Teach the controversy [Creationism thru the back door]]

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."

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.

Dear John,

As you know, we've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in our schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get the old devil-inspired ruling reversed.

Naturally, we were all excited by the school board action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.

After the first day of school, I asked him "how did the prayer time go?"
"Fine.
"Did many kids go out into the hallway?"
"Two.
"Excellent. How did you like your teachers prayer?"
"It was different, dad. Real different from the way you pray."
"Oh? Like how?"
"She said, 'Hail Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners...'"

The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudiced against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.

At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross-legged, closed his eyes, raised his hand palms up in the air and began to hum.

You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. 'I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable If you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices an older, more established religion.

That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school.

"I don't think you're going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer, either, Dad."
"Out with it."
"She kept calling O Great Buddha..."

The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot.

"Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher who prays in Jesus' name!"
"What about Bertha Smith?"
"Excellent."

I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang.

"Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car.

"Okay."
"Okay what?"
"Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus' name, amen just like you."

I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place."

"She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy.

I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?"

"Lets see..." he mused for a moment. "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God."

We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said reaching for the door handle. Then paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"

"Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18."
"Nephi what?"
"Nephi," he said. "It's in the Book of Mormon.

The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'LL sue. I'LL take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We an take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.

Your buddy,
Ted

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.

js1138, you wrote: "Where does the information come from when a program learns from experience? Is it impossible to understand that selection is information?"

No, it is not impossible to recognize that "selection is information." But in light of the above italics, selection of/from what? When all the genetic information must be present all at once, and all phyla, each having different body plans, etc., "emerged" virtually all at once -- each specified by different genetic information -- where did this massive amount of information flow come from, all at once?

This situation looks neither "random" nor "gradual" to me. How would you describe it?

To suggest that evolutionists advocate abortion and endorse cultural decadence is the most stupid think I've ever heard. Just because some atheistic cultural Marxists who are ignorant about evolution is not the fault of the scientists.

On the contrary, evolution is the opposite of moral relativism. There are behaviors and beliefs that make an individual and a society more healthy. There is a correct way to do things. Those societies that stress the importance of cooperation, respect for others, liberty, hard work, economic growth, and education will thrive. Those societies that encourage short term pleasures, perversions, and slothfulness fall by the wayside.

IDers have no chance of succeeding because they are trying through the courts to force science into accepting a non-scientific idea. And because we live in a country based on the ideas of Western civilization and an independent civil society, scientists must be allowed to govern their own fields, as all private groups must be allowed to govern themselves.

In no academic field would it be considered legitimate for untrained outsiders to dictate to trained professionals what to teach. It would not be accepted in medical schools, law schools, business schools, engineering schools, the instruction of history, the arts, politics, or anything. As long as biologists and science instructors oppose ID, as they do, ID cannot succeed. And once it looks like ID may actually win a judicial victory, the scientific community, as well as the rest of academia will take notice and put an end to it. ID's success will bring about it's own failure. The leaders of the ID movement know this, which is why this guy in the article is calling for a "compromise" to "teach the controversy". ID can only survive if it is left on the fringes with people perpetually complaining of being "left out" of the discussion.

You're quite welcome!

Thank you for underscoring that important point made by Dr. Chien!

No, it is not impossible to recognize that "selection is information." But in light of the above italics, selection of/from what? When all the genetic information must be present all at once, and all phyla, each having different body plans, etc., "emerged" virtually all at once -- each specified by different genetic information -- where did this massive amount of information flow come from, all at once? This situation looks neither "random" nor "gradual" to me.

Indeed, it doesn't look random or gradual to me either.

I would add to your statement one more phrase "where did this massive amount of information flow come from, all at once, all around the world."

For evolution to occur gradually by random happenstance of mutations and selection, one would expect to see fossils radiating over time in the geologic record. Why would there be a Cambrian explosion all over the world with a geologically speaking simultaneous leap of information content in the DNA?

The Shannon model, btw, would help us here because it does allow for noise to be non-random - as if received by a third party non-autonomous "broadcast" and thus such a scenario of a leap in information content would be consistent with the Shannon theory. It does however require some form of communication host or channel for a broadcast, something like the universal vacuum field we have discussed.

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.