"Should "intelligent design" be taught in schools? I say absolutely." -- Joseph Meert, asst. prof., geological sciences, U. Florida
Dylan
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051121column.php
Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense every time.
Cyde Weys
Nice column! Your subject was a bit misleading though. For posterity,
here is the article text ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Intelligent design' equal to giving up
By JOSEPH MEERT
Speaking Out
Should "intelligent design" be taught in schools? I say absolutely. It
is an excellent topic for discussion in philosophy class or in a
comparative mythology class.
Why does it not belong in a science class? "Intelligent design" is not
science. It does not behave like science, and it does not produce like
science. "Intelligent design" is a movement aimed at social and
political reform hiding under the guise of science. The motivations of
the "intelligent design" movement are clearly religious, and these
religious implications were laid bare at the recent Scopes II trial in
Dover, Pa., and in documents distributed by the "intelligent design"
movement. "Intelligent design" found a loophole in the 1987 Edwards v.
Aguillard Supreme Court decision that struck down the teaching of
creationism. They now want to use that loophole to insert a
theocratically based social-reform agenda through a back door.
I find it equally amazing that 100 scientists were found who were
"skeptical of the claims of random mutation and natural selection." How
many of those 100 scientists have published their "problems"? Zero.
There are few, if any, peer-reviewed articles on "intelligent design."
I'm also willing to bet that every single one of the 100 scientists has
benefited directly from studies of evolutionary biology. I'm willing to
bet they are healthy and able to sign the document because they have
been treated with newer strains of antibiotics developed to keep ahead
of the random mutations and natural selective processes that created
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
So what does "intelligent design" offer? Not much. The conclusion of
"intelligent-design scientists" is that if something looks complex,
then it could not have arisen by natural means and therefore an
"intelligent designer" is responsible. That boils down to: "Hey, I'm a
smart scientist, and if I cannot figure out how this might have
evolved, than there really is only one 'thing' smarter than me, so God
did it."
Supporters make the claim that the blood-clotting cascade is
"irreducibly complex" and therefore must have been designed. If we
accept this conclusion, what fruit does it bear? How does the
hemophiliac benefit from this knowledge? "Intelligent design," for all
its hyperbole, is really about giving up. Scientists do not give up
when faced with a seemingly insolvable problem.
Good science does not move forward via political lobbying. Einstein did
not insist that relativity be taught in physics class. He argued his
case before his peers through scientific publication and through
scientific presentations to those peers. He provided testable
hypotheses, and when those hypotheses were confirmed by experimentation
and observation, his ideas made it into high school physics textbooks.
Einstein did not take out a large advertisement in The New York Times
stating, "We the undersigned have serious problems with Newtonian
gravity." He did not hire a lawyer to have relativity inserted in high
school textbooks. He did not insist on a disclaimer in textbooks that
said, "Newtonian gravity is a controversial theory."
I would also like to add that signing a document is a fallacious
argument called "appeal to authority." A counter-example meant to
demonstrate the illogical nature of this argument was conducted by the
National Center for Science Education. Its "Project Steve" asked for
signatures by scientists named Steve who find the evidence for
evolution compelling. So far, more than 650 scientists named Steve have
signed the document. If appeals to authority are compelling, then
evolution leads "intelligent design" by a 6.5 to 1 margin using only
scientists named Steve!
Lastly, the teaching of "intelligent design" may be illegal. The test
case in Dover is likely to provide a first test for the legality of
teaching "intelligent design" in classrooms. I predict that no matter
which way the decision goes in this case, the movement will continue
lobbying pressure and will continue to fail at producing fruitful
scientific evidence for its claims.
Joseph Meert is an assistant professor in the Department of Geological
Sciences.
Dave
"Should "intelligent design" be taught in schools? I say absolutely. It
is an
excellent topic for discussion in philosophy class or in a comparative
mythology
class."
Yes, except that isn't going to accomplish what is actually desired,
which is to obstruct and interfere with the teaching of naturalistic
evolution.
Frank J
Although it's still a well-kept secret, virtually every critic of
creationism/ID *does* want students to learn about those strategies
*and how they fail as science*. Many critics, like Meert, have no
problem with discussing creationism/ID in public schools. And even
those who do not are nevertheless quick to defend a student's right to
learn about creationism/ID in any non-taxpayer-supported forum. With
unprecedented web access and media exposure, the misinformation
promoted by anti-evolution activists is so hard to miss these days that
it's a wonder why anyone even bothers trying to force it into public
school science class. Unless of course they specifically want to
misrepresent evolution.
Dylan
Cyde Weys wrote:
> Dylan wrote:
> > Read him at:
> >
> > http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051121column.php
>
> Nice column! Your subject was a bit misleading though.
Did I "mislead" you to a falsehood? Or to the truth? --Dylan
> For posterity,
> here is the article text ...
. . . .
er...@swva.net
Meerts is evidently unaware that many of the scientists who signed the
statement saying they are skeptical of random mutaion and natural
selection being entirely satisfactory for explaining the development of
life were, in effect, tricked. Many of them signed it because of
reasonable scientific consideration of other factors in evolution, such
as drift and sexual selection, but did not know that their innocent
reservations where being touted as "see, even evolutionists themselves
doubt evolution."
explainer
"Both (ID and evolution) should be appropriately taught."
He didn't say ID was science. He said "appropriately" and I agree. If
we can teach the Hopi creation story (how we are now living in the
fourth world) in mythology, why not include ID as well?
CreateThis
> ... If
> we can teach the Hopi creation story (how we are now living in the
> fourth world) in mythology, why not include ID as well?
Because it isn't anything. It's a scarecrow stuffed with recycled
Christian theology that denies itself. I'd rather explore the ramblings
of street crack heads - they're more likely to have content.
CT
Beautiful and Damned
Evolution should be appropriately taught as truth (the best
approximation thereof).
Seriously, though, one could, I suppose, present ID and debunk it as
phooey, as an example of non-science in order to make the
characteristics of good science more salient. (The problem with this
is that ID might seem more plausible to the average mind than
evilution, that is to say, to the weak, deceived, and
desiring-to-be-deceived mind.)
Sure, we can have ID presented to students--in a Religion class.
gregwrld
I've asked this question before: What percentage of high-school
biology teachers could be counted on to teach critical thinking by
focusing on ID? Would they see this as an opportunity to take the time
to teach evo more thoroughly?
