I found this on Sneer Review [Teach Both Sides Of The Controversy - part 2]. It's an accurate portrayal of the weight of evidence for evolution and for Intelligent Design Creationism. So, what are we afraid of?
What we're afraid of is that the controversy won't be taught properly. I think we need to make this clear. Scientists aren't the least bit afraid of going head-to-head with any form of creationism. Teaching critical thinking and analyzing controversies is a valid part of science education and, if done properly, it can be a wonderful way to learn.
But that's not what's going to happen when creationist teachers cover evolution. They are not going to teach the controversy. They are going to teach lies about science. Teaching the controversy only applies to qualified teachers who are knowledgeable about their subject.
Let's not get trapped into opposing critical thinking and controversy. Let's focus on making sure that teachers are qualified to teach the curriculum.
23 comments :
This was one of three pictures I put together on the theme of 'teach the controversy' (the other two are not so silly looking).
The point was not to advocate teaching the controversy but to illustrate that 'both sides' are not comparable. The point that's frequently alluded to when discussing the public's view of the evolution/ID-creationism conflict is the issue of fairness. If they could recognize that there isn't anything scientific on the creationism side then perhaps one of the major arguments the IDiots currently use can be neutralized.
By the way, I quite agree with your point on teachers, we cannot encourage them as a group to 'teach both sides' as a certain percentage of them will simply use it as an excuse to teach incorrect science about the evidence supporting evolutionary theory.
"What we're afraid of is that the controversy won't be taught properly.
So since it won't be taught properly, let's not teach the other side at all, right?
By the way, do darwinists "teach" the "other side" properly? You are a fine example that you don't. You keep calling ID as "ID Creationism", when you know full well that Creationism starts with the Bible while ID does not.
"Physician, heal thyself"
I think we need to make this clear. Scientists aren't the least bit afraid of going head-to-head with any form of creationism.
Great! What about darwinists? Are they afraid of going head-to-head against Darwin skeptics?
Teaching critical thinking and analyzing controversies is a valid part of science education and, if done properly, it can be a wonderful way to learn.
But that's not what's going to happen when creationist teachers cover evolution. They are not going to teach the controversy. They are going to teach lies about science.
In other words, you say that it's ok to teach the other side. Hwoever, you don't want creationists to teach the other side, bkz, according to your side, the other side is not science.
Great! Fantastic "logic".
Teaching the controversy only applies to qualified teachers who are knowledgeable about their subject.
Translation: only darwin-believers are learned enough to teach both sides of the controversy.
Let's not get trapped into opposing critical thinking and controversy. Let's focus on making sure that teachers are qualified to teach the curriculum.
What if the curriculum allows for teachers to use peer-reviewed documentation showing one or more facts that are not in agreement with the theory of evolution?
By the way, nice picture. Which side is the darwinian side? *g*
"critical thinking" is not all we want. We want creative thinking, specially within science, and though they may connect, they do not adequately describe each other.
So, I do not understand what's up with all this praise for mere "critical thinking"as if that's all there is to science. If anything that is just TOO EASY. This is precisely what happens when creationists criticize actual controversies and unresolved issues of evolutionary biology to question the entire field. as if there was no common descent. It's easy to be critical, cynical and then throw away the baby with the water. Larry does it all the time (but does he know?)
There is no scientific controversy to teach. It has nothing to do with science. The controversy is political and religious, so if taught at all, it should be taught in political science or comparative religion courses.
mats says,
You keep calling ID as "ID Creationism", when you know full well that Creationism starts with the Bible while ID does not.
A creationist is someone who believes in a creator. Intelligent Design proponents believe in a supernatural creator. Hence, they are creationists.
Please don't give me the stupid example of an Intelligent Design Creationist who thinks that it was aliens who designed the bacterial flagellum. Find me a bunch of atheists who believe in Intelligent Design and we'll talk. Otherwise it looks like everyone who advocates Intelligent Design started out as believer in a creator before adopting Intelligent Design as a rationalization.
anonymous says,
There is no scientific controversy to teach. It has nothing to do with science. The controversy is political and religious, so if taught at all, it should be taught in political science or comparative religion courses.
