Posted on 03/11/2005 3:47:39 AM PST by 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.
The rest of the article is here.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
.....I can't think of any reason to teach children things which they don't yet have the tools to evaluate,...
Perhaps we should make sure that high school kids have a few tools ...
But lets remember, not all children will go to collage.
Respect for life comes from of an awareness of its mystery.
.. To have people (young or old) pondering their place in the cosmos, can only help to elevate our appreciation for each other.
So
What should public schools teach about the origins of life?
Perhaps, the truth.
That there are a lot of different ideas, and that the questions "why" and "how" have been the catalyst for everything we call knowledge.
Perhaps we could even encourage people to continue to look for answers.
hmmmm
... naww
Really?
Show me where in physics, mycology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, phytology, climatology, meteorology, paleontology, bacteriology, entomology, petrology, seismology, etc. where ID is mentioned in their respective scientific papers?
I dig that point, and I've seen the type of thing you're talking about, but the current debate isn't just about a world-view being right or wrong, it's about what's being taught in our science classes. I'm personally interested in some of the ways that ID proponents are trying to challenge evolution. The irreducable complexity thing is an interesting analysis. I don't think it will disprove evolution, but I like that these kinds of analyses are being attempted.
The problem that people like me have with the current attempts to get ID in the classrooms is that they're trying to get it into science classes as a legitimate competitive theory to evolution. It's just not. Not yet, anyways. There isn't any evidence for it. There are some analyses being done out there, people working at it, but they're so far from complete and reproducible it would be like teaching cold fusion techniques in high school physics. I've come to realize that, for the most part, minds don't change much on this issue, but I felt I had to post this anyways.
To an extent I agree, but let's not overstate the meaning of the language - even scientists that are essentially certain of their conclusions will frame them in terms of "probably" and "likely" and "maybe", so I don't think the usage of language is quite as meaningful as we might think. That's just the way scientists talk when they talk amongst themselves, because they're inherently pretty conservative when it comes to avoiding grand, sweeping statements.
You can talk all day long about the various theories and whatever, but if they don't have the tools to understand those theories, why bother? Just make that statement on day one, and then follow it with "Now, let's move on to evolution." People who want to know more about the subject can go on to college and learn about it, just like people who want to know more about calculus or geology or kinetic chemistry can go on to college and learn about it.
It pleases me to see yet another anti-craterist. Your enlightenment is impressive.
The scientific case against Craterism.
"That would include subjecting the Biblical accounts of creation, miracles, science and history to critical analysis as well, together with every other allegedly sacred text from all around the globe."
Which is the LAST thing the fundie creats want - Biblical scrutiny.
Why bother - these folks will simply deny whatever evidence or facts are uncovered anyways. Some people just can't handle the truth.
craters??? CRATERS??? Don't you even get me STARTED on the crater cultists!
"Why do you think your religion should be given preference in the classroom?"
Why should your religion be given preference?
"Religions are often centered on observations of the physical world."
Except for creationism, which occurred before there were any human observers. It's as mythically unprovable as anything regarding the 'spark' you referred to (that I agree is taken on faith).
But in terms of good myths, creationism falls far short of most of the Greek's works, which were far more entertaining.
Now for the rest of the story. The claim is that an associate editor didn't review it. But Rick Sternberg was managing editor at the time, and he reviewed it. He has two PhD's in biology ,one in evolutionary biology. And the article underwent the standard peer review by 3 qualified scientists.
Google "Rick Sternberg" for some interesting reading. Looks like any scientist that strays too far from the Darwinist camp gets sent to the Gulag.
I leave you with this quote: As a Chinese paleontologist was once quoted in an article in the Wall Street Journal, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
Biology, Chemistry, and Geology..
Teach the truth:
"We don't know."
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.