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.

[THEUPMAN]

.....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

[RadioAstronomer]

Biology is the ONLY science that will not acknowledge ID!!

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?

[munchtipq]

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.

[general_re]

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.

[crail]

You can witness small beneficial mutations on a short time scale. Check out the link I posted from PH's page. You can also witness small geological shakes that cause small geological changes. But have you ever seen an earthquake result in a new mountain in the last 150 years? Has any creationist or scientist seen this?

All you've done is post some evidence for micro-mountain-formation. We both agree that the theory of micro-mountain-formation is fine. That dosn't convince me at all that the theory of macro-mountain-formation is correct. Has an earthquake in Kansas ever caused a mountain like Mt. Everest, or even like Mt. Whitney to spring up? What evidence do you have then for macro-mountain-formation? Children are being taught the theory of macro-mountain-formation, and yet no creationist has witnessed an earthquake followed by a mountain. Doesn't that bother you?

[general_re]

But if they don't have the tools to critically evaluate and analyze the things they're being told, they'll simply have to accept or reject what they're being told on faith, and I don't think either of us are interested in that. If they don't have the tools to compare the various theories, then you might as well limit the discussion of origins to one single sentence - "the origin of the first life form is a controversial subject, with many competing scientific theories", because that's all they're going to get out of it anyway, no matter how much material you present to them.

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.

[PatrickHenry]

Children are being taught the theory of macro-mountain-formation, and yet no creationist has witnessed an earthquake followed by a mountain.

It pleases me to see yet another anti-craterist. Your enlightenment is impressive.
The scientific case against Craterism.

[Blzbba]

"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.

[crail]

craters??? CRATERS??? Don't you even get me STARTED on the crater cultists!

[Blzbba]

"Why do you think your religion should be given preference in the classroom?"


Why should your religion be given preference?

[Blzbba]

"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.

[almcbean]

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."

[crail]

What bothers me is your incoherence. Earthquakes quake earth. Many can push up mountains over a short , or maybe long period.

You've got it wrong. Genetic mutations mutate DNA. Many can create new species over short, or maybe long periods.
Earthquakes only shake the earth, they don't "construct" mountains. The 2nd law of thermodynamics excludes the ordering of rocks and rubble into a mountain via some random process like earthquakes. Maybe they can result in a new ridge, but nothing as large and complex as a full mountain. That's like assuming a tornado happens in un-rock-picked farmer's field and all of a sudden all the rocks coalesce to form Michelangelo's David. You need to open your mind to different theories, because the tide is turning on you macro-mountain-formation cultists.

Accept the truth. The truth is that snow creates large mountains. Let me ask you this... have you ever seen a large mountain without snow? Have you ever been to Alberta? Every mountain has snow. Even in Africa, which is not known for it's snow, in the one spot it snows, Killimanjaro forms. Fuji? Grew under the snow. Everest? Where the snow was. Have you been to Mexico? Hot, Hot, Hot. And Orizaba grew where the snow was! Small mountains can be created by earthquakes, on that we agree, but have you ever seen a small mountain suddenly become a large mountain in your lifetime? No. It doesn't happen, except on the initial mountain creation day, on which it snowed in certain spots. This is the word, divinely inspired, written by the very hand of The Sasquatch, my prophet, as recited Father Christmas. All I ask is teach the controversy! Let the students decide!

[Drammach]

Biology is the ONLY science that will not acknowledge ID!!
Biology, and Chemistry, ....

Biology, Chemistry, and Geology..

[cookcounty]

"WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins?"

Teach the truth:

"We don't know."