Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
To make it simple, this analysis will disregard church-state issues, the type of class (e.g. science) or school (e.g. public high school) in which "Teach the Controversy" advocates want their approach implemented, or whether they also want students taught that life was "intelligently designed." Given that, let's examine what "Teach the Controversy" advocates, and their critics, "Evolution-Only" advocates, want students to learn, and see if there's any potential for censorship.
"Evolution-Only" advocates want the material to come primarily from "the Textbook," which usually explains biology in terms of the only overarching theory by which it makes sense. The Textbook, like textbooks in all subjects, first covers well-established conclusions and explanations, then adds grade-appropriate levels of critical analysis. The critical analysis must be scientific, of course, which means that mere arguments from incredulity are unacceptable. All scientific explanations are necessarily incomplete, so the student is often encouraged to propose testable solutions to unanswered questions. Students are not expected to conduct the level of critical analysis that is required of professional researchers, of course, and should be aware that their ideas have likely been thought of by professionals whose livelihood depends on contributing new, independently confirmable ideas. Many "Evolution-Only" advocates in fact are not satisfied with the educational status quo, and seek more student critical analysis.
"Teach the Controversy" advocates want students to "critically analyze" evolution using their specific "Critical Analysis Plan" (CAP), which they envision as a supplement to the Textbook. On the surface that appeals to a sense of fairness, as well as to a reasonable desire for more educational resources. In reality, however, teachers would often omit or gloss over some of the Textbook material, including well-established conclusions and explanations, to allow time for the CAP. Furthermore, all CAPs proposed to date focus almost entirely on generating unreasonable doubt by confusing or conflating distinct claims and concepts, and reinforcing common misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science. They are at best "mere arguments from incredulity," at worst, blatant misrepresentation, and either way would undermine important core concepts even if strictly supplemental. If they replace any essential material, as expected, it could only be worse.
"Evolution-Only" advocates want students to learn material, which, via rigorous peer-review, has earned the right to be taught. Contrary to popular myth, they do not want to shield students from the CAP; many of them in fact encourage students to read the CAP, and see for themselves how it not a true scientific critical analysis. All they ask is that if students are taught the CAP that they are also taught the mainstream science point-by-point rebuttal (call it RCAP). Unlike the CAP and RCAP, the Textbook is not devoted exclusively to addressing and criticizing alternate claims, so using the Textbook and CAP, without the RCAP, would be neither fair nor balanced. Whether or not there is sufficient classroom time to adequately cover the CAP and RCAP, the only fair and balanced method is to give the last word to the scientists who have actually performed the relevant research. Contrary to another popular myth, those scientists would love to "dethrone Darwin" if the evidence would let them. Giving them the last word is especially imperative because of the misleading nature of the CAP. If that means restricting the classroom resources to Textbook- only, that is still preferable to "Textbook plus unanswered CAP."
Thus there is no "censorship" in the strict sense, as neither group can prevent interested students from consulting relevant published information. That information, which is more accessible than ever with the Internet, includes the real scientific controversies, many long- refuted anti-evolution arguments including those disguised as "critical analysis", and the refutations of those arguments. So at best, "Teach the Controversy" advocates are wrong to accuse "Evolution- Only" advocates of promoting censorship. If, however, "censorship" is defined broadly to include any deliberate effort that discourages or distracts students from consulting relevant published information, then it is clearly the "Teach the Controversy" advocates who promote it. That makes their accusations all the more outrageous.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, Frank J wrote: > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach
I personally think teaching the controversy will lead to the logical end, I have reached the logical end in dealing with the controversy in my life, why shouldn't everyone be entitled to come to their own beliefs?
Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, Frank J wrote:
> > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach
> I personally think teaching the controversy will lead to the logical end, > I have reached the logical end in dealing with the controversy in my life, > why shouldn't everyone be entitled to come to their own beliefs?
Because they want you to come to their own beliefs, too. And no others. -- John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
"Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote: > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" > approach to teaching biological evolution often > accuse their critics of promoting censorship. > Let's see if that claim has any merit.
I want to "Teach the Controversy" in geography. Why should the round-earth view be put forward as fact, when there are plenty of people who dispute it?
And then there's astronomy and that controversial Sun-centered solar system. Where's the other side there? The Earth-centered people?