Dylan
PIty the high-school science teachers. They're having a tough enough
time trying to teach anti-evolution-creationist-infected students
BIOLOGY. Now they're expected to teach the philosophy of science and
how the philosophy of science excludes ID from the realm of science!
--Dylan
Beautiful and Damned
education system evolves into emphasizing critical thinking rather than
memorization of theories as facts determined by the scientific elite.
There seems to be a contradiction in some of the discussion I read:
the scientists argue that their view only should be put forward (since
scientific truth is determined by agreement among the elite, that is to
say, by the group cohesion of nerdlings) and yet critical thinking
should also be advanced at the same time. How do we teach critical
thinking without providing something worth criticizing?
Dylan
Let the biology teachers continue to teach biology, and -- since
there is a demand -- add another course to the curricula: critical
thinking (CT), which comes under the umbrella of philosophy, not
science per se. And make it a REQUIRED course, since CT is needed not
only in science but also in most other realms of human intellectual
endeavor: history, literature, creative writing, journalism, political
science, ....
Andrew
teacher get hit by a question about Evolution.
In early September, I stopped by to visit my High School Bio teacher.
I try to make a trip back to see him once a year, largely because he
was the man who inspired me to pursue science as a career. It has been
almost seven years since I graduated, but he's still teaching the same
course. I make it a point when I come to sit at one of the lab benches
in the back of the classroom to sit in on one of his lectures; just for
old time's sake, I suppose.
At any rate, he was starting evolution that day (he has some leeway as
to the order in which he covers the material; he usually puts evolution
near the beginning since, as Dobzhanski put it "Nothing in biology
makes sense, except in the light of evolution."). So, as he began into
his lecture; starting with some of the history behind it, one student
(clearly in a somewhat confrontational mood) pointed out that the
evolution was "just a theory."
I spent four years completing an undergraduate degree in physics, I'm
now within eight months of completing a PhD. in Biophysics. So when I
say that in the five minutes that followed, I witnessed the single best
explanation of what a scientific theory entails that I have ever seen;
I want you to understand my full meaning. I wish I'd been taking
notes, because the lecture was simply brilliant; so what follows is
largely me paraphrasing him from my (admittedly somewhat sketchy)
memory of the event.
First, he made sure that he had the class' attention: "what I'm going
to tell you in the next few minutes is the single most important thing
you will learn in this year in *any* of your science courses."
"Your classmate has just pointed out that evolution is just a theory.
He is absolutely, 100% correct. This begs the question: what, exactly,
is a theory? When I'm talking about science, and I talk about a
scientific theory, does that mean that I'm not sure that it's right?"
The class was silent.
"Tell you what, we'll come back to that one. Okay, let's look at
something that you might be a little more familiar with: gravity.
Gravity is a theory. Now, show of hands; how many of you are about to
start gluing your feet to the floor?"
Nobody raised their hands.
He turned around and started writing on the board. "Any science;
whether we're talking physics, biology or chemistry; is trying to
answer two questions: 1) What happens?" He wrote it down on the
blackboard behind him, "and 2) how does it happen?"
"Okay, show of hands: does anybody doubt that gravity exists?"
Again, nobody raised their hands.
He removed his left shoe and held it out at an arm's length (I remember
that he seemed to find a reason to remove one of his shoes in each of
his lectures; he said it makes the students pay attention), "if I let
go of this shoe, how many of you think that it won't fall?"
Nobody raised their hands.
He dropped the shoe, and continued in one socked foot. He's a little
quirky that way. "We see evidence of gravity all the time. Planets in
their orbits, people sticking to the ground instead of flying off into
space; dropped shoes hitting the ground; gravity literally holds the
world together. I think it's fair to say that we have 'what happens'
pretty well worked out, don't we?"
Murmers of agreement went through the class.
"So, here's the $64,000 question: if we're so sure that we know what is
happening with gravity, if we're so sure we know what gravity does; why
is it just a theory?"
For a moment, the class was silent.
"You don't have to raise your hands, just shout out whatever comes to
mind."
One girl in the front row piped up: "we don't know how it happens."
"Exactly," the teacher agreed, "now, let's bring this back to
evolution. Evolution is possibly the single most-supported theory in
biology. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it. The
evidence for evolution is every bit as solid as the evidence for
gravity. So why are we still calling it a theory?"
"Because we don't know how it happens?" It was someone different this
time; it may even have been the student who asked the original
question; but I couldn't tell for sure. It was either him or someone
sitting close to him.
"Exactly. What a scientific theory is is the explanation which fits
all observable facts. If you perform an experiment which contradicts
your theory, the theory is changed to explain this new data. The
theory of evolution has been changed and added to countless times since
Darwin first proposed it; it will be changed and added to countless
times in the future, the day may come when many of Darwin's ideas will
be seen as absurd by the scientific community; but at this moment, the
theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains all the
observable data we have in our hands right now."
"Is evolution a theory? Absolutely. Does this mean that we're not
sure that it's true? Absolutely not."
That, in my humble opinion, is how you address challenges to evolution.
With a little luck, students might actually learn something.
--Drew
Dylan
Andrew wrote:
> I was recently fortunate enough to witness a high school biology
> teacher get hit by a question about Evolution.
> That, in my humble opinion, is how you address challenges to evolution.
> With a little luck, students might actually learn something.
>
> --Drew
I should have been so lucky to have had such a teacher. Good luck to
you, Drew, in your career.
Beautiful and Damned
Let the biology teachers continue to teach biology, and -- since
there is a demand -- add another course to the curricula: critical
thinking (CT), which comes under the umbrella of philosophy, not
science per se
I think this would be a good idea but I would still like to include
theories worth criticizing in a science class as it illustrates the
process of science in its manifestation for that particular discipline.
For example, chemistry teachers often use phlogiston as an example of
a concept that was debunked by the scientific process; or they move
through the models of the atom (dalton->tompson->rutherford->bohr) not
to so much debunk older models as to show their use value and their
limitations. Doing show illustrates how chemistry came to be.
Nevertheless... One could do the same with the Theory of Evolution vs.
the older model of creation (held by reputable scientists, by the way)
and why the old model has been replaced by a much better one. The
problem is that this gets into very emotional and religious issues and
we need to be respectful of the beliefs held by students (and everyone:
athiests, agnostics, christians, pro-evolution creationists, etc....).