It's a controversy about science. You and I know that there's no science in creationism but until we teach that to our students they don't know it. The best way to teach how science can prove that something isn't science is in a science class.
The last thing I want is for teachers in political science or comparative religion courses to be teaching students about what is, and isn't, science.
Besides, the teachers in those classes are going to have their hands full teaching about their own controversies. In Louisiana, for example, they'll now be teaching about the importance of socialism and the criticisms of capitalism. In comparative religion classes they'll be teaching about Islamic views of Christianity and critiques of Papal infallibility. :-)
the argument of the aliens is interesting (even if nobody uses it) What it reveals is that naturalistic explanations can be non-scientific, and not only so supernatural explanations.
There are explanations, both natural and supernatural, of the origin of life that simply give us no insight into the actual "how" of life's origin. Exactly "how" did extraterrestrials make life? Did they have a recipe? The RECIPE would be an actual scientific explanation to the origin of life. Just saying god or aliens did it leaves us just where we were as far as any scientific understanding of the origin of life.
(..)the other side is not science(..)
Are you trying to say that the other side(ID) is science?
If yes, please show us proof.
(..)Are they afraid of going head-to-head against Darwin skeptics?(..)
Not if they have valid arguments.
(..)What if the curriculum allows for teachers to use peer-reviewed documentation showing one or more facts that are not in agreement with the theory of evolution?(..)
Please show us that peer-reviewed documentation.
The best way to teach how science can prove that something isn't science is in a science class.
The last thing I want is for teachers in political science or comparative religion courses to be teaching students about what is, and isn't, science.
I see your point, but it's a slippery slope. If you're not exceedingly careful, you are eventually going to insult someone's religion in public school classroom, and lawsuits could follow. I can see creationists and ID'ers coaching students to ask questions that deliberately provoke a situation like that.
anonymous says,
I see your point, but it's a slippery slope. If you're not exceedingly careful, you are eventually going to insult someone's religion in public school classroom, and lawsuits could follow. I can see creationists and ID'ers coaching students to ask questions that deliberately provoke a situation like that.
Wait a minute! Are you saying that it would be okay to teach the evolution vs. creationism controversy in political science or comparative religion courses because that won't insult anyone's religion? How does that work?
Also, let's not forget who is promoting "teach the controversy." Do you think the creationists can do it without insulting anyone's religion?
Let's take them at their word. They claim there are legitimate scientific controversies that should be taught.
I say we go for it, beginning with the controversy over the age of the Earth. I say we inundate the students with the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth. We can show them exactly how stupid it is for anyone to claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. This is strictly science—it has nothing to do with religion, right? :-)
Wait a minute! Are you saying that it would be okay to teach the evolution vs. creationism controversy in political science or comparative religion courses because that won't insult anyone's religion? How does that work?
Yes, that's right. Same way that you can teach different religions in a comparative religion course without insulting anyone's religion (at least, not by teachers). You teach the history and details of the controversy. It will automatically be seen as a political and/or religious controversy and thereby not be implicitly sanctioned as a scientific controversy, which it isn't.
I say we go for it, beginning with the controversy over the age of the Earth. I say we inundate the students with the overwhelming evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
We already do that, or at least, we are supposed to.
We can show them exactly how stupid it is for anyone to claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. This is strictly science—it has nothing to do with religion, right? :-)
Fine. Then should we not also explicitly proclarim in science class how stupid and unscientific a talking snake is? Or someone being resurrected from the dead? Do you see where this is headed? The courtroom...
The real danger of "teaching the controversy" or "critical thinking" is that they're often presented as rationalizing which is precisely what science students must learn not to do. Science education should revolve around developing formal reasoning skills and learning how to create and test hypotheses along with learning the classical knowledge and methods of biology, chemistry and physics.
re aliens as creator:
doesn't scientology believe in that?
That's right...also Raeliansm who are atheists
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9821.htm
When the Theocrats came for the evolutionists,
I remained silent;
I thought teaching the controversy was fair.
When they locked up the geologists,
I remained silent;
I didn't know the age of the Earth.