And where's the "Historical Revisionist" view in history classes? Or the alternative-history challenges to the supposed timeline for western civilization?
On Feb 14, 3:08 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, Frank J wrote: > > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach
> I personally think teaching the controversy will lead to the logical end, > I have reached the logical end in dealing with the controversy in my life, > why shouldn't everyone be entitled to come to their own beliefs?
1. Teaching a phony "critical analysis" that misrepresents important points that have been taught, and likely causes other important points not to be taught?
or
2. Teaching evolution as "evolution-only" advocates want, which makes it much easier for students to see the difference between the real scientific controversies and the misrepresentations, and doesn't leave the misrepresentations unanswered.
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" > > approach to teaching biological evolution often > > accuse their critics of promoting censorship. > > Let's see if that claim has any merit.
> I want to "Teach the Controversy" in geography. > Why should the round-earth view be put forward > as fact, when there are plenty of people who > dispute it?
> And then there's astronomy and that controversial > Sun-centered solar system. Where's the other side > there? The Earth-centered people?
> And where's the "Historical Revisionist" view in > history classes? Or the alternative-history > challenges to the supposed timeline for western > civilization?
> "Teach the Controversy," I say!
Funny you mention "revisionist history." Paul Gross is one of very few people who note how, when it comes to teaching evolution, the far right uses tactics normally associated with the far left. While the mutually contradictory creationisms *are* revisionist history, anti- evolution activists have become much slicker and "postmodern". Instead of demanding equal time for a young or flat earth, they just want students to acquire unreasonable doubt regarding the conclusions and explanations that actually have earned the right to be taught. Students' prior misconceptions, and current cultural influences will fill in the "equal time" for discredited "theories."
But my main point is that anti-evolution activists have fooled the public into believing that their *critics* advocate censorship, when, for all practical purposes, it is *they* who don't want students to get the whole picture.
On Feb 13, 4:20 pm, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching > biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting > censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
I think that if there were any scientific controversy, it should be taught. That a bunch of religious people want to believe something isn't a scientific controversy. Let them do some science and if they can come up with a controversy, we can think about teaching it.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:17:46 -0800, Frank J wrote: > 1. Teaching a phony "critical analysis" that misrepresents important > points that have been taught, and likely causes other important points > not to be taught?
I don't believe in a phony analysis, or some foot in the door for religion, but I think it is a good idea for people to know what the argument is about
<dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, Frank J wrote: > > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach > I personally think teaching the controversy will lead to the logical end, > I have reached the logical end in dealing with the controversy in my life, > why shouldn't everyone be entitled to come to their own beliefs?
Because beliefs are not the issue: facts and knowledge are. Creationists insist they have the right to inculcate falsehoods and wrong answer into public schools--- they wish to replace facts and knowledge with belief.
-- "How did he know where we'd be?!" --- Maggie "Because we'd be dead if he didn't!" -- Jake Speed
>> Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" >> approach to teaching biological evolution often >> accuse their critics of promoting censorship. >> Let's see if that claim has any merit.
>I want to "Teach the Controversy" in geography. >Why should the round-earth view be put forward >as fact, when there are plenty of people who >dispute it?
>And then there's astronomy and that controversial >Sun-centered solar system. Where's the other side >there? The Earth-centered people?
>And where's the "Historical Revisionist" view in >history classes? Or the alternative-history >challenges to the supposed timeline for western >civilization?
On 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching >biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting >censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
>To make it simple, this analysis will disregard church-state issues, >the type of class (e.g. science) or school (e.g. public high school) >in which "Teach the Controversy" advocates want their approach >implemented, or whether they also want students taught that life was >"intelligently designed." Given that, let's examine what "Teach the >Controversy" advocates, and their critics, "Evolution-Only" advocates, >want students to learn, and see if there's any potential for >censorship.
I agree that "the controversy" SHOULD be taught ... though maybe not quite the way you mean.
This, and similar, controversies have been an integral feature of western science since the 1500s. Scientists have been threatened, some like Bruno were burnt at the stake (though they SAID it wasn't because of his science). In any event, for quite awhile science was almost an "underground" activity, artfully evading the religious police.