If someone believes in a six-day creation scenario, a teacher could
say:
"I'm not here to criticize your beliefs. Just learn the Theory of
Evolution to pass the test if you need to. I'll present reasons for
why it is plausible. And remember: it *is* only a theory, that is to
say, the best explanation available (in my opinion) based, at bottom,
on the currently available facts (direct observations). The scientific
community, on the whole, shares this opinion but the scientific
community is not beyond censure for scientists themselves can dogmatic,
pig-headed, obstinate, haughty, and unimaginative. Nevertheless, the
theory is based not on personal intuition, enlightenment, etc.; those
belong in the realm of religion and that's a different way of believing
in things and that is perfectly OK."
(Obviously, humanity evolved to believe in God (or gods) and attacking
that belief would seem--inhumane.)
Dylan
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
> Dylan said:
> Let the biology teachers continue to teach biology, and -- since
> there is a demand -- add another course to the curricula: critical
> thinking (CT), which comes under the umbrella of philosophy, not
> science per se
>
> I think this would be a good idea but I would still like to include
> theories worth criticizing in a science class as it illustrates the
> process of science in its manifestation for that particular discipline.
> For example, chemistry teachers often use phlogiston as an example of
> a concept that was debunked by the scientific process; or they move
> through the models of the atom (dalton->tompson->rutherford->bohr) not
> to so much debunk older models as to show their use value and their
> limitations. Doing show illustrates how chemistry came to be.
>
>
> (Obviously, humanity evolved to believe in God (or gods) and attacking
> that belief would seem--inhumane.)
Concur, but would add that many science teachers (not just biology
teachers) already do what you are suggesting. Too many others, however,
are afraid or unable to. In my opinion we still need a full-fledged,
competently taught CT course geared to high-school freshmen. The
intrusion of ID into biology is just the first stage of this
social-educational disease. Soon it infects all the rest of science;
then English/world literature, history, journalism, law, political
science; then everything till our tax-payer-funded public school are
graduating nothing but Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells and whole
generations go to heck in a hammock. --Dylan
Beautiful and Damned
>social-educational disease. Soon it infects all the rest of science;
>then English/world literature, history, journalism, law, political
>science;
A slippery slope argument?
Is ID plausible to you in any manner?
Dylan
I'll answer the second question first.
"Plausible" derives from the Latin _plausibilis_ "worthy of applause"
and to us now means superficially fair but often specious,
superficially pleasing or persuasive. Example from Webster's 11th : "a
swindler ..., then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman."
After all of my reading and debating of ID in various fora, not just
those of the Internet, I have finally reached that conclusion, yes: ID
is superficially persuasive, but in the end, specious.
Now the first. A slippery slope argument? Yes, but only in part. There
is also a vast history of religion -- almost exclusively (in
America) though not quite via Christianity -- intruding into
public education and other government-imposed life situations (court
rulings, enforced church attendance, Salem witchcraft trials and
executions). So it's a "slippery slope plus" argument. It's like
saying, "Hey, last time people stepped off the snow-covered path on the
steep canyon side, they ended up 10,000 feet down on the bottom. Here,
look through these binoculars. See all the bones piled up?"
Have you been following the Dover ID trial?
Beautiful and Damned
[sic].
Given that you find ID "specious" rather than "plausible," how is it
that you hold to being "a pro-evolution creationist," or is this an
ironic statement? (Should I define "irony" before penning it?)
Though I am sometimes skeptical about the powers of human reason, I
feel that even if ID were taught in schools, the streets would not be
brimming with fire and pestilence, etc., etc.. We
believers-in-evolution need to become teachers and communicators, not
accusers nor name-callers if we want belief-in-evolution promoted. But
why promote any belief? --The weakness lies in that the masses are
largely ignorent of the process of science--and we shall enlighten
them! If they knew how science worked, then they would be more likely
to credit science. But how enlighten a 55 year old housewife to what
goes on in a biochemistry lab? So many would have to accept the theory
of evolution *on faith* (in science).
I haven't followed the Dover ID trial but should. However, in Canada
the whole creationism-intelligent design-irreducible complexity issue
is a non-issue and the population as a whole scorns anyone who believes
in a six day creation. Federal politicans have, some claim, lost
elections for holding to a six day creation period, that is, for
arriving at parliament saddled to a bridled dinosaur. O, we have our
fundamentalists, but they are fringyish.
(We are quite geologically aware since the West is fuelled by oil and
the East is steeled by nickel and iron.)
Dylan
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
> "Plausible" derives from this and that all the way back to Sanscrat
> [sic].
>
> Given that you find ID "specious" rather than "plausible,"
Not "rather than," plausible at first glance, specious upon thorough
examination.
> how is it
> that you hold to being "a pro-evolution creationist,"
I am a Christian. The Christian Scripture tells me that it was/is God
who created/creates, but not how, when nor where. Nature, discovered
through science, tells me that.
> or is this an
> ironic statement? (Should I define "irony" before penning it?)
Never a bad idea.
> Though I am sometimes skeptical about the powers of human reason, I
> feel that even if ID were taught in schools, the streets would not be
> brimming with fire and pestilence, etc., etc..
Societal transformations normally take longer than that to develop.
Have you ever heard of Bruno? Galileo? The suppression of Greek science
in the fourth and fifth centuries by "Christianized" Roman emperors
Constantine, Theodocisous, and (especially) Justinian (who shut down
Aristotle's Lyceum and Plato's Academy)?
> We
> believers-in-evolution need to become teachers and communicators, not
> accusers nor name-callers if we want belief-in-evolution promoted.
Why should I want BELIEF in evolution promoted? What does science have
to do with belief, save for belief in the scientific method?
> But
> why promote any belief? --The weakness lies in that the masses are
> largely ignorent of the process of science--and we shall enlighten
> them! If they knew how science worked, then they would be more likely
> to credit science. But how enlighten a 55 year old housewife to what
> goes on in a biochemistry lab? So many would have to accept the theory
> of evolution *on faith* (in science).
Even if that could be done -- inducing anyone to accept evolution
theory "on faith" in science -- I would oppose such efforts as just
as evil as the Fourth Century Christians who used the power of Roman
emperors to "induce" everyone in the Empire to accept literalistic
Creationism "on faith."
> I haven't followed the Dover ID trial but should. However, in Canada
> the whole creationism-intelligent design-irreducible complexity issue
> is a non-issue and the population as a whole scorns anyone who believes
> in a six day creation.
