that outdated and debunked fossils are still found in our textbooks today, or claiming that any kind of other strawmen they use came from a real textbook. But are our textbooks really that outdated? I never really checked.

I had a look while I was cleaning out old school books. At least none of them had Piltdown man in it, but both my biology book ("Advanced Biology", 2000) and my "The Kingfisher Children's Encyclopedia" (1998) listed Neanderthal-man as our ancestor, rather than our cousin.
The children's encyclopedia also describes the Big Bang as an explosion.

So I'm curious: take a look at your or your kid's old school books (and what year they were published): do any of them portray outdated views that we'd call strawmen if creationists use them?

 

[lrkun]

We always jump on creationists and scold them for claiming that outdated and debunked fossils are still found in our textbooks today, or claiming that any kind of other strawmen they use came from a real textbook. But are our textbooks really that outdated? I never really checked.

I had a look while I was cleaning out old school books. At least none of them had Piltdown man in it, but both my biology book ("Advanced Biology", 2000) and my "The Kingfisher Children's Encyclopedia" (1998) listed Neanderthal-man as our ancestor, rather than our cousin.
The children's encyclopedia also describes the Big Bang as an explosion.

So I'm curious: take a look at your or your kid's old school books (and what year they were published): do any of them portray outdated views that we'd call strawmen if creationists use them?

Good observation. This will require more effort on our part. The advantage of doing so is that our children will be learning that which is the current and scientifically adopted pool of information.

 

[Nelson]

I would guess that a large number of children's books present a description of the big bang theory that I would not agree with. But I also think that trying to explain the difference between "an explosion" and an expansion of space to a child would be almost completely useless. However, if someone feels that they can reword these sorts of explanations in a way that is understandable to younger children, and more in line with the actual theory, then that would be fantastic.

I also think this example sidesteps the real issue with people like Kent Hovind. The problem of children's textbooks being out of date is an issue, but fixing that won't fix the problem of using a CHILDREN'S TEXTBOOK :facepalm: in the first place to try to debunk robust scientific theories. Even if these books are updated, they are still going to present a very very simplified story about how these theories work.

So while I do see an issue with textbooks being out of date, I do not see a strong connection between this and creationist tactics. The larger issue is one of which sorts of sources are useful in a discussion about scientific theories, and which sources are not useful. Children's textbooks obviously fall in the second category, regardless of how up to date they are.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Terry Pratchett calls it 'lies to children'. It isn't that those models are supposed to be accurate or simply accepted for what they are, they're simply a model that provides a good 'point of reference' for the next level of understanding. Most educators would, I think, agree that points of reference are possibly the most important concept in education, and one of the most difficult things to generate.

To illustrate, a story about a friend of mine, who ended up being one of the team that invented bluetooth (her name is Jennifer Bray, if you want to check the veracity of this statement). She told me that when she went to do her A levels, she was told 'forget everything you ever learned about physics. We're going to tell you how it really is!' When she went to do her degree, she was told 'forget everything you ever learned about physics...' and so on, and that this happened at pretty much every stage.

In short, textbooks present a useful picture that will aid undertstanding if the subject is followed to advanced levels and, just like the process of scientific advancement, provides ever more accurate pictures of reality, with none of the pictures ever representing what reality really is, or at least, not yet.

 

[Mithcoriel]

Ok then, that would excuse the part where they describe things in simple ways, like the Big Bang as an explosion. But what about the outdated fossils, like Neanderthals being our ancestors?

 

[Deleted member 619]

At the moment, it isn't clear that the Neanderthals are even a different species, let alone our ancestors. The jury is currently out on the place of the Neanderthals in our history, and it is even suggested that Neanderthal genes survive in humans. In instances like this, textbooks will reflect the extant paradigm until it is supplanted by better data.

 

[mat_hunt]

Speaking from the perspective of maths and physics, then there are no outdated textbooks, noewtons laws hold in the regeme since he published his book.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

With regards to US textbooks, I can't speak for the sciences, but in the case of history it's not so much outdated as false. History textbook authors avoid controversy at all costs resulting in some very oversimplified, distorted, or outright wrong information. They will omit from discussion any facts or viewpoints that might be offensive or disturbing, often play to popular stereotypes, and tend to paint the past in rose colored glasses.

Case in point, Helen Keller: A deafblind woman who went on to earn a BA and become a prominent public speaker; she is often propped up as an example of how anyone can overcome adversity if they apply themselves. This is sum total of what most history books will say about her, if that. So what's the problem? Helen Keller was a prominent socialist and proponent of the Soviet Union. This is virtually never mentioned. The terrible irony is that Helen Keller herself did not agree that, "anyone can overcome adversity if they apply themselves." Indeed she credited her success to her family's wealth and affluence, and often argued that if she had been born to a working class family she would likely have never learned to escape the prison of her own mind. Presenting her in this way is not only disingenuous, it is the outright desecration of dead woman's legacy.

I could rant about similar issues at great length, but for brevity's sake I'll move on...

Another problem is that textbooks very often present history as factual, concrete, and known even in the face of ongoing debate. When did the Native Americans cross over into the New World? There are several possible dates and it's a point of some controversy. Most textbooks simply pick one, and will prefix it with the word 'probably' to cover their asses. This sort of thing belies the ongoing and active nature of real historical study. Even worse, it makes the subject boring; the one unforgivable sin.

/rant.

 

[Macabre215]

We always jump on creationists and scold them for claiming that outdated and debunked fossils are still found in our textbooks today, or claiming that any kind of other strawmen they use came from a real textbook. But are our textbooks really that outdated? I never really checked.

I had a look while I was cleaning out old school books. At least none of them had Piltdown man in it, but both my biology book ("Advanced Biology", 2000) and my "The Kingfisher Children's Encyclopedia" (1998) listed Neanderthal-man as our ancestor, rather than our cousin.
The children's encyclopedia also describes the Big Bang as an explosion.

So I'm curious: take a look at your or your kid's old school books (and what year they were published): do any of them portray outdated views that we'd call strawmen if creationists use them?

I still had a science teacher telling us that the Big Bang was an explosion in 2002, and didn't mention Guth's inflation either.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Short answer No. Medium answer, No but there are exceptions. Long anwer, i don't have time now so I will develop this later.