[SirLinksalot]

There's a new book out that seeks to improve the teaching of Evolution by the Inquiry-based approach. This will be based on arguments FOR and AGAINST Darwinism.

See here :

http://www.exploreevolution.com/

"The purpose of Explore Evolution, is to examine the scientific controversy about Darwin's theory, and in particular, the contemporary version of the theory known as neo-Darwinism. Whether you are a teacher, a student, or a parent, this book will help you understand what Darwin's theory of evolution is, why many scientists find it persuasive, and why other scientists question the theory or some key aspects of it.

Sometimes, scientists find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events. Fortunately, even though we can't directly verify these claims, we can test them. How? First, we gather as much evidence as possible and look at it carefully. Then, we compare the competing theories in light of how well they explain the evidence.

Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. In science, it is ultimately the evidence-and all of the evidence-that should tell us which theory offers the best explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence, and we hope it will stimulate your interest in these questions as you weigh the competing arguments"

[stuartcr]

If it’s a heavy topic that’s generated debate for years, then why the big fuss?

[Red Badger]

Liberal: The universe sprang from in infinitesimally small point called a singularity....

Conservative: We call that "And God said, "Let there be light and there was light".........

[ClearCase_guy]

Strikes me as ironic that one of the trends in education is -- not to educate. For example, in Math class, when discussing division of fractions, many teachers do not "teach the algorithm" (they don't tell or show how to do the work). Instead, the allow the students to "discover it for themselves". Geometry is great this way -- Every 6th grader can be as wise as Euclid. Or not.

But in the area of Evolution, someone who says:

"Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Is a reactionary who dares to indicate that there are people who question Evolution and its role in the origin of species. Letting students "draw their own conclusions" is (in this case) crippling them for life with a flawed ability to do science.

Uh huh. No urge to indoctrinate here. No sir.

[antiRepublicrat]

ID proponents constantly claim that their mission is about science, not about theology. To turn their theology into science, they claim that their god is not necessarily the designer, just that the scientific evidence shows that the world must have been designed.

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that,"

Liars.

[antiRepublicrat]

BTW, the site is a sham. It is ostensibly a balanced look at the Theory of Evolution, but it is run by the Discovery Institute, a religious organization with the stated goal of replacing science with Christian theology.

[DaGman]

So the school board included creationism, they get sued, they lose (as they should), they appeal, they cost the property owner/taxpayers millions of dollars. All because they won’t accept science.

[taxesareforever]

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

NO, this just can't be! I mean the evos keep telling us that there aren't any "real" scientists out there who don't believe in evolution. I bet this puts a frown on their smiley faces.

[DiogenesTheDog]

The purpose of Explore Evolution, is to examine the scientific controversy about Darwin's theory

There is no scientific controversy over evolution. There is scholarly debate over things like the importance of allopatric versus sympatric speciation, gradualism versus punctuated evolution. But there is no scientific uncertainty over the reality of evolution, just a political and social one.

[ReignOfError]

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.

Nice to see that no matter how long this story lingers, reporters never tire of treating arguments as equivalent when they do not have equivalent weight.

There is no need for "an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be." Evolution does not purport to explain how the universe came to be. It's like looking for an alternative to chemistry to explain the Pythagorean theorem.

He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.

For the record, I would also oppose the Declaration of Independence, the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades being used as an authority in science classes.

==========

This will be based on arguments FOR and AGAINST Darwinism.

Nice try at pretending to be objective, but the use of the word "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway. You never hear anyone talking about Newtonism or Copernicism, do you?

When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence.

The existence of conflicting theories does not make the theories equally worthy of consideration. Or would you have high school history classes give equal time to the competing theory that the Holocaust did not happen?

[RightWhale]

The School Board debates Evolution. Once they are done with that they will move on to String Theory and Hawking temperature.

[P8riot]

We live in Chesterfield, VA and our son is kindergarten age. It is issues like this (among others) that have led us to homeschool.

[Amelia]

Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.

We are not allowed to proselytize, certainly, but I'm not aware of any laws of that sort.