Hardly, in my opinion, a desirable solution for the U.S.
> elections for holding to a six day creation period, that is, for
> arriving at parliament saddled to a bridled dinosaur. O, we have our
> fundamentalists, but they are fringyish.
Why do you scorn them?
> (We are quite geologically aware since the West is fuelled by oil and
> the East is steeled by nickel and iron.)
Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense every time.
Beautiful and Damned
>examination.
Fine, fine, I dig it.
>I am a Christian. The Christian Scripture tells me that it was/is God
>who created/creates, but not how, when nor where. Nature, discovered
>through science, tells me that.
What the Devil?? Then you *do* believe in ID. Or is your God
unintelligent; or intelligent and yet undesigning (a gambler)? This I
dig not.
> Though I am sometimes skeptical about the powers of human reason, I
> feel that even if ID were taught in schools, the streets would not be
> brimming with fire and pestilence, etc., etc..
>Societal transformations normally take longer than that to develop.
>Have you ever heard of Bruno? Galileo? The suppression of Greek science
>in the fourth and fifth centuries by "Christianized" Roman emperors
>Constantine, Theodocisous, and (especially) Justinian (who shut down
>Aristotle's Lyceum and Plato's Academy)?
I'm less religious than most; _consequently_ I'm not prone to
apocalyptic statements.
>Why should I want BELIEF in evolution promoted? What does science have
>to do with belief, save for belief in the scientific method?
How can you not BELIEVE in evolution and yet be pro-evolution? If you
don't BELIEVE in evolution what do you do in it?
>Even if that could be done -- inducing anyone to accept evolution
>theory "on faith" in science -- I would oppose such efforts as just
>as evil as the Fourth Century Christians who used the power of Roman
>emperors to "induce" everyone in the Empire to accept literalistic
>Creationism "on faith."
Well, no one can fully comprehend every subtlety of every scientific
theory and yet they do believe them to be true. Could the average mind
prove on a supervised test that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the
reverse to a high level of rigour? And yet everyone BELIEVES in this
and it is desirable that they do so. We teach all sorts of things to
kids they have no way of proving using their available reasoning power.
They believe on faith in the big people.
>Why do you scorn them?
I'm just making humour.
Dylan
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
> >Not "rather than," plausible at first glance, specious upon thorough
> >examination.
>
> Fine, fine, I dig it.
>
> >I am a Christian. The Christian Scripture tells me that it was/is God
> >who created/creates, but not how, when nor where. Nature, discovered
> >through science, tells me that.
>
> What the Devil?? Then you *do* believe in ID. Or is your God
> unintelligent; or intelligent and yet undesigning (a gambler)? This I
> dig not.
I do not believe in ID. I do believe in God. Like Scripture, I never
try to prove God's existence. And also like Scripture, I simply assume
it. The God that I worship exists far far beyond any possible human
conception of what is unintelligent or intelligent. God cannot be known
on such a mundane "scientific" level. God can only be known through
faith alone. Likewise, God exists far far beyond any human idea of what
is designing or undesigning. To assert that God must be either a
gambler or a non-gambler is asserting sheerest nonsense. God is
Ultimate Mystery to be known only through faith alone.
> > Though I am sometimes skeptical about the powers of human reason, I
> > feel that even if ID were taught in schools, the streets would not be
> > brimming with fire and pestilence, etc., etc..
>
>
> >Societal transformations normally take longer than that to develop.
> >Have you ever heard of Bruno? Galileo? The suppression of Greek science
> >in the fourth and fifth centuries by "Christianized" Roman emperors
> >Constantine, Theodocisous, and (especially) Justinian (who shut down
> >Aristotle's Lyceum and Plato's Academy)?
>
> I'm less religious than most; _consequently_ I'm not prone to
> apocalyptic statements.
That does not appear to me to be an answer to my questions above.
> >Why should I want BELIEF in evolution promoted? What does science have
> >to do with belief, save for belief in the scientific method?
>
> How can you not BELIEVE in evolution and yet be pro-evolution? If you
> don't BELIEVE in evolution what do you do in it?
I do not believe in evolution. I believe in God. I accept evolution on
the basis of evidence, yet that acceptance is always contingent upon
the evidence. If new evidence in the form of facts comes in that
overturns it, I am therefore free to discard the theory and accept its
replacement, but only if that replacement explains the facts better.
The same approach is not true of God. I accept God on the basis of
faith alone. Upon what is my faith grounded? Upon my personal religious
(numinous) experience of God informed by Scripture.
> >Even if that could be done -- inducing anyone to accept evolution
> >theory "on faith" in science -- I would oppose such efforts as just
> >as evil as the Fourth Century Christians who used the power of Roman
> >emperors to "induce" everyone in the Empire to accept literalistic
> >Creationism "on faith."
>
> Well, no one can fully comprehend every subtlety of every scientific
> theory and yet they do believe them to be true. Could the average mind
> prove on a supervised test that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the
> reverse to a high level of rigour? And yet everyone BELIEVES in this
> and it is desirable that they do so. We teach all sorts of things to
> kids they have no way of proving using their available reasoning power.
> They believe on faith in the big people.
I think there is some truth in what you say, but I don't fully agree.
People today, even grade school students are capable of understanding
the facts that have been explained by the theory that the earth orbits
the sun and not vice versa. The "high level of rigour" is relatively
unimportant to the issue we are discussing here. For instance, the
child can learn about parallax. The child can look at astronomical
photographs of a nearby star very close (in terms of seconds of minutes
of degrees of arc) to a faraway background star. One photograph is
taken on January 1. Six months later, on July 1, the other photo is
taken. During that six months period, earth has traveled from one side
of the sun to the other, 180 degrees of its orbit. The child can
compare the two photos and see that the nearby star has "parallax
shifted" from one side of the background star to the other. In this way
the bright child can know, without even measurement or math, that it
was the earth that moved and not the sun. Once the child understands
this, it is a piece of cake for her/him to explain it in an essay or on
a test. The child does not have to believe this on faith in the big
people. The child sees for her/himself. The child understands. The
child learns. The child explains. The child even teaches other
children.
Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense every time.
> >Why do you scorn them?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I do not believe in evolution. I believe in God. I accept evolution on
> the basis of evidence, yet that acceptance is always contingent upon
> the evidence. If new evidence in the form of facts comes in that
> overturns it, I am therefore free to discard the theory and accept its
> replacement, but only if that replacement explains the facts better.
