Replies

I think people tend to fight pretty hard to defend their worldview. In some areas of life this is no bad thing but I don't think it's productive in science.

If a theory or hypothesis is robust, it can stand examination, debate, and criticism. At the same time, we should always be ready to modify conclusions, even time tested conclusions, when new information appears.

Kids need to know that science in always in the process of revision. Thinking about alternative theories is the first step to becoming excited about the process. Excited kids may eventually become excited scientists - a good thing!

Yes, as long as it's real science that they get excited about.

Intelligent Design is not real science, it is religion, trying to claim it's science.

When you wish to use real scientific hypothesis, to excite childrens minds about science, we can talk, but ID is not a scientific hypothesis, it is religion, masquerading as science.

Thinking about alternative theories is the first step to becoming excited about the process.

Fine. As long as you can agree to the second step; teaching them that there are currrently no "alternative thoeries." Or, if you are using the colloquial "theories," then we can teach them that there are, in fact, limitless "alternative theories." And watch their heads spin!

No thanks. I am fully confident that real science is more than exciting as it is without introducing supernaturalism and superstition.

If a theory or hypothesis is robust, it can stand examination, debate, and criticism.

This is absolutely correct. The Theory of Evolution has withstood the scrutiny of research for over a hundred years. Still, scientists can debate and raise objections if they feel their research contradicts the theory. This is what happens in science.

Kids need to know that science in always in the process of revision. Thinking about alternative theories is the first step to becoming excited about the process.

Now, here's where I disagree with you. The purpose of pre-college education is to give students a brief overview and basic understanding of the prevailing, accepted fundamentals of a wide variety of fields. When creationists call for "equal time -- let the students decide for themselves!" This is unfair to a group of high schoolers who aren't prepared to spend years examining the primary research to make an informed opinion. If every "alternative" theory (i.e., one supported by a tiny minority of scientists) were presented to students, they would leave school with their heads spinning, having learned very little but having been thoroughly confused nonetheless.

That's why genuine attempts at scientific revolution go top-down: Formulation of theory, research, publishment in peer-reviewed journals, gained acceptance by the field at large, and finally, college, then high school textbooks.

The fact that creationists have largely attempted to start right at high-school textbook stage strikes me as a very telling admission that they are not interested in a scientific revolution, but a cultural/ideological one.