A big problem: ID in the NYT

Ed,

Mind if I play "devils advocate"? If the playing field is level during these discussions, kids will have an opportunity to compare the two properly. Today's youth are neither stupid or naive; in fact, I think there's a strong streak of cynicism present, largely directed at institutions of authority like the government and religion.

So - given a level playing field - I suspect that an open dialogue on the two "theories" in a classroom enviroment will result in a great deal of harm done to ID rather than TOE. (Pardon me whilst I cry over the damage done to the credibility of ID and it's proponents... :D) If the playing field is tilted toward ID it may create problems for some kids; but I believe most of them will still perceive it for what it is - garbage of the first degree.

Even if kids consider ID a viable alternative to TOE, they'll either dismiss both as irrelevant to them... or they'll engage their minds in the process of determining which one is most likely correct. That's a step toward skepticism and critical thinking, no? :)
 
Ed said:
The problem is that it is now worthy of discussion and the "argument" is being given such promenence. By discussing it, it gives this stupidity a credibility that it does not deserve.
Click to expand...
Especially when the articles, the 2nd one in particular, seem so unwilling to point out the flaws in ID (what was that 'the probability is essentially zero' dreck?). So far the articles have been pandering to the ID proponents, as far as I can see.

I agree that this could pose a problem, and jmercer, I think you give the kids too much credit to think for themselves.
 
jmercer said:
Ed,

Mind if I play "devils advocate"? If the playing field is level during these discussions, kids will have an opportunity to compare the two properly. Today's youth are neither stupid or naive; in fact, I think there's a strong streak of cynicism present, largely directed at institutions of authority like the government and religion.

So - given a level playing field - I suspect that an open dialogue on the two "theories" in a classroom enviroment will result in a great deal of harm done to ID rather than TOE. (Pardon me whilst I cry over the damage done to the credibility of ID and it's proponents... :D) If the playing field is tilted toward ID it may create problems for some kids; but I believe most of them will still perceive it for what it is - garbage of the first degree.

Even if kids consider ID a viable alternative to TOE, they'll either dismiss both as irrelevant to them... or they'll engage their minds in the process of determining which one is most likely correct. That's a step toward skepticism and critical thinking, no? :)
Click to expand...

I hear you, and feel your pain:D

The problem is that the suggestion is that ID is worthy of being discussed in science class. It simply is not science and that fact seems lost on the President and the NYT.

To give the concept of ID the drubbing that it deserves a teacher would, perforce, be seen as anti-religion. This PC crap works both ways.
 
Yah - you're right. And the idea of wasting valuable classroom time for ID makes my stomach churn. Still, it would be fun to watch the kids tear ID apart. :)
 
But even as the institute spearheads the intellectual development of intelligent design, it has staked out safer turf in the public policy sphere, urging states and school boards simply to include criticism in evolution lessons rather than actually teach intelligent design.
Click to expand...
That's because they [IDers] have no theory and nothing to teach.

Dr. West, who leads the science center's public policy efforts, said it did not support mandating the teaching of intelligent design because the theory was not yet developed enough and there was no appropriate curriculum. So the institute has opposed legislation in Pennsylvania and Utah that pushes intelligent design,
Click to expand...
That's because they have no theory and nothing to teach.

Intelligent design proponents have been stung by claims that, in contrast to mainstream scientists, they do not form their own theories or conduct original research. They say they are doing the mathematical work and biological experiments needed to put their ideas on firm scientific ground.
Click to expand...
Because they still have no theory and nothing to teach.

By studying the evolutionary tree and the genetics and biochemistry of living organisms, Dr. Doolittle said,
Click to expand...
Can't he just ask the animals if they evolve? Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
 
Personally, I think allowing ID in the classroom would be dangerous. Under high school age, that is. Having taught some basic science to junior-high-school-age and -under kids before, I can say that they usually don't think to question what you're teaching them. If you're teaching something in a science class, they're going to take it as science. Even if what you're teaching clearly contridicts something else, you'll do no more than make them confused.

