teach the controversy
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/…
… I think a lively debate between evolution and creationism in the classroom might be a good thing. Students are more likely to learn to understand ideas in that context, where they are trying to defend or attack them, than when they are simply told by their teacher “this is what is true, believe it,” which is in practice what a lot of schooling comes down to…
What he said.
I realize that “teach the controversy” is a creationist argument to get creationism into the schools.
But, darn it, good arguments destroy bad arguments.
The last thing creationists should want is to “teach the controversy”, and the first thing that evolutionists should want is to “teach the controversy”.
Are any physicists afraid of “teaching the controversy” between relativity and … well, whatever nonsense stands opposed to relativity?
Are any biologists afraid of “teaching the controversy” between the germ theory of disease and … evil spirits?
Are any economists afraid of “teaching the controversy” between free market economics and Marxism?
Conventional mainstream evolutionary theory has some weird corners and some holes, but it’s pretty cohesive. If it weren’t for the fact that Dawkins and the rest of the brights see their mission as destroying Christianity first and foremost (tied only with posturing for their groupies), and actually educating folks in science second most, they would leap at the chance to teach the controversy.
The “all global warming is anthropogenic, and the only possible reaction is to cut carbon use 90% over the next 15 years, which will have zero impact on our standard of living” folks are the ones who should be scared as heck about “teaching the controversy”.
…but the evolutionists should have no worries.
Let a thousand bad counter arguments be destroyed!
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
In practice, in the US, when “teaching the controversy” is what is espoused, creationism is the only thing that is actually taught. The evidence for evolution is left out.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The “lively debate” goes as such:
Teacher wearing Science Hat: Let me take 3 weeks to show you 1,000 reasons why it seems that evolution is how we got here
Teacher wearing Creation Hat: And the Creationist counter argument is “God did it. There will be a test on that.”
Teacher wearing Science Hat: Let me take another 3 weeks to show you another 1,000 inter-related reasons….
Teacher wearing Creation Hat: And the Creationist counter argument is “God did it. There will be a test on that.”
It’s just not a very lively discussion.
;-)
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
My first exposure to evolution was in second grade. My teacher was trying to explain rhetorical questions, and asked “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” I didn’t understand the question, and said “The chicken, because God made it.” She blew up. Canceled all of her lessons for the next two days to teach us about the miracle of evolution.
It was inane. The poor lady had no idea what she was talking about, and it was obvious to the whole class. My personal favorite line was “Birds are descended from reptiles, and that’s why rattlesnake tastes like chicken.” Even in second grade I knew that was ridiculous.
Same thing in high school. My AP Biology teacher canceled the evolution unit because he didn’t know the answers to any of my questions. All of my teachers their position “on faith” far more than I did.
I was actually graduated from college before I made the switch, and even now a lot of my old objections re: evolution haven’t been answered. I think we have far more to discover before the whole theory fits together in a totally rational way.
Sure, there are a lot of ignorant folks who have no idea what evolution really is. But there are also a lot of creationists that can debate the thing on its merits, and do pretty well unless they’re talking to somebody who’s far more knowledgeable than your average high school teacher.
p.s. A young-earth creation view actually requires VERY aggressive evolutionary change. In a debate, that’s a far more effective talking point than “believe me, the science (that I don’t understand) backs me up.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
You have to remember that most of these people know that Creationism is in no way scientific. You also have to realize that all of these controversies start at the local school board level. All they want is to get it in the books so they can tell their kids “See, it’s in a science book, so it has to be science”. They will just tell them the book is wrong. TJIC I agree with you about Dawkins. I had heard great things before I read him, but he seems almost irrationally anti-religious. In some of his books he brings religion into it when it serves no obvious purpose. Stephen Jay Gould seemed to do a more reasonable job (they didn’t like each other? is that true? I’m lazy, Gould is dead, whatever.). Back to my point: they don’t care about the discussion, they just want to get it in the books.