In short, "science" is MORE than just the study of the natural world, it also has a POLITICAL dimension. This is part of the HISTORY of science, an important part. Students should be made aware of sciences history, its difficulties and the brave and dedicated scientists who kept at the task even when faced with censorship, threats, ostracism, excommunication or death.
Hey, not OUR fault that the HRCC built so much doctrine around shakey 'facts' ...
Of course if you REALLY hate 'ID' you can put it up side by side, fact by fact, against evolution ... and watch it melt to nothing in mere seconds. 'ID' is a 'hothouse' idea which can only survive in a warm, dark environment (usually with a pointy steeple on top). Bring it out into the cold light of reality and it perishes.
On Feb 14, 12:55 pm, "Scooter the Mighty" <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:20 pm, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching > > biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting > > censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
> I think that if there were any scientific controversy, it should be > taught. That a bunch of religious people want to believe something > isn't a scientific controversy. Let them do some science and if they > can come up with a controversy, we can think about teaching it.
There are scientific controversies, but they are not the same as the misrepresentations, and they don't threaten either the general theory or the facts of common descent or a ~4 billion year history of life. The blatant bait-and-switch of the 2 controversies by anti-evolution activists is "effective censorship." And they have the audacity to accuse *us* of promoting censorship!
Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in news:a- ydnWxDVPxB4U7YnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@comcast.com:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:17:46 -0800, Frank J wrote:
>> 1. Teaching a phony "critical analysis" that misrepresents important >> points that have been taught, and likely causes other important points >> not to be taught?
> I don't believe in a phony analysis, or some foot in the door for > religion, but I think it is a good idea for people to know what the > argument is about
You mean that the argument isn't between scientists, since almost all scientists agree that the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution, but between science, and a very small subset of religion?
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:27:13 -0600, Jim Lovejoy wrote: > You mean that the argument isn't between scientists, since almost all > scientists agree that the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution, but > between science, and a very small subset of religion?
the problem is that children are introduced to the debate in a non-educational environment, we don't have a small subset of people that believe or claim to believe in religion, we have a plethora, I think the children should be introduced to the issue and allowed to debate it themselves
> On 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching > >biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting > >censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
> >To make it simple, this analysis will disregard church-state issues, > >the type of class (e.g. science) or school (e.g. public high school) > >in which "Teach the Controversy" advocates want their approach > >implemented, or whether they also want students taught that life was > >"intelligently designed." Given that, let's examine what "Teach the > >Controversy" advocates, and their critics, "Evolution-Only" advocates, > >want students to learn, and see if there's any potential for > >censorship.
> I agree that "the controversy" SHOULD be taught ... though > maybe not quite the way you mean.
> This, and similar, controversies have been an integral feature > of western science since the 1500s. Scientists have been > threatened, some like Bruno were burnt at the stake (though > they SAID it wasn't because of his science). In any event, for > quite awhile science was almost an "underground" activity, > artfully evading the religious police.
> In short, "science" is MORE than just the study of the natural > world, it also has a POLITICAL dimension. This is part of the > HISTORY of science, an important part. Students should be made > aware of sciences history, its difficulties and the brave and > dedicated scientists who kept at the task even when faced with > censorship, threats, ostracism, excommunication or death.
> Hey, not OUR fault that the HRCC built so much doctrine around > shakey 'facts' ...
> Of course if you REALLY hate 'ID' you can put it up side by > side, fact by fact, against evolution ... and watch it melt > to nothing in mere seconds. 'ID' is a 'hothouse' idea which > can only survive in a warm, dark environment (usually with > a pointy steeple on top). Bring it out into the cold light > of reality and it perishes.
To you and me ID can "melt away in mere seconds." But given how cleverly ID misrepresents evolution and exploits many "sound bite" misconceptions that the media and pop culture have drummed into students before high school, and will continue to do so long after their last biology course, most students will need much more than seconds to counter it.
Fortunately, contrary to the myth that IMO defenders of evolution do precious little to dispel, the "evolution-only" advocates give students greater opportunities than anti-evolution activists to learn the whole story. Compare how the TO archive generously gives easy access (~2 clicks from the home page) to all the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions and strategies, while most anti- evolution sites try very hard to make it look like theirs is the only anti-evolution position.