I remember when I was in junior high, my english teacher invited this guy in to talk to the english class about science. She had met him on the beach that morning. He talked for an hour about how the Earth was flat. When he was done, my teacher had us applaud, and we were done. I hope that my fellow students didn't believe that crap he was talking about, but we won't know, because no one said anything. Including me, I'm afraid to say. I remember being too astonished to talk. Even if they didn't believe it, why did none of us say anything? I don't give kids enough credit to know when they're being taught crap. School rarely teaches you to think for yourself - that's what college is for.
 
From Real Time With Bill Maher (August 19, 2005):
And finally, New Rule: You don't have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap.

...

(E)ven though there's a debate, in schools, and government, about this, there is no debate among scientists. Evolution... is supported by the entire scientific community. Intelligent design is supported by guys on line to see "The Dukes of Hazzard."

And the reason there is no real debate, is that intelligent design isn't real science. It's the equivalent of saying that the thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, because it's a god. It's so willfully ignorant you might as well worship the U.S. Mail. It came again! Praise, Jesus!

No, stupidity isn't a form of knowing things. Thunder is high pressure air meeting low pressure air. It's not God bowling. Babies come from storks is not a competing school of thought. In medical school, we shouldn't teach both. The media shouldn't equate both.
Click to expand...
 
From the second article:

Dr. Behe, however, said he might find it compelling if scientists were to observe evolutionary leaps in the laboratory. He pointed to an experiment by Richard E. Lenski, a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University, who has been observing the evolution of E. coli bacteria for more than 15 years. "If anything cool came out of that," Dr. Behe said, "that would be one way to convince me."

Dr. Behe said that if he was correct, then the E. coli in Dr. Lenski's lab would evolve in small ways but never change in such a way that the bacteria would develop entirely new abilities.

In fact, such an ability seems to have developed. Dr. Lenski said his experiment was not intended to explore this aspect of evolution, but nonetheless, "We have recently discovered a pretty dramatic exception, one where a new and surprising function has evolved," he said.

Dr. Lenski declined to give any details until the research is published. But, he said, "If anyone is resting his or her faith in God on the outcome that our experiment will not produce some major biological innovation, then I humbly suggest they should rethink the distinction between science and religion."

Dr. Behe said, "I'll wait and see."
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what Lenski's research shows. Can someone here who is in the right field undertake to keep an eye open for it?
 
You can't teach Science properly if you're wasting time presenting ideas developed completely outside of the Scientific Method in any context but by way of contrasting them to those developed through rational thought processes and testing.

It would be the equivalent of teaching TV repair and including a lesson on the "little men that live in the TV".
 
Brown said:
From Real Time With Bill Maher (August 19, 2005):
Click to expand...
A couple more gems from Maher:
Now, President Bush recently suggested that public schools should teach intelligent design, alongside the theory of evolution. Because, after all, evolution is quote, "just a theory." Then the President renewed his vow to drive the terrorists straight over the edge of the earth.
Click to expand...
Like we came from Adam and Eve, and then cover stories for Adam and Eve like, intelligent design. Yeah, leaving the Earth in the hands of two naked teenagers. That's a real intelligent design.
Click to expand...
 
What I find galling is the insidious, smokescreen tactic of "urging states and school boards simply to include criticism in evolution lessons" which is simply a diversion. While all the Dukes-of-Hazzard fans are saying, "Yeah, how come we're not allowed to critisize TOE?" they are not seeing that the ID goal is to replace critical analysis with blind acceptance.

If they were really serious about "teaching the controversy" and "presenting both sides" they would not publish their one-sided propaganda about irreducible complexity, contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Goldilocks problem, etc. as if these are unanswered riddles.
 
'Presenting both sides' of the evolution 'argument' is not enough.