When they came for the doctors,
I did not speak out;
Prayer might work.
When they came for the politicians,
I remained silent;
I wasn't elected.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller.
DiscoveredJoys said,
When the Theocrats came for the evolutionists,
I remained silent;
I thought teaching the controversy was fair.
When the Theocrats attacked science,
You remained silent;
You thought that pretending there was no conflict was the fair thing to do.
Larry,
Find me a bunch of atheists who believe in Intelligent Design and we'll talk.
Well, I don't know about a bunch. What comprises a "bunch"?
Anyway, there were some atheists who believed that the origin of life owed itself to an inteligent cause like aliens. Francis Crick was one of them. Was Crick a creationist?
mats lied:
"there were some atheists who believed that the origin of life owed itself to an inteligent cause like aliens. Francis Crick was one of them. Was Crick a creationist?"
No, of course he wasn't.
He was a scientist, and as such truth actually meant something to him.
Initial ideas about life generally involved a replicating organic system containing proteins and Crick, quite rightly, pointed out that the chances for such a system developing by abiogenesis would be incredibly rare. To explain life elsewhere he speculated that this original life might have been passed on, or 'seeded' to other places in the universe by descendents of this rare abiogenesis event.
Late work of evidence for an RNA world, of course, showed that proteins were not necessary for abiogenesis and Crick admitted that directed panspermia was an unnecessary hypothesis.
"Find me a bunch of atheists who believe in Intelligent Design and we'll talk."
Actually, there is a cult called the Raelians (www.rael.org) who are atheists and who believe that we were created by aliens, the Bible's Elohim.
However you're right Larry, these people believe in ID _because_ they're Raelians. In other words, ID is the consequence of their faith, just like "regular" ID believers believe in ID as a consequence of their faith (and that includes mats).
But remove gods and aliens, and you have no more ID believers. So your claim "(...) it looks like everyone who advocates Intelligent Design started out as believer in a creator before adopting Intelligent Design as a rationalization" is absolutely true!
Robert M.
Larry: "I say we go for it ..."
The more I ponder this, the more I *really* like it.
1. It will eliminate the argument that "big science" is somehow afraid of ID.
2. It is efficient: demolishing the scientific foundation of ID is a lot easier to do than dealing with the massive number of wacko and fraudulent "problems" with the MET that the creationists have invented.
3. It "frames" the debate from a scientific perspective: the competition of ideas under the rules of science, rather than a political debate over privileged access into the classroom.
4. It will force the IDiots to put up or shut up by giving them what they claim they want (a “fair and balanced” treatment to “alternatives” to evolution), but which they probably really don’t want. They would either have to accept it, or show their true colors when they do an about face and argue against “teaching the controversy”.
5. It would actually be pedagogically useful. Let me explain. I've always thought that an explanation of the concept of irreducible complexity was useful for illustrating the limits of evolution: why we don't see any old adaptation that one can imagine would be beneficial to an organism. It’s the idea that a particular feature can evolve only if the organism can “get from here to there” through a continuum of intermediate forms all of which are beneficial (or least not unduly harmful) at each stage of the process. In the process of giving a fair description of ID, there will be this opportunity to reinforce this concept. This is not a trivial point. A widespread failure to understand this leads to very common misconceptions about evolution.
I'm sorry but discussing ID or young earth in science class is akin to discussing in History class why we think Rome was built by people rather than popping out of nowhere
I'd much rather the kids gwere taght evolution in science class and got creationism mentioned to them only by religious people since this is the source and will be when they become adults, too.
Let's make it clear that science is not about contradicting origin myths. Contradicting origin myths is a simple side-effect of science. It is religious people that have attacked science with their creationism; if we interpose ourselves in between, we look desperate. We don't need "cheap moves" like "getting first to the children". THEY need that (that's why they are pushing to put it into the schools). Little good will it do to them if they succed: let THEM, not us, smell fishy.
Of course if there was an optional (non-compuslory) religion class at schools, I'd support that they teach creationism, flat-earthism, or whatever "ism" they wish. It's RELIGION class!!! Yeeeehaw!
More food for thought, in the UK this time:
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3994
Post a Comment