Teaching Darwin

Weekly Standars ^ | March 21, 2005 | Paul McHugh

[GreenFreeper]

That was not my point. My point is that even the people spreading evolution as fact (or strong with implication that is it an undeniable fact) have poor understanding of what evolution clearly implies or requires. If you were to look at an evolution science video made a couple decades ago you would probably see evidence presented that has been since refuted. I would bet most of the hard evidence (as opposed to vague and 'subject to interpretation' evidence) will all be out of date.

Well just about every science discipline has been refuted and refined over the years- that is what science is about. That is what makes science interesting and challenging. Evolution is no different than physics, astronomy, psychology, etc.

Schools should send more time teaching scientific thought and less on evidence with a short expiration date. Which leads back to the stickers in the article and the reason why students need an open mind about such things.

I agree, teaching scientific thought is the key to scientific understanding and exploration. Maybe I was taught well, but I was never told nor has any teacher, professor, instructor, mentor, etc. ever even inferred that evolution was fact. Facts are rarely used in the hard sciences. I can say it is a fact that bacteria A became ampicillin resistant in X generations in Y during Z. I cannot say it is a fact that bacteria A becomes ampicillin resistant. Why do we need stickers though? Its implicit in science to keep an open mind! Further, why isn't there a cry out to place stickers in other science text books regarding other theories? Seems redundant to me!

[b_sharp]

Wow. Are there any anti-evolutionists here at all that have the slightest inkling of what the theory of evolution, as it stands now, says? Since I have been here I have heard everything from spontaneous generation, to Lamarkism, to Communism, to religious fervor unsubstantially attributed to evolution. I have also seen evolution variously defined as within species modification, speciation, even change in some unknown and abstract taxonomic classification, depending on which definition is easiest to abuse.

How is it possible for anti-evolutionists to carry on any kind of debate when they know nothing about the subject being debated?

[TalonDJ]

Biblical scholars, per se, of any stripe are not up to the task of telling scientists how to evaluate scientific issues, or science teachers how to report scientific issues.

Must high school science teachers are not qualified in that regard either. They teach what is in the book. Most conservative can agree public school text books have a heavy liberal bias. All things considered I think it is very important that students look at what is in those books with and open mind. In case you forgot, that is ALL that sticker said. I fail to understand anyone can argue AGAINST warning students that a science book is not all fact unless they have an agenda. To argue against including THAT sticker as written indicates and agenda to teach all students that evolution is a FACT and is never to be doubted.

[TalonDJ]

All natural science theories are in that state, and probably always will be. The theory of gravity is much touted as the paradigmatic example of an irrefutable science fact, and it is presently bears the scars of some big pending question marks.

Your right. And it is a sad testament to our education system that most people will give you a blank stare if you mentioned that to them. That does not make teaching evolution as fact a better idea and that does not make telling students to keep an open mind a religious idea.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

How is it possible for anti-evolutionists to carry on any kind of debate when they know nothing about the subject being debated?

Well, your friends know nothing at all about the bible, but it doesn't keep them from lecturing those of us who do, about its fine points

[TalonDJ]

Maybe I was taught well, but I was never told nor has any teacher, professor, instructor, mentor, etc. ever even inferred that evolution was fact.

nor has any teacher, professor, instructor, mentor, etc. ever even inferred that evolution was fact.

I find that impossible to believe. I have had teachers and professors that did that and I have read many many articles that did just that. I can only assume by that statement that you went to school a good long time ago. I am not trying to be insulting by saying that but I have seen enough recent textbooks to not believe you graduated recently. Either that your you need to get better at spotting bias. It is easy to believe someone has no bias then their bias is close to your own.

[anguish]

Well, you've made your choice. NEA,ACLU and cultural zoos

I'm not following you here. How does me asking why you post dishonest out-of-context quotes make me choose NEA, ACLU and cultural zoos? Are they also pondering why people use such methods?

[balrog666]

In case you forgot, that is ALL that sticker said.

No, it is you who has forgotten.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

The sticker is, in fact, farcical in it's deliberate misstatement and ignorance of the theory of evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

... we all appreciate it. The only real purpose to these endless debates is to keep the uneducated ID'ers and Creationists from embarrassing the rest of us.

Another service of Darwin Central. The conspiracy that cares.

[GreenFreeper]

TalonDJ,

I don't think you give students nor teachers enough credit. Again science is a dynamic process and by it's very nature nothing is written in stone. You argue that we should not teach information that may be outdated in a few years? Exactly why should we do so? How, then would we be able to challenge accepted scientific theories and spawn a new generation of scientists? People do not flock to the sciences to reinforce already accepted principals. That kind of thinking is absurd. We might as well have thought the earth was flat up until we were able to view it from above.

[GreenFreeper]

TalonDJ,
think what you will but I graduated HS in '95, undergrad in '99, and grad school in '04. Yup a "good long time ago".

[metacognative]

Please point me to the dishonest quote

[b_sharp]

"By your tag line I suspect you have no time at all for anything in the bible."

I have no time for those that try to use the Bible as a science text with the intention of replacing sound science with fables and allegory. The Bible was written with an intention in mind, it was written by people who had no idea of the physical basis for their environment, but needed an explanation for events within that environment.

If you want to use it as a source of inspiration, consolation or even as a moral compass, then fine, but to attempt to use it as a source of geology, biology, physics, mathematics, astronomy, or any other science is a fools errand.

[TalonDJ]

The sticker is, in fact, farcical in it's deliberate misstatement and ignorance of the theory of evolution.

Misstatement? I don't see your point. Perhaps you would care to suggest an alternate wording. The point of the sticker distinguish to the student that there is a deference between theory and fact and that theory much be approached critically.

[longshadow]

caring placemarker

[TalonDJ]

How, then would we be able to challenge accepted scientific theories and spawn a new generation of scientists? The problem is with ALL our science teaching. We give students the arrogant belief that we have some real understanding of things and we do it in a way that does not call them to question the 'powers that be' (in this case, the all holy scientist). Liberals love this because then they can tell people all kinds of stuff about things like global warming and as long as they claim it is from 'scientists' then it is believed.

[anguish]

Your post 108 (read post 120).

I can see how unloading some creationist quote-mine material on an uneducated bunch of folks might work to advance the cause (albeit in an dishonest and un-christian manner), but it never ceases to amaze me when people try it around others (like our esteemed FReepers) - it just becomes very counter-productive.

[GreenFreeper]

TalonDJ, Either that your you need to get better at spotting bias. It is easy to believe someone has no bias then their bias is close to your own. Well put, maybe thats why you didn't agree with your teachers/professors? You didn't agree with them so they must be biased. Further, you seem to want to equate physical sciences with the social sciences. Teaching biology is much different than sociology or political science. You can simply preach ideas in hard sciences that have not passed scientific scrutiny and haven't been supported by mounds of evidence.

[b_sharp]

"Well, your friends know nothing at all about the bible, but it doesn't keep them from lecturing those of us who do, about its fine points"

At the moment we are discussing evolution, not the finer points of the Bible.

If I were to make a comment about a specific interpretation of a passage from the Bible you would have every right to blast me for my hubris and I would expect you to do so. But if someone tries to distort physics or geology or another discipline through the use of the Bible and I call them on it, I wouldn't expect to be chastised.

[js1138]

...accurate as far as it goes.

That's pretty much the definition of a quote out of contxt. The question is, does it represent the author's intentions, or is it part of a setup to a wider argument.

It is possible to excerpt text without misrepresenting the author, but in this case the excerpted quote misrepresents the author's intentions.