On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:27:13 -0600, Jim Lovejoy wrote: > > You mean that the argument isn't between scientists, since almost all > > scientists agree that the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution, but > > between science, and a very small subset of religion?
> the problem is that children are introduced to the debate in a > non-educational environment, we don't have a small subset of people that > believe or claim to believe in religion, we have a plethora, I think the > children should be introduced to the issue and allowed to debate it > themselves
Does that also apply, for instance, to history or mathematics? For instance, can kids debate among themselves whether blacks were kept as slaves or whether or not the Holocaust happened.
The reason kids are in school is because they don't yet possess sufficient knowledge or capacity to weight divergent claims. By feeding them manure with reality without the tools to see the difference, you simply invite chaotic thinking.
I think children should be taught science, plain and simple. They should be introduced to the scientific method, as a good background, and then from there introduced to major theories. But throwing in B.S. like Creationism and lying to them by telling them that it is equivalent to biological evolution will not get the desired result; namely adults with at least the basic understanding of science, but rather pig-ignorant morons who can't differentiate between a valid and ludicrous claim.
On Feb 14, 1:19 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:17:46 -0800, Frank J wrote: > > 1. Teaching a phony "critical analysis" that misrepresents important > > points that have been taught, and likely causes other important points > > not to be taught?
> I don't believe in a phony analysis, or some foot in the door for > religion, but I think it is a good idea for people to know what the > argument is about
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:27:13 -0600, Jim Lovejoy wrote:
>> You mean that the argument isn't between scientists, since almost all >> scientists agree that the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution, >> but between science, and a very small subset of religion?
> the problem is that children are introduced to the debate in a > non-educational environment, we don't have a small subset of people > that believe or claim to believe in religion, we have a plethora, I > think the children should be introduced to the issue and allowed to > debate it themselves
You can't "introduce" ANYONE, let alone children, to any complex topic and expect them to "debate it themselves" -- they just won't KNOW enough.
You might as well show those same kids a fifteen-minute film on, I dunno, quantum mechanics, and a fifteen-minute film on classical ideas of atomic structure, and say, "now, debate among yourselves".
It's true, the kernel of evolution is extraordinarily simple - with a bag and some different-colored beans you can demonstrate it in five minutes, even to undergraduates, who are notoriously thick - "evolution" as explanatory power is a complicated idea, and if you only give the kids the straw horse the ID people want in the classroom, then the ID stuff which is otherwise obviously ridiculous may not look so obviously ridiculous.
Some subjects in schools should be subject to discussion and debate. Some, however, simply have to be taught, like math and science. There may be discussion about the beauty or lack thereof in Emily Dickinson's poetry, but there's no discussion about whether d/dx of x^2 is 2x: it simply is. This application of po-mo relativity from people who obviously haven't had a po-mo thought in their lives flabbergasts me.
On Feb 14, 4:06 pm, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are scientific controversies, but they are not the same as the > misrepresentations, and they don't threaten either the general theory > or the facts of common descent or a ~4 billion year history of life. > The blatant bait-and-switch of the 2 controversies by anti-evolution > activists is "effective censorship."
Not really. More, "lying like f*ck."
Scientists as a group norm not only believe that lying is wrong, they believe that being too lazy to check the facts or lying by selective suppression of the facts is _as wrong as_ direct lying. In a political argument, that's a huge disadvantage.
> On Feb 14, 1:19 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:17:46 -0800, Frank J wrote: > > > 1. Teaching a phony "critical analysis" that misrepresents important > > > points that have been taught, and likely causes other important points > > > not to be taught?
> > I don't believe in a phony analysis, or some foot in the door for > > religion, but I think it is a good idea for people to know what the > > argument is about
> The problem is that, in the scientific community, there is no > argument. The fundemental nature of the "controversy" is political.
. . . and partly religious, and partly moral, and partly cultural orientation, and very little science qua science. Thus as has often been argued it should be taught in social science classes. Thus the "controversy" is appropriately (at least in context) taught and all peripheral issues that surround the "controversy" can be discussed, debated, and then the student can see what values they wish to take from the lessons, hopefully learning how science approaches any phenomena (like the need for measurable and reliable data) and others think about the "controversy."