> The same approach is not true of God. I accept God on the basis of
> faith alone. Upon what is my faith grounded? Upon my personal religious
> (numinous) experience of God informed by Scripture.
In short you believe in fairy tales.
I too believe in God. I further believe hates the human race and will do
nothing to stop the evil we do to ourselves. Call it Tough Love, if you
feel like. I know God hate the human race. Just look at the design of
the lower back. Prayer is futile. Go to a chiropractor before you go to
a priest.
Bob Kolker
Rodjk #613
Andrew wrote:
> I was recently fortunate enough to witness a high school biology
> teacher get hit by a question about Evolution.
>
> In early September, I stopped by to visit my High School Bio teacher.
> I try to make a trip back to see him once a year, largely because he
> was the man who inspired me to pursue science as a career. It has been
> almost seven years since I graduated, but he's still teaching the same
> course. I make it a point when I come to sit at one of the lab benches
> in the back of the classroom to sit in on one of his lectures; just for
> old time's sake, I suppose.
>
> At any rate, he was starting evolution that day (he has some leeway as
> to the order in which he covers the material; he usually puts evolution
> near the beginning since, as Dobzhanski put it "Nothing in biology
> makes sense, except in the light of evolution."). So, as he began into
> his lecture; starting with some of the history behind it, one student
> (clearly in a somewhat confrontational mood) pointed out that the
> evolution was "just a theory."
I would like to nominate this for POTM.
An excellent science teacher is something to remember...
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
Andrew wrote:
> I was recently fortunate enough to witness a high school biology
> teacher get hit by a question about Evolution.
>
> In early September, I stopped by to visit my High School Bio teacher.
> I try to make a trip back to see him once a year, largely because he
> was the man who inspired me to pursue science as a career. It has been
> almost seven years since I graduated, but he's still teaching the same
> course. I make it a point when I come to sit at one of the lab benches
> in the back of the classroom to sit in on one of his lectures; just for
> old time's sake, I suppose.
>
> At any rate, he was starting evolution that day (he has some leeway as
> to the order in which he covers the material; he usually puts evolution
> near the beginning since, as Dobzhanski put it "Nothing in biology
> makes sense, except in the light of evolution."). So, as he began into
> his lecture; starting with some of the history behind it, one student
> (clearly in a somewhat confrontational mood) pointed out that the
> evolution was "just a theory."
<SNIP>
an...@sci.sci
> up. Scientists do not give up when faced with a seemingly insolvable
> problem.
Hey, you probably all saw TV coverage of that junior congresslady who
shot herself in the foot by claiming that a 37-yr veteran of the Marine
Corps is a coward because he wants to quit the war in Iraq? She was
wrong about that, but her kind of attack would be "right on" in regard
to ID. Can we get her on our side in the active debate? IDiots are
cowards who just want to give up all attempts to understand nature,
just say "goddiddit" and be done with the question of why nature has
some particular feature.
OT: Bush impressed me when he retracted his first response and now says
the veteran is not a coward, he's a fine man, and we just disagree on
the issues, and debate about issues is a good thing. Bush seems capable
of learning from his mistakes, and maybe in ten or twenty years time
he'll be wise enough to make a decent administrator, such as mayor of a
small town, and maybe in another fifty years he'll be wise enough to
administer a large state such as Texas, or even become President except
he already (prematurely) blew his wad on that.
> Einstein ... did not insist on a disclaimer in textbooks that said,
> "Newtonian gravity is a controversial theory."
Indeed, that's a fine comparison between ID and true science.
I hope the lawyers in Kansas will bring up this way of looking at it.
.
Zachriel
"Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132731788.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here's the entire post:
http://tinyurl.com/argqm
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Frank J
Seconded.
Dylan
God is love and in him there is no darkness at all. --Dylan
Dylan
an...@sci.sci wrote:
> > "Intelligent design," for all its hyperbole, is really about giving
> > up. Scientists do not give up when faced with a seemingly insolvable
> > problem.
>
> Hey, you probably all saw TV coverage of that junior congresslady who
> shot herself in the foot by claiming that a 37-yr veteran of the Marine
> Corps is a coward because he wants to quit the war in Iraq? She was
> wrong about that, but her kind of attack would be "right on" in regard
> to ID. Can we get her on our side in the active debate? IDiots are
> cowards who just want to give up all attempts to understand nature,
> just say "goddiddit" and be done with the question of why nature has
> some particular feature.
>
> OT: Bush impressed me when he retracted his first response and now says
> the veteran is not a coward, he's a fine man,
Think that wasn't a strictly political political U-turn, eh? Think that
had something to do with repentance, eh? Would you be interested, by
any chance, in some prime ocean-front property in the middle of Kansas?
--Dylan
an...@sci.sci
> teaching the same course.
On first reading, that seemed to say that he's teaching the same
material, in the same manner, as when you took the course. But from
what you say later, it seems he's improved it by dealing with one
particular issue in a special way.
> as he began into his lecture; starting with some of the history
> behind it, one student (clearly in a somewhat confrontational mood)
> pointed out that the evolution was "just a theory." ...
> the five minutes that followed, I witnessed the single best
> explanation of what a scientific theory entails that I have ever seen;
Indeed, even your description of it is excellent, so the actual five
minutes in class must have been wonderful. It sounds like those
students are now immunized against "just a theory" BS.
I wonder if other teachers could adapt that method in their classes?
.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> God is love and in him there is no darkness at all. --Dylan
Bullshit. Suffering abounds. God is either negligent or a fuck-wit. And
if you believe your Christian nonsense He is also a child-abuser. First
he fucks a Hebrew maiden (Miriam-Mary) then he sees to it that his Son
is tortured. Some parent that is!
Bob Kolker
>
Dylan
while he is near: 7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous
man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have
mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith
the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my
ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Dylan
shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that
thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest,
If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou
greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are
dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself,
my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye
say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him:
and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you:
but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to
see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto
him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham
was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid
himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them,
and so passed by.
Robert J. Kolker
Heed the word of the Lord, setting you up for a cosmic game of three
card Monte.
Bob Kolker
>
Beautiful and Damned
> >to do with belief, save for belief in the scientific method?
Because it is true. How do you believe in the method but not the
consequences of that method?
