Posted on 03/29/2005 6:06:07 AM PST by gobucks
My favorite high school teacher conducted his American history class like an extended version of "Meet the Press." Nothing, not even the textbooks other teachers treated as Holy Writ, was safe from attack by Mr. Ladendorff. I looked forward to that class every day.
My biology class, sadly, was another story. I slogged joylessly through all the phyla and the principles of Darwinism, memorizing as best as I could. It never occurred to me that this class could have been as interesting as history until I recently started to read about "intelligent design" - the latest assault on the teaching of evolution in our schools.
Many education experts and important scientists say we have to keep this religious-based nonsense out of the classroom. But is that really such a good idea?
I am as devout a Darwinist as anybody. I read all the essays on evolution by the late Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite writers. The God I worship would, I think, be smart enough to create the universe without, as Genesis alleges, violating His own observable laws of conservation of matter and energy in a six-day construction binge.
But after interviewing supporters and opponents of intelligent design, which argues among other things that today's organisms are too complex to have evolved from primordial chemicals by chance or necessity, I think critiques of modern biology, like Al Ladendorff's contrarian lessons, could be one of the best things to happen to high school science.
Drop in on an average biology class and you will find the same slow, deadening march of memorization that I endured at 15. Why not enliven this with a student debate on contrasting theories? Why not have an intelligent design advocate stop by to be interrogated? Many students, like me, find it hard to understand evolutionary theory, and the scientific method itself, until they are illuminated by contrasting points of view.
And why stop with biology? Physics teachers could ask students to explain why a perpetual-motion machine won't work. Earth science teachers could show why the steady-state theory of the universe lost out to the Big Bang - just as Al Ladendorff exposed the genius of the U.S. Constitution by showing why the Articles of Confederation went bust.
Amazingly, neither pro- nor anti-intelligent design people like the idea of injecting their squabble into biology classes.
John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design, said that requiring its use in schools would turn their critique of evolution "into a political football."
Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education Inc. in Oakland, Calif., said it would distract from proven evolutionary research, crowd out other topics and create confusion.
Some fine biology teachers said the same thing. Sam Clifford in Georgetown, Texas, said that intelligent design is "a piecemeal, haphazard concoction" that he does not have time for. Dan Coast at Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County, Va., said that a dissection of intelligent design in his class would be seen by some students as an attack on their religion.
They all seemed to be saying that most U.S. high school students and teachers aren't smart enough to handle such an explosive topic. But how do we know if we keep paying expensive lawyers to make sure the experiment is never conducted?
The intelligent-design folks say theirs is not a religious doctrine. They may be lying, and are just softening up the teaching of evolution for an eventual pro-Genesis assault. But they passed one of my tests. They answered Gould's favorite question: If you are real scientists, then what evidence would disprove your hypothesis?
West indicated that any discovery of precursors of the animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian period 500 million years ago would cast doubt on the thesis that those plans, in defiance of Darwin, evolved without a universal common ancestor.
That is the start of a great class, and some teachers are doing this, albeit quietly. John Angus Campbell, who teaches the rhetoric of science and speech at the University of Memphis, has been trying to coax more of them into letting their students consider Darwin's critics. Like me, Campbell reveres the 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, who said good ideas should be questioned lest they degenerate into dogma.
Turning Darwin into an unassailable god without blemishes, Campbell said, doesn't give student brains enough exercise.
"If you don't see the risks, if you don't see the gaps," he said, "you don't see the genius of Darwin."
What a breath of fresh air. Coming from the enemy no less!! I bet Jay caught, ahem, hell for this article.
Jay, here is some free advice from a Freeper: if you want to keep your secularist 'reporter' career intact, you had better start accepting that KEEPING high schoolers STUPID is the POINT!!!!!
Don't you understand that? If you were truely a Darwinist properly on the reservation you'd understand how damaging your article is! I'm guessing you are going to get skewered by your peers, and made an example of ....
I just couldn't believe that this article originally wound up inside the pages of the W-compost. I respectfully submit, our side is gaining ground. Figured you'd two would like to know.
It's just one word too: "Beta". Here, the two (or three) sides of the issue claim that treating highschoolers like "Betas" is preferable to dealing with them as though they might be "Alphas".
exactly, where else are they going to find people to work their butts off for the tax machines
wow
Very interesting article, gobucks! Thanks for the ping!
You underestimate our educrats. What they'll do is present evolution in a favorable light, and then throw rocks at ID for weeks on end, as a way to condition the little urchins to belittle religion. It'll be the same ol' indoctrination, but now a bit more pointed.
Leftists are not going to toss their dependence upon Darwinian evolution, because they view themselves as the "fittest" survivors. It's a subtle justification for the ruthless horrors attendant to socialism that keep the "fittest" (fistest?) in control.
BUMP!
If you'll check my post history, you'll see that I'm a pretty staunch advocate of the theory of evolution. I know it's scientifically correct, and I believe it's fundamentally correct. I have to say, though, reading this article has me wondering if it wouldn't be such a bad idea to include some ID hypotheses in biology classes for discussion. The problem I see is that you'd really have to trust the science teachers to make clear the distinction between the scientifically verified theory of evolution and the scientifically unverified (and in some cases, unverifiable) ID hypotheses. From what I remember of my high school science teachers, I don't think I would trust them with this responsability.
This should be interesting. I wonder if other columnists will follow suit and come out of hiding. It's good to see some balanced journalism in an unexpected place. I've read Behe's book, I see his logic, and can't see the logic behind not teaching both ID and evolution. But this is an emotional issue, so logic does not always hold sway.
Thank you for your reply! I don't keep a ping list for Intelligent Design/Creationism - but I believe bondserv does...
Evolution is not a Leftist mantra (nor is it a 'theory')...it is scientific fact. and it is in plain view of anyone who will open thier eyes wide enough see it.
Creationism is not a Conservative mantra....it is a belief system held by certain fundamentalist Christian groups who align themselves with conservatism more often than not. And these groups have been a valuable voting block for the right.
But please don't assume that it is a Conservative certainty or even a part of a Conservative majority. It is not.
Thank you so much for your reply! Sadly, it is an emotional issue as you say - but with more respected persons asking to hear both sides of the story, perhaps that will change.
Natural selection is observable. Evolution is a well established theory.
Classical Mechanics was a well established theory too. That didn't stop physicist from beginning a critique where the theory had some blind spots. That's how we got Quantum Mechanics. It is by critique of current theory that small and large advances in science happen. If those critiques can be supported by evidence, eventually they will enhance or slupplant the previous theory. Evolution should be no exception.
The problem I have with I.D. is that I'm not sure that it rises to the level of a scientific theory (or ever well), and is very tentative at this point. We don't usually introduce very tentative theoretical science at the high school level, but just stick to the conventional wisdom. OTOH, if it had been introduced to me in high school, I think I probably would have delighted in picking it apart - it doesn't seem to really explain anything or make any predictions. Can't see that it would hurt to discuss it in passing, and it's always good to encourage kids to think critically for themselves.
Precisely why it isn't "science". Having said that, I am NOT so sure that ID isn't "real". There may be something to it. After all, you really can't disprove it, and it does bring up some really cool points. Of course then there are the counter theories (many Universes, for one) that could keep you going for a long time.
All in all, I'd stick with evolution as the "best model" out there for now, but I'd gladly show the holes in it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.