>On Feb 14, 4:57 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: >> On 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching >> >biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting >> >censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
>> >To make it simple, this analysis will disregard church-state issues, >> >the type of class (e.g. science) or school (e.g. public high school) >> >in which "Teach the Controversy" advocates want their approach >> >implemented, or whether they also want students taught that life was >> >"intelligently designed." Given that, let's examine what "Teach the >> >Controversy" advocates, and their critics, "Evolution-Only" advocates, >> >want students to learn, and see if there's any potential for >> >censorship.
>> I agree that "the controversy" SHOULD be taught ... though >> maybe not quite the way you mean.
>> This, and similar, controversies have been an integral feature >> of western science since the 1500s. Scientists have been >> threatened, some like Bruno were burnt at the stake (though >> they SAID it wasn't because of his science). In any event, for >> quite awhile science was almost an "underground" activity, >> artfully evading the religious police.
>> In short, "science" is MORE than just the study of the natural >> world, it also has a POLITICAL dimension. This is part of the >> HISTORY of science, an important part. Students should be made >> aware of sciences history, its difficulties and the brave and >> dedicated scientists who kept at the task even when faced with >> censorship, threats, ostracism, excommunication or death.
>> Hey, not OUR fault that the HRCC built so much doctrine around >> shakey 'facts' ...
>> Of course if you REALLY hate 'ID' you can put it up side by >> side, fact by fact, against evolution ... and watch it melt >> to nothing in mere seconds. 'ID' is a 'hothouse' idea which >> can only survive in a warm, dark environment (usually with >> a pointy steeple on top). Bring it out into the cold light >> of reality and it perishes.
>To you and me ID can "melt away in mere seconds." But given how >cleverly ID misrepresents evolution and exploits many "sound bite" >misconceptions that the media and pop culture have drummed into >students before high school, and will continue to do so long after >their last biology course, most students will need much more than >seconds to counter it.
This is one reason I advocate actually bringing the 'ID' issue into the science classrooms - so it can BE exposed, so ENOUGH minutes can be dedicated to at least put a hint of doubt about the doctrine in the students minds.
The difference between an ID fanatic and someone who is willing to consider alternatives is "doubt" ... the fanatic has none and will never be dissuaded. We have to catch them BEFORE they're full-blown fanatics, put ID and evolution up side by side, bear with some of the stupid questions and attempts at preaching and MAKE THE CASE for evolution. It's not hard to do. There's a mountain of multi-disciplinary evidence for evolution spanning centuries. ID ... nada.
>Fortunately, contrary to the myth that IMO defenders of evolution do >precious little to dispel, the "evolution-only" advocates give >students greater opportunities than anti-evolution activists to learn >the whole story. Compare how the TO archive generously gives easy >access (~2 clicks from the home page) to all the mutually >contradictory anti-evolution positions and strategies, while most anti- >evolution sites try very hard to make it look like theirs is the only >anti-evolution position.
Yep - they work hard to hide the truth ... even anything that might cause doubt in 'ID'. They - the nominal leaders of this - KNOW they can't hold a candle to evolution. After all, they're really trying to sell their RELIGION and 'ID' is just a handy tool they've invented to facilitate that endeavour. This is why 'ID' really NEEDS to be exposed to the harsh flourescent light of the science classroom, to undermine their monopoly on the subject and bend the 'tool' until it breaks.
And yes ... this DOES have something to do with "science" because, as I said, "science" also has historical and political dimensions (like it or not). Indeed, as so much science depends fully or in part on government funding it's imperative to make an effort to counteract the influence of the 'ID' proponents.
Remember how the current administration decided to appease the "world flood" people by censoring park rangers at the Grand Canyon, even yanking science-based literature describing the geology and chronology of the canyon ? If the 'ID' faction ever gains enough influence it will attempt to do on the large scale what it does on its web sites ... suppress all evidence that tends to contradict it's beliefs. Done at the government level that means censorship, lost jobs, no grants, even blacklisting of those who won't "go along" with the new "truths".
So, scientists should take care of politics so politics will take care of science. The ivory towers end at the edge of the campus. Beyond that it's the harsh landscape of the real world where money and politics and propaganda all COUNT.
