Teach the controversy [Creationism thru the back door]]

baltimoresun.com ^ | 11 March 2005 | Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell

[PatrickHenry]

WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins? Should science educators teach only contemporary Darwinian theory or not mention it? Should school boards mandate that students learn about alternative theories? If so, which ones? Or should schools forbid discussion of all theories except neo-Darwinism?

These questions arise frequently as school districts around the country consider how to respond to the growing controversy over biological origins.

Of course, many educators wish such controversies would simply go away. If science teachers teach only Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. But if teachers present religiously based creationism, they run afoul of Supreme Court rulings.

There is a way to teach evolution that would benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme ideologues. Rather than ignoring the controversy or teaching religiously based ideas, teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Darwinian evolution. This is simply good education.

When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives.

In such cases, teachers should not teach as true only one view. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."

[Snip]

Stephen C. Meyer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and John Angus Campbell, a professor of communications at the University of Memphis, are the editors of Darwinism, Design and Public Education.

---

Baltimoresun.com is one of those sites that require excerpting and linking.

The rest of the article is here.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if you don't mind ... I found your assertion below to be disturbing:

So we apparently have a creationist coining the quote, creationists elevating it to fact "as reported in the Wall Street Journal," and a creationist well after the fact attributing it to Mr. Chen (who, after all, is in China, and can't be reached for comment.)

So I did a little checking of my own.

The subject quote for Lurkers:

"You Americans say that in China we cannot criticize the government, but you see we can criticize Darwin. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Not surprisingly, talkorigins takes a dim view of the quote, and on this link - Icon of Obfuscation - seems to trace it back to a symposium held in China in June of 1999. They include the account of Nigel Hughes who was chagrined to learn the symposium "International Symposium on the Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records" which was organized by Professor Jun-Yuan Chen evidently also was in some way involved with the Discovery Institute. Evidently most of the symposium was centered on the science and not the neverending ID v Evolution debate but it was raised by the Discovery fellows in attendance and that bothered Hughes a great deal.

But every story has two sides, so I'd like to also offer this account The Twilight of Darwinism at the Dawn of A New Millennium by Dr. Paul Chien from a Chinese Christian website - which also discusses the issues raised at the symposium and the quote now attributed to Jun-Yuan Chen.

Evidently, the issues center around the fossils of Chengjiang which evidence a sudden appearance of species too early for Darwin gradualism.

[Dimensio]

Hold on, if evolution is real then how do you explain the gay gene? Oh wait...

Do you have an argument to make, or did you just want to offer up an inane comment exposing your abysmal ignorance of genetics and human sexuality?

[almcbean]

Sorry. I got it out of a fortune cookie. Wait til I give that restaurant whatfor.

[Dimensio]

I caution you about the "A(whatever)A" type organizations. They have brought us normalization of homosexual behavior and abortion, and are now working on child molestation. so forgive me if I don't genuflect to the AAAS.

By this brilliant logic, we should discount the work of the ACLJ because of the antics of the ACLU.

And, of course, I see that you've not addressed the fact that you used a bogus quote to prop up your comments previously.

[Blzbba]

"The schools already have electives to study Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Christianity should have it's place. "


Agreed, if there are any other religions being taught. In my schooling (in the early-mid 80s), no religion was taught. There was no controversy over this either.

[PatrickHenry]

"In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

One of the interesting things about that "quote" is the fact that it's so obviously idiotic. It's mainly in the US that criticizing Darwin has risen to the status of a bull-blown industry. The charlatans who engage in it grow rich off their books, tapes and amusement parks.

[From many - one.]

My schooling was before Miller-Urey, but my kids' was after.

What they got was things like "potential for explaining" "suggestive of" "exciting because it shows a way" and similar.

It was never taught as a part of evolution.

The Miller_Urey experiments were, in fact, a great breakthrough, were definitely exciting, and did, and do still, have a potential for leading to an explanation of either the origin of life or a method for creating life, in scientific terms. So, I don't see anything wrong with what you or your daughter were taught.

Lastly, of course there were problems with the orginal experiments. But they still pointed in a fascinating direction with much later work built on them.

[ValenB4]

That was a very well thought out post. However, beware of the term "irreducible complexity". That is a term that sounds good but has no meaning and is not used. That which is complex can always be reduced to another level. While there is an expansion of knowledge that can be hard to sort out initially, such as in molecular biology, what is really going on is simplification - a reduction of complexity.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You would've loved the '60's. ;)

[bahblahbah]

Apparently sarcasm is way way over your head.

[betty boop]

...the Cambrian explosion...looks just like a miracle.... In order to build all the animals according to different body plans, you need all the genetic information at one time. But where did this information come from? That is the most basic question.

That's Dr. Chien speaking.

The fossils of Chengjiang bespeak an extraordinary explosion of the animal life of all phyla "suddenly" appearing "all at once." There is no significant prior fossil record prior to the Cambrian explosion, which apparently had a substantial center in the Chengjiang province of China. This does not argue for the Darwinian concept of gradualism by any means.

Fascinating article, Alamo-Girl. Thank you so much for the link!

[metacognative]

If it wasn't for tax funded established academia,
darwinism would be just another failed religion.
It made a lot of prophecies that haven't happened.
And the discovery of the DNA code [what if the sequences were exhibited , like on flower petals?]
smashed darwinian primitive protoplasm.
It will never recover...despite your hysterical shrillness.

[MRMEAN]

Creationists are well-named, they are good at creation of "facts."

[RightWhale]

the Cambrian explosion, which apparently had a substantial center in the Chengjiang province of China.

40% believe it was space aliens. So, it was an act of creation in the lab if that is the case. Perhaps a Martian spermatocapsule landed there when Mars was being destroyed.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

thanks for the ping-a-ling, betty and TGIF to you!

patrick, patrick, patrick, what can I say? Was some bad ole Christian mean to you oncet?

[js1138]

Where does the information come from when a program learns from experience? Is it impossible to understand that selection is information?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your posted link is completely circular. It only says:

in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Phillip Johnson quotes a Chinese professor saying: "You Americans say that in China we cannot criticize the government, but you see we can criticize Darwin. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Your link attributed the quote to Johnson, not to Jun-Yuan Chen as you claim. So, your link just shows that there's still nothing but Johnson's unsubstantiated claim.

[js1138]

An important lesson from Miller is that prior to what he did, what he did was "impossible". The goalpost is now shifted. We are now charged with the task of unblending a frog.

[ValenB4]

""In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

Oh, spare us the martyr complex. You poor oppressed people are criticizing Darwin. The worst thing that can happen is that other people will think you're incorrect and ignorant. Boo hoo.