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.

[almcbean]

I agree. see my post 74. Let's put the Scarlet ID letters on him.

[Dimensio]

I hear crickets.

[Dimensio]

Anything taken on faith is a religion friend ...

When you play games with definitions, and redefine terms to mean what you want, you only fool yourself.

Now .. If you can fill me in on the specifics of that first little spark ... or what ever it is that you hold so dear as the "beginning " of this evolution thing ... perhaps I can get with you ..

Huh? Evolution says nothing about a 'little spark'. To what are you referring?

[Dimensio]

They can't let it go because that would be an admission that God's Word is actually true, and thus morals are not negotiable.

Two creationist lies rolled into one. First, the tired old canard that those who accept evolution are atheists, and second the arrogant and paranoid accusation that evolution is some kind of attempt to escape the implications of your religion -- out of the thousands of religions in the world -- being true.

[RadioAstronomer]

ROTFLMAO!

[Long Cut]

You know why people become paranoid?

So they can fantasize that someone is paying attention to them.

[RadioAstronomer]

LOL! Me too! :-)

[Step_Into_the_Void]

I think public schools should become a thing of the past. All schools should be private and if people want to support them they can.

This would end all controversy on the subject and the creationists could no longer complain.

Privatize the schools, (all the schools) and then it will be what it should be, survival of the fittest schools.

Private groups and charities could subsidize any school or pupil of their choice. No honest person can argue with this type of setup.

[Dimensio]

The article said ...

WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins?

Yes, and the aritcle referenced evolution as though it covers it, meaning that the author of the article is ignorant regarding what evolution does and does not state, and as such the author has absolutely no credibility whatsoever when speaking on the subject.

[PatrickHenry]

I think public schools should become a thing of the past. All schools should be private and if people want to support them they can. This would end all controversy on the subject and the creationists could no longer complain.

Fine with me. That's probably the only solution. Then the graduates of "Young & Flat Earth Academy" can go out into the real world and use their creationist knowledge to compete with everyone else.

[furball4paws]

Try this post.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1351793/posts

[furball4paws]

No science is built through debate.

[Blzbba]

I think most of us would be happy to have a Bible study class as an elective."


That should be the responsibility of the parents and their church, not public, taxpayer-funded education.

Besides, would you want (say) a Southern Baptist teaching (say) your Roman Catholic child their version of the Bible (or vice versa - no faiths being particularly cited here- just comparing)?

I would not and would prefer that my church be responsible for my child's religious education.

Respectfully,

[Blzbba]

"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!"


Thats the funniest thing I've read here in awhile - thanks!

[Blzbba]

"Don't forget those troublesome matters of geology, physics and astronomy...."


You left out astrology, which like Creationism, has millions of faithful believers and zero science to back it up.

[Dimensio]

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."

How can we trust you when you use lies to prop up your arguments?

[Dimensio]

Yeah, I also think that it's funny that anyone is using that false quote from a "Chinese paleontologist" to support their arguments. I mean, really, why do creationists think that we can trust them when they use shameless lies to support their arguments?

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

That should be the responsibility of the parents and their church, not public, taxpayer-funded education.

I don't know why you think that. The schools already have electives to study Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Christianity should have it's place.

No other religion ever resulted in any governmental form worth talking about. And the non-Christian Democracies that exist now are all creations of Christian culture.

[Blzbba]

"I'll bet you grew up in one of those "stupid" red states."


I grew up (well, aged anyways) in South Carolina, a defined red state, and was taught evolution without controversy.

Of course, being Catholic, my faith was far less threatened by evolution than it is for the fundies.