On Feb 15, 5:02 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 4:06 pm, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > There are scientific controversies, but they are not the same as the > > misrepresentations, and they don't threaten either the general theory > > or the facts of common descent or a ~4 billion year history of life. > > The blatant bait-and-switch of the 2 controversies by anti-evolution > > activists is "effective censorship."
> Not really. More, "lying like f*ck."
> Scientists as a group norm not only believe that lying is wrong, they > believe that being too lazy to check the facts or lying by selective > suppression of the facts is _as wrong as_ direct lying. In a political > argument, that's a huge disadvantage.
Excellent!
If only the public can hear more of that, and less of the "sneaking in God" whining that can only make them more sympathetic to anti- evolution scams. But even then, given how the public hates science and loves pseudoscience, it still mostly a "catch-22."
Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote in news:a- ydnW9DVPypd07YnZ2dnUVZ_hWdn...@comcast.com:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:27:13 -0600, Jim Lovejoy wrote:
>> You mean that the argument isn't between scientists, since almost all >> scientists agree that the evidence overwhelmingly favors evolution, but >> between science, and a very small subset of religion?
> the problem is that children are introduced to the debate in a > non-educational environment, we don't have a small subset of people that > believe or claim to believe in religion, we have a plethora,
But my point is that only a small subset of the religions have, as an article of faith, a problem with evolution.
> I think the > children should be introduced to the issue and allowed to debate it > themselves
Does that apply to any moderately complex subject?
And should the introduction include equal time to people who want distort the subject for their own profit?
"Following the anti-drug message, is a rebuttal from your neighborhood pusher."
"The spokesman for Philip Morris will now rebut the idea that smoking causes cancer."
"This section of elementary astronomy is brought to you by the geocentrists"
"The next reading for the class is _Pasteur on Trial_ which will show the fallacy of the idea that disease is caused by microbes, and call for a return to the traditional notion, that evil spirits cause disease."
If you agree with the above suggestions, please present arguments that learning will *not* be incredibly slowed by having people have to sort out which arguments are accurate, and which are lies.
> On 15 Feb 2007 13:33:41 -0800, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 14, 4:57 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote: > >> On 13 Feb 2007 16:20:36 -0800, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching > >> >biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting > >> >censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
> >> >To make it simple, this analysis will disregard church-state issues, > >> >the type of class (e.g. science) or school (e.g. public high school) > >> >in which "Teach the Controversy" advocates want their approach > >> >implemented, or whether they also want students taught that life was > >> >"intelligently designed." Given that, let's examine what "Teach the > >> >Controversy" advocates, and their critics, "Evolution-Only" advocates, > >> >want students to learn, and see if there's any potential for > >> >censorship.
> >> I agree that "the controversy" SHOULD be taught ... though > >> maybe not quite the way you mean.
> >> This, and similar, controversies have been an integral feature > >> of western science since the 1500s. Scientists have been > >> threatened, some like Bruno were burnt at the stake (though > >> they SAID it wasn't because of his science). In any event, for > >> quite awhile science was almost an "underground" activity, > >> artfully evading the religious police.
> >> In short, "science" is MORE than just the study of the natural > >> world, it also has a POLITICAL dimension. This is part of the > >> HISTORY of science, an important part. Students should be made > >> aware of sciences history, its difficulties and the brave and > >> dedicated scientists who kept at the task even when faced with > >> censorship, threats, ostracism, excommunication or death.
> >> Hey, not OUR fault that the HRCC built so much doctrine around > >> shakey 'facts' ...
> >> Of course if you REALLY hate 'ID' you can put it up side by > >> side, fact by fact, against evolution ... and watch it melt > >> to nothing in mere seconds. 'ID' is a 'hothouse' idea which > >> can only survive in a warm, dark environment (usually with > >> a pointy steeple on top). Bring it out into the cold light > >> of reality and it perishes.
> >To you and me ID can "melt away in mere seconds." But given how > >cleverly ID misrepresents evolution and exploits many "sound bite" > >misconceptions that the media and pop culture have drummed into > >students before high school, and will continue to do so long after > >their last biology course, most students will need much more than > >seconds to counter it.
> This is one reason I advocate actually bringing the 'ID' > issue into the science classrooms - so it can BE exposed, > so ENOUGH minutes can be dedicated to at least put a hint > of doubt about the doctrine in the students minds.