It might be interesting to give the IDers what they want in schools, but then carry it even further. The full range of 'ideas' about biological origins is not really limited to ID and Neo-Darwinism. Give the schoolkids all known ideas to choose from.

Teach the competing ideas of Neo-Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Literal YEC (straight from Genesis), Transmutationism, Saltationism, Classic Lamarckism, Transformationism, Orthogenesis, etc. Lay it all on them in equal measure and let the kiddies decide what the world is really like.

In such a situation, it might be fun to watch the IDers argue against the whole mess of ideas - trying to whittle it down to ID vs Darwinian Evolution. I bet they would argue against the others by adopting the same arguments that is now used against ID.

If evolutionary biologists are wrong about ID, they might also be wrong about saltationism. If you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, you don't know your ass from any hole in the ground. Right?
 
In my view, the proper response to the call to "Teach the Controversy" is to respond that the Controversy was manufactured specifically for the purpose of being able to argue that schools should Teach the Controversy. Bring out the Wedge Memo or whatever it's called.
 
Jon. said:
In my view, the proper response to the call to "Teach the Controversy" is to respond that the Controversy was manufactured specifically for the purpose of being able to argue that schools should Teach the Controversy. Bring out the Wedge Memo or whatever it's called.
Click to expand...
Never have so few words done so much for so many.

Must have taken quite a compressor to squeeze so many of my thoughts together so well.
 
jmercer said:
Ed,

Mind if I play "devils advocate"? If the playing field is level during these discussions, kids will have an opportunity to compare the two properly. Today's youth are neither stupid or naive; in fact, I think there's a strong streak of cynicism present, largely directed at institutions of authority like the government and religion.
Click to expand...

Why not give "equal time" to flat-earthers, and moon-landing conspiracists?
 
jmercer said:
So - given a level playing field - I suspect that an open dialogue on the two "theories" in a classroom enviroment will result in a great deal of harm done to ID rather than TOE.
Click to expand...
To your credit you did emphasize "given a level playing field" a couple of times, but that is not a given, for three reasons I can think of:
- A large number (~40% in one poll) of teachers believe in some form of creationism. They are not going to rake ID over the coals.

- Still other teachers won't touch the whole controvery at all for fear of problems from fundy parents.

- Very, very few teachers have the background, materials and time to give the subject its due.

I know there are damn good scientific reasons for not allowing ID in the classroom as articulated in this thread. I just wanted to add an objection on pragmatic grounds alone.
 
BS Investigator said:
Why not give "equal time" to flat-earthers, and moon-landing conspiracists?
Click to expand...

Well... those 'ideas' couldn't really be accomodated in public schools on equal terms.

Flat-earth is a 'theory' about astronomy and geology, so it could be taught as an alternative idea to a spherical planet in science classes. The IDers ought to like that, since it just goes with the theme of giving students the plurality of human thought on things... and then let them decide.

But, 'moon landing conspiracy' is not really a theory about the natural world. It is a skeptical refutation of a claim. That would fall into a missing issue that might be contained in social studies. The missing issue is the study of lots of people intentionally lying to everyone else. How would a teacher objectively instruct students on this reality of humanity?

What happens when schoolteachers are faced with the situation of instructing a student that their own father is completely wrong about the world?
 
SezMe said:

- Very, very few teachers have the background, materials and time to give the subject its due.
Click to expand...


Teachers should only teach what they are qualified to teach.

For years I thought the moon's phases were caused by the shadow of the earth. It was an eye opening experience to learn the truth. Today I often ask people what causes the phases of the moon, and am surprised to discover most people believe it is caused by the shadow of the earth.

The other day, after explaining to a young woman what actually causes the phases of the moon, she looked at me with a puzzled look on her face and said, "Why would my elementary school teacher teach me that?"

That was a good question.
 
William Parcher said:
What happens when schoolteachers are faced with the situation of instructing a student that their own father is completely wrong about the world?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of your meaning here. Is this a reference to the teaching of evolution?

Beth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom