Replies

Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Loosey-Goosey Intellectual Relativism alert!

As another freeper asked, do you really think we should "always" dialog in "opposing viewpoints" in curricula (for example when presenting the historical reality of the holocaust)? Or is this just antievolutionary special pleading falsely disguised as a general principle?

Education certainly can, and often should, at least in some number of illustrative cases, include "a dialogue between opposing viewpoints;" but only when genuinely contending viewpoints, each with some measure of objective viability and merit in the relevant domain of scholarship, actually exist.

Of course this is not the case with creationism or ID. Whatever you may personally believe about their truth value, it is a simple fact that neither has (at least yet) achieved substantive standing in the market place of scientific ideas. Certainly neither has achieved a standing remotely comparable to evolutionary theory. This is an objective fact confirmable by consulting the professional literature of science. To present creationism or ID on one hand, and evolution on the other, as comparable "opposing viewpoints" is to flat out lie to students.

Your rhetoric simply attempts to deny or avoid this uncomfortable FACT. This is the usual role of intellectual relativism and intellectual affirmative action, but it's unseemly for a conservative. Let the liberal-left engage in word magic: pretending that saying something is so makes it so.

Any good conservative should be willing to let ideas compete -- ACTUALLY COMPETE -- in the intellectual marketplace, where they can succeed or fail on their demonstrated merit or lack thereof. Conservatives should sneer at calls for the sham, non consequential psuedo-competition of contrived "balance" in textbooks and curricula, failure-free and carefully measured to appease identity groups and salvage their delicate self-esteem.

After all, creationists in these threads regularly inform us that evolution is teetering on the brink of collapse. I happen to think that's B.S. and bravado which even the claimants don't believe (not deep down). But if it's so then LET evolution collapse, and if it's genuinely surpassed and replaced by some superior scientific theory then let evolution be removed from science textbooks and curricula. Why do those who (supposedly) consider their ideas on the verge of victory wish to establish the precedent that substandard ideas -- ideas that can't cut the mustard in PRACTICE -- should be dishonestly presented as competitive in curricula? I think the answer is obvious.

"Loosey-Goosey Intellectual Relativism alert!"

Hold on a minute thar pardner. I'm not advocating Intellectual Relativism -- just good teaching.

Learning science isn't just about memorizing facts -- you need the skills to do science. If students don't have those skills how can they debunk any junk science that comes their way -- and there will be lots of it?

If students were even half as interested in any subject as FReepers are in this one; schools would perform much better. Maybe that excitement could be brought into the classroom.

Don't just tell the students what they should believe (and withhold opposing views). Give them the tools to judge the quality of a theory. Let them know how ToE was tested. Let them then weigh the merits of ToE and I.D.

While ToE has high standing -- students should also know that theories cannot be proven; only falsified. (As science advances, most theories have been falsified, or modified to a considerable extent.) If you don't admit that -- you're indoctrinating, and not teaching science.

At the same time, tell students (or better yet, let them do the research and discover for themselves) how extensively the ToE has been tested. Teach Occam's Razor. Ask students if they're convinced, even though there is a remote possibility that the theory will one day be falsified. They will then have the tools they need to separate good from junk science for the rest of their lives.