>I do not believe in ID. I do believe in God. Like Scripture, I never
>try to prove God's existence. And also like Scripture, I simply assume
>it. The God that I worship exists far far beyond any possible human
>conception of what is unintelligent or intelligent. God cannot be known
>on such a mundane "scientific" level. God can only be known through
>faith alone. Likewise, God exists far far beyond any human idea of what
>is designing or undesigning. To assert that God must be either a
>gambler or a non-gambler is asserting sheerest nonsense. God is
>Ultimate Mystery to be known only through faith alone.
So, you are accessing the Truth using some sort of sixth-sense;
sprititual insight; "promptings of the Holy Spirit"; what Karen
Armstrong calls _mythos_ rather than _logos_ in _The Battle For God_.
I can accept this position to some extent assuming that Homo Sapiens is
a naturally spiritual beast and therefore being spiritual is not a kind
of mental corruption. The question all of Humanity would seem to be
asking these days is: "Is faith a proper way to believe in anything?"
But my _logos_ remains unsatisfied and disbelieving: is it not the case
that all creationists--whether they credit evolutionary theory or
not--cannot deny ID without being intellecually dishonest? Is God an
Intelligence undesigning or a Designer unintelligent? --Materialist
folks would say: God is unintelligence undesigning, that is to say, He
is equal to matter.
>I do not believe in evolution. I believe in God. I accept evolution on
>the basis of evidence, yet that acceptance is always contingent upon
>the evidence. If new evidence in the form of facts comes in that
>overturns it, I am therefore free to discard the theory and accept its
>replacement, but only if that replacement explains the facts better.
>The same approach is not true of God. I accept God on the basis of
>faith alone. Upon what is my faith grounded? Upon my personal religious
>(numinous) experience of God informed by Scripture.
I think we are using "belief" in different senses of the word. To me
it is reasonble to be a believer-in-evolution using sense 1 and a
believer-in-God using sense 3. (below)
Belief:
1. the acceptance of something as true or actual
2. that which is believed true, as a creed
3. religious faith
4. confidence, trust
5. an opinion
Accept:
6. To believe in
[Doubleday dictionary, 1st Ed]
It seems you are saying you believe in God according to definition 2 &
3 and believe in evolution with sense 1? Or 5?
I respect your beliefs. We humans are born believers! We cannot
believe in nothing and still live. By saying your faith is grounded on
"personal (numinous) experience" you would seem to imply that this is a
sort of _spritual_ evidence and a valid sort at that? Should we all
listen to that sort of evidence and how do we tell if it is genuine or
bogus?
>For instance, the
>child can learn about parallax. The child can look at astronomical
>photographs of a nearby star very close (in terms of seconds of minutes
>of degrees of arc) to a faraway background star. One photograph is
>taken on January 1. Six months later, on July 1, the other photo is
>taken. During that six months period, earth has traveled from one side
>of the sun to the other, 180 degrees of its orbit. The child can
>compare the two photos and see that the nearby star has "parallax
>shifted" from one side of the background star to the other.
Perhaps, perhaps. What I asked was how do we prove "the Earth orbits
the Sun and *not* the reverse": this is beyond most folks although they
would scorn those who held the geocentric view. The bigger challenge
in science education is to look at the opposite model and reveal its
weaknesses and why it is no longer held. That would hopefully equip
ordinary people to reject ID as an inadequate theory. I really like
your description of a science class for little ones.
Dylan
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
> > >Why should I want BELIEF in evolution promoted? What does science have
> > >to do with belief, save for belief in the scientific method?
>
> Because it is true. How do you believe in the method but not the
> consequences of that method?
What's the antecedent of your pronoun "it"? What is true? Evolution? Or
the scientific method?
> >I do not believe in ID. I do believe in God. Like Scripture, I never
> >try to prove God's existence. And also like Scripture, I simply assume
> >it. The God that I worship exists far far beyond any possible human
> >conception of what is unintelligent or intelligent. God cannot be known
> >on such a mundane "scientific" level. God can only be known through
> >faith alone. Likewise, God exists far far beyond any human idea of what
> >is designing or undesigning. To assert that God must be either a
> >gambler or a non-gambler is asserting sheerest nonsense. God is
> >Ultimate Mystery to be known only through faith alone.
>
> So, you are accessing the Truth using some sort of sixth-sense;
> sprititual insight; "promptings of the Holy Spirit"; what Karen
> Armstrong calls _mythos_ rather than _logos_ in _The Battle For God_.
I am not "accessing the Truth using some sort of sixth-sense." I am not
"accessing the Truth using some sort of "spiritual insight." I am not
"accessing the Truth using some sort of "promptings of the Holy Spirit"
except as contexted. All of my life is contexted. I've read Armstrong's
HISTORY OF GOD, and quite a number of her other books, interviews, and
articles. And I like her a great great deal. She is honest, scholarly
and true, very true, to the evidence. Based on the evidence she
evidently believes that humans created God. My view modifies that view
slightly by saying humans created "God concepts," but it is unknowable
whether or not humans created God. I believe that God exists beyond all
human concepts and that therefore it is impossible to prove that humans
created God. I have no problem with her believing that, but it is a
belief. It is not a fact. Neither is it a scientific theory.
However, I haven't yet read her THE BATTLE FOR GOD, and don't know
precisely how you perceive that she distinguishes "mythos" from
"logos." Would you care to elaborate?
>From HISTORY OF GOD I have deduced (although I could be wrong) that she
holds to the following structure:
· PRIMARY: The initial encounter of the prophet (i.e., one who
"speaks for God," DECIDEDLY NOT one who predicts the future): seeing
"God's face." This is the numen, the "mysterium tremendum" (Martin
Buber).
· SECONDARY: The continuing experience, the communing with God, that
results in the experience of mysticism by the mystic. Non-mystic
believers who accept this intellectually may be called "mysticists." I
am a mysticist. (I also have had mystic experiences, though I do not
call myself a primary mystic.)
· TERTIARY: The continuing experience, the communing with God,
established as the "mysticism of the mystic" (examples: Moses, Isaiah,
Paul), results in myth (examples: the books of the Old and New
Testaments).
The definition of "myth" must be carefully understood in this context.