My guess is that would require so much more science class time devoted to that topic, that it will never happen, and IDers know it. In most cases their sound-bites will replace important subject matter. Why not a separate class, where CAP and RCAP can be compared - without the Textbook, which would only give an anti-evolution teacher more opportunity to change the subject? There too, in most cases it's a practical problem, as few schools will cut back on other subjects to allow it. In a way all that is moot, because students are free to learn the "debate" on their own time.
> The difference between an ID fanatic and someone who is willing > to consider alternatives is "doubt" ... the fanatic has none > and will never be dissuaded. We have to catch them BEFORE > they're full-blown fanatics, put ID and evolution up side > by side, bear with some of the stupid questions and attempts > at preaching and MAKE THE CASE for evolution. It's not hard > to do. There's a mountain of multi-disciplinary evidence > for evolution spanning centuries. ID ... nada.
That was my position ~10 years ago, when I only saw it as "evolution v. YEC," whereby the evidence neatly dispels YEC. But IDers know that too. Nowadays, the scam is not about what evidence is there, but how to *spin* it. IDers don't care if students conclude YEC, OEC or even "virtual evolution," only that they believe "Darwinism" is wrong, and - and this is important - agree that mainstream science is involved in a conspiracy to promote "Darwinism" (or "naturalism") despite damning evidence to the contrary.
> >Fortunately, contrary to the myth that IMO defenders of evolution do > >precious little to dispel, the "evolution-only" advocates give > >students greater opportunities than anti-evolution activists to learn > >the whole story. Compare how the TO archive generously gives easy > >access (~2 clicks from the home page) to all the mutually > >contradictory anti-evolution positions and strategies, while most anti- > >evolution sites try very hard to make it look like theirs is the only > >anti-evolution position.
> Yep - they work hard to hide the truth ... even anything > that might cause doubt in 'ID'. They - the nominal leaders > of this - KNOW they can't hold a candle to evolution. After > all, they're really trying to sell their RELIGION and 'ID' > is just a handy tool they've invented to facilitate that > endeavour. This is why 'ID' really NEEDS to be exposed to > the harsh flourescent light of the science classroom, to > undermine their monopoly on the subject and bend the 'tool' > until it breaks.
> And yes ... this DOES have something to do with "science" > because, as I said, "science" also has historical and > political dimensions (like it or not). Indeed, as so much > science depends fully or in part on government funding > it's imperative to make an effort to counteract the > influence of the 'ID' proponents.
> Remember how the current administration decided to appease > the "world flood" people by censoring park rangers at the > Grand Canyon, even yanking science-based literature describing > the geology and chronology of the canyon ?
I don't doubt that, but do you have a reference? Do you mean the Bush "administration" or the National Park Service? I only recall (wrongly?) that they were recommended (ordered?) to give "equal time," not to omit anything. But if so, I stand corrected, and have more evidence of censorship by anti-evoluion activists.
> If the 'ID' faction > ever gains enough influence it will attempt to do on the large > scale what it does on its web sites ... suppress all evidence > that tends to contradict it's beliefs.
Not to defend ID by any means, but they don't really try to suppress *evidence*, but only the context that gives it the proper meaning. That's actually worse, because it's harder to show deliberate intent. As scam artists, IDers are far slicker than YECs.
> Done at the government > level that means censorship, lost jobs, no grants, even > blacklisting of those who won't "go along" with the new "truths".
> So, scientists should take care of politics so politics will > take care of science. The ivory towers end at the edge of the > campus. Beyond that it's the harsh landscape of the real world > where money and politics and propaganda all COUNT.
> Like it or not.
Don't like it, but I agree that it's necessary for scientists to play politics. And it is especially urgent for conservative and theistic scientists to counteract the "evolution is for secular liberals" propaganda.
On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Those who advocate the "Teach the Controversy" approach to teaching > biological evolution often accuse their critics of promoting > censorship. Let's see if that claim has any merit.
> To make it simple, this analysis will disregard church-state issues,
To make it simpler, there is no _scientific_ controversy over why evolution is good science -- essential science -- and belongs in a public school science class, and why so-called "intelligent design theory" isn't, and doesn't. The proper target for "teaching the controversy" is not public school students; it's their parents and, unfortunately in some school districts, the officials those parents put in office.
|