It does not mean -- as our modern parlance has it -- "a false
notion" or "a counterfactual misconception." It means: "that the truth
of which transcends literality, scientific factuality," etc. It can
serve, though not necessarily, to bind people together in trust-love
relationships. It most emphatically does not preclude scientific
progress. That's the rub and the source of much unnecessary friction
(examples: Pseudo-Dawkins, Grendel, Logos, Ray Martinez, etc. ad
nauseum).
> I can accept this position to some extent assuming that Homo Sapiens is
> a naturally spiritual beast and therefore being spiritual is not a kind
> of mental corruption. The question all of Humanity would seem to be
> asking these days is: "Is faith a proper way to believe in anything?"
Whether or not Homo sapiens is a "naturally spiritual beast" or "Homo
sapiens spiritus" ("spiritus" being either good or evil) is moot. "The
question all of Humanity would seem to be asking these days is: 'Is
faith a proper way to believe in anything?'" is also moot. Or, if not
moot, is subject to scientific investigation.
> But my _logos_ remains unsatisfied and disbelieving: is it not the case
> that all creationists--whether they credit evolutionary theory or
> not--cannot deny ID without being intellecually dishonest?
I don't see how denying ID necessitates being intellectually dishonest.
I deny ID on the ground that it is an impermissible intrusion of
religious belief into the realm of science. Yet, in so denying, I don't
believe that I am being intellectually dishonest.
> Is God an
> Intelligence undesigning or a Designer unintelligent? --Materialist
> folks would say: God is unintelligence undesigning, that is to say, He
> is equal to matter.
I'm not a pantheist. I'm a mystericist (as defined above).
> >I do not believe in evolution. I believe in God. I accept evolution on
> >the basis of evidence, yet that acceptance is always contingent upon
> >the evidence. If new evidence in the form of facts comes in that
> >overturns it, I am therefore free to discard the theory and accept its
> >replacement, but only if that replacement explains the facts better.
> >The same approach is not true of God. I accept God on the basis of
> >faith alone. Upon what is my faith grounded? Upon my personal religious
> >(numinous) experience of God informed by Scripture.
>
> I think we are using "belief" in different senses of the word. To me
> it is reasonble to be a believer-in-evolution using sense 1 and a
> believer-in-God using sense 3. (below)
No objection.
> Belief:
> 1. the acceptance of something as true or actual
> 2. that which is believed true, as a creed
> 3. religious faith
> 4. confidence, trust
> 5. an opinion
>
> Accept:
> 6. To believe in
> [Doubleday dictionary, 1st Ed]
>
> It seems you are saying you believe in God according to definition 2 &
> 3 and believe in evolution with sense 1? Or 5?
My belief is more interrelated than that. See my discussion of
Armstrong's HISTORY OF GOD above.
> I respect your beliefs. We humans are born believers! We cannot
> believe in nothing and still live. By saying your faith is grounded on
> "personal (numinous) experience" you would seem to imply that this is a
> sort of _spritual_ evidence and a valid sort at that?
Not at all.
> Should we all
> listen to that sort of evidence and how do we tell if it is genuine or
> bogus?
I don't know, and I don't know. I know only that my life is predicated
upon the numinous or Mysterious.
> >For instance, the
> >child can learn about parallax. The child can look at astronomical
> >photographs of a nearby star very close (in terms of seconds of minutes
> >of degrees of arc) to a faraway background star. One photograph is
> >taken on January 1. Six months later, on July 1, the other photo is
> >taken. During that six months period, earth has traveled from one side
> >of the sun to the other, 180 degrees of its orbit. The child can
> >compare the two photos and see that the nearby star has "parallax
> >shifted" from one side of the background star to the other.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps. What I asked was how do we prove "the Earth orbits
> the Sun and *not* the reverse": this is beyond most folks although they
> would scorn those who held the geocentric view. The bigger challenge
> in science education is to look at the opposite model and reveal its
> weaknesses and why it is no longer held. That would hopefully equip
> ordinary people to reject ID as an inadequate theory. I really like
> your description of a science class for little ones.
Thanks. I respect your mind.
Dylan
Dylan wrote:
. . . .
> I am not "accessing the Truth using some sort of sixth-sense." I am not
> "accessing the Truth using some sort of "spiritual insight." I am not
> "accessing the Truth using some sort of "promptings of the Holy Spirit"
> except as contexted. All of my life is contexted. I've read Armstrong's
> HISTORY OF GOD, and quite a number of her other books, interviews, and
> articles. And I like her a great great deal. She is honest, scholarly
> and true, very true, to the evidence. Based on the evidence she
> evidently believes that humans created God. My view modifies that view
> slightly by saying humans created "God concepts," but it is unknowable
> whether or not humans created God. I believe that God exists beyond all
> human concepts and that therefore it is impossible to prove that humans
> created God. I have no problem with her believing that, but it is a
> belief. It is not a fact. Neither is it a scientific theory.
. . . .
To "Beautiful and Damned":
I need to add to my own post at this juncture: Marginal note made by me
on page 211 of Karen Armstrong's HISTORY OF GOD: "Mystery" results in
"mysticism" which results in "myth." All three words derive
etymologically from the Greek verb _musteion_ which means "to close the
eyes or the mouth." --Dylan
Beautiful and Damned
Do you rage that God refuses to exist?
Do you rage that Dylan has a God and you have nothing?
Do you rage that Dylan feels God's love and you are numb?
Do you rage that nor Humanity nor Nature has created a God worthy of
your worship?
Do you rage that He chose to die and you cannot make Him live again?
Laugh! Laugh, do not rage! Rage reveals weakness; laughter is
strength.
Richard Clayton
Seconded.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Andrew
> > It has been almost seven years since I graduated, but he's still
> > teaching the same course.
>
> On first reading, that seemed to say that he's teaching the same
> material, in the same manner, as when you took the course. But from
> what you say later, it seems he's improved it by dealing with one
> particular issue in a special way.
Well, much of his introduction sounded familiar (and considering that
it was seven years since I'd heard it, take that with whatever grain of
salt you feel it deserves), but I do recall that he'd always been good
at handling difficult questions. His lectures were usually more
discussions than they were lectures, in the traditional sense. He was
big on student participation in class.
>
> > as he began into his lecture; starting with some of the history
> > behind it, one student (clearly in a somewhat confrontational mood)
> > pointed out that the evolution was "just a theory." ...
> > the five minutes that followed, I witnessed the single best
> > explanation of what a scientific theory entails that I have ever seen;
>
> Indeed, even your description of it is excellent, so the actual five
> minutes in class must have been wonderful. It sounds like those
> students are now immunized against "just a theory" BS.
>
> I wonder if other teachers could adapt that method in their classes?
> .
Well, in my humble opinion, that's the way of dealing with the
question. You can't pretend that ID doesn't exist; you have to deal
with it head-on. If they want to turn ID into a scientific discipline,
you address it on its scientific merit; or lack thereof. Something
tells me, though, that that's the last thing the ID proponents want;
otherwise they wouldn't be trying to skip the peer review process to
force-feed ID to high school students.
The problem, and inherent paradox with ID is that it claims to be a
scientific discipline, while basically giving up on the scientific
process. ID assumes the world is black and white; evolution is either
completely right and explains everything, or it's completely wrong.
Science deals with a gray area; from the moment a theory is created,
the assumption is that it doesn't have all the answers; therefore the
theory will change when new data is made available. ID assumes that
the rules are well defined and permanent, science assumes that they
aren't.
In short:
ID says: "Science doesn't have an explanation for X; therefore the
whole theory is wrong. Here's a book written by people who have been
dead for 2000 years in another country which explains it."
Science says: "Science doesn't have an explanation for X *yet*, but
we're working on it."
The really sad thing about this is that even under the remote
hypothetical scenario that the theory of evolution is completely
disproven tomorrow, ID *still* couldn't be presented to students as
science. It makes no falsifiable predictions about future
experimentation; it has presented no scientific data. Even under the
hypothetical scenario that evolution is wrong, that doesn't make ID
right.
--Drew
gregwrld
Dylan wrote:
> Beautiful and Damned wrote:
> > Well... yes, if the curriculum is intelligently designed and the entire
> > education system evolves into emphasizing critical thinking rather than
> > memorization of theories as facts determined by the scientific elite.
> >
> > There seems to be a contradiction in some of the discussion I read:
> > the scientists argue that their view only should be put forward (since
> > scientific truth is determined by agreement among the elite, that is to
> > say, by the group cohesion of nerdlings) and yet critical thinking
> > should also be advanced at the same time. How do we teach critical
> > thinking without providing something worth criticizing?
>
> Let the biology teachers continue to teach biology, and -- since
> there is a demand -- add another course to the curricula: critical
> thinking (CT), which comes under the umbrella of philosophy, not
> science per se. And make it a REQUIRED course, since CT is needed not
> only in science but also in most other realms of human intellectual
> endeavor: history, literature, creative writing, journalism, political
> science, ....
You might consider the possibility that biology teacher would welcome a
chance to take a close look at ID. It would create the opportunity to
dwell longer on the science supporting the TOE (which would also be
teaching biology)...
Also, if a solid majority of biology teachers can be counted on to be
aggressive in this they could have a profound effect on that generation
of students. And creationists may end up regretting what they wished
for...
g(regwrld)
Dylan
gregwrld wrote:
> Dylan wrote:
> > Beautiful and Damned wrote:
> > > Well... yes, if the curriculum is intelligently designed and the entire
> > > education system evolves into emphasizing critical thinking rather than
> > > memorization of theories as facts determined by the scientific elite.
> > >
> > > There seems to be a contradiction in some of the discussion I read:
> > > the scientists argue that their view only should be put forward (since
> > > scientific truth is determined by agreement among the elite, that is to
> > > say, by the group cohesion of nerdlings) and yet critical thinking
> > > should also be advanced at the same time. How do we teach critical
> > > thinking without providing something worth criticizing?
> >
> > Let the biology teachers continue to teach biology, and -- since
> > there is a demand -- add another course to the curricula: critical
> > thinking (CT), which comes under the umbrella of philosophy, not
> > science per se. And make it a REQUIRED course, since CT is needed not
> > only in science but also in most other realms of human intellectual
> > endeavor: history, literature, creative writing, journalism, political
> > science, ....
>
> You might consider the possibility that biology teacher would welcome a
> chance to take a close look at ID.
'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. However, from what I've read
(and seen on the news educational channels, and C-SPAN on TV) of the
personal testimony of high school biology teachers, you're asking an
awful lot, an awful lot. These are nice, intelligent, caring, skilled
and knowledgeable people, but -- goodness gracious -- given the
disciplinary problems alone, superhuman they're not. I think we need to
start a lot earlier teaching critical thinking to students, rather than
just this cram-stuff. We need to pay more money to attract top talent.
We need to educate taxpayers (especially taxpaying parents of school
kids) as to what it takes to be educated (as opposed to just being
spoon-fed). The to-do list goes on and on. Education in America, in my
opinion, is in sad shape. The recent ID debate has only cracked open
the curtain. --Dylan
Andrew
>
> You might consider the possibility that biology teacher would welcome a
> chance to take a close look at ID. It would create the opportunity to
> dwell longer on the science supporting the TOE (which would also be
> teaching biology)...
>
> Also, if a solid majority of biology teachers can be counted on to be
> aggressive in this they could have a profound effect on that generation
> of students. And creationists may end up regretting what they wished
> for...
>
> g(regwrld)
>
>
In this thread, I chronicled an event I witnessed where my former
biology teacher dealt with at least one common objection to evolution;
namely that evolution is "just a theory;" in very much the manner you
describe here. If more teachers, particularly at the high school
level, could be encouraged to deal with pseudo-science in a critical
manner, I have very little doubt that ID would be relegated to
laughingstock status inside of a month.
That said, I'm not sure how realistic that scenario is. The bio
teacher in the event I described is an exceptional individual, in a
very fortuitous situation: he has tenure. You put an untenured teacher
in a scenario where they're told: "teach the holes in Evolution, and
patch them up with ID or lose your job," and the unfortunate truth is
that most teachers probably will buckle under. Hell, I probably would,
under those circumstances; even if I had a case for wrongful dismissal
(which, I probably would, were I a teacher), I can't afford a lawyer.
When you're living paycheck to paycheck, as many teachers do, the
possibility of losing that paycheck can be a strong motivation to
abandon one's ethics.
However, in the best of all possible worlds, I agree with you
completely. Let the teachers teach ID, let them show exactly why it
fails as science. The teacher I described turned a common ID objection
into a rather brilliantly crafted lecture on the scientific method. If
more teachers could use ID as a teaching tool, science education in the
US would suddenly take a giant leap upwards.
--Drew