Bush: 'Teach the controversy'

[D. Scarlatti]

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Another dimwitted victim of Discovery Institute propaganda and misrepresentation.*

Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution

* a.k.a. "lies."

[Abdul Alhazred]

I say, yes. Teach the controversy. In social studies class.

Teach science in science class.

[Ari]

The students should already be "taught the controversy" the fact that there is still a controversy to begin with suggests our students are getting a poor scientific education (or at least the adults got a poor education and shouldn't flap their ignorance in the breeze.)

Lesson plan.
1) Science
A. What is science.
B. What is a theory.

2) Controversy
A. ID is not science.
B. your president is an idiot and your school board reps don't deserve their jobs.

[Shake]

In the early part of his book, The Demon Haunted World, Carl Sagan discusses how dangerous scientific illiteracy is for our future. If more people had even a halfway decent background in Ari's points above, this whole "controversy" would never have gotten as far as it has.

Re point 2A above: you're right, it's merely creationism repackaged and slapped with a "New and Improved!" label.

[Crumb]

Now with 33% more pseudoscience!

[HighOnHotSauce]

Sure, why not teach English in math class?

[livius drusus]

I don't have a problem with biology students learned about the ID/Evo controversy in a science class. In fact, I can see how it would be an excellent learning opportunity, especially if presented in a creative, interactive fashion.

The history and current events issues we discussed in the science classes of my youth were some of my favorite studies, and did a lot to keep me interested in the subject matter.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't have a problem with biology students learned about the ID/Evo controversy in a science class. In fact, I can see how it would be an excellent learning opportunity, especially if presented in a creative, interactive fashion.

The history and current events issues we discussed in the science classes of my youth were some of my favorite studies, and did a lot to keep me interested in the subject matter.

Perhaps some background about the controversy itself but ID and evolution being taught side by side I don’t agree with.

[Morroskye]

In Kansas our school board was seized once again by Christian conservatives. ID will be taught alongside evolution, making Kansas a national laughing stock, once again. These people get elected and impose their agenda, as they promise to do. I would say teaching evolution is the only acceptable way to approach the world of known science with students. It would be a joyous day if Christians were banned from public schools. It would certainly improve the intellectual atmosphere of the classroom.

[Ari]

I would have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution if it was taught properly and fully. This would include arguments against it, it could be a good learning experience and maybe keep kids away from other pseudo-science.
But our schools don't have the time or resources to waste on such a class lesson, as they can't even teach current science correctly.

I sometimes think IDists realize this. Stickers in books or even small blurbs are beneficial to ID. A full blown course taught next to a full blown course of evolution would end with ID being blown out of the water. Just like creationism or politics, intelligent Design is a sound-bite science and falls apart under scrutiny.

[Side]Apple's spell checker keeps trying to turn "IDists" into "Idiots." I have a smart computer. [/side]

[HighOnHotSauce]

ID is an attempt to get a foot in the back door. It would never end, not until there were daily bible readings as part of English Lit, and then in History as historical "fact", on and on and on...

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by HighOnHotSauce

Perhaps some background about the controversy itself but ID and evolution being taught side by side I don’t agree with.

I don't really see that being an issue, to tell the truth. ID doesn't really have much to say other than God started/directed it. Bush's statement was that he thought ID should be taught so students understand the controversy, and I agree with that thoroughly, both because it's an important issue in current science events (in the US, natch) and because suppressing the discussion looks shady, as if evolution had something to hide.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by HighOnHotSauce

ID is an attempt to get a foot in the back door.

I'm surprised more conservative christians don't oppose it.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Ari

I would have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution if it was taught properly and fully. This would include arguments against it, it could be a good learning experience and maybe keep kids away from other pseudo-science.

But our schools don't have the time or resources to waste on such a class lesson, as they can't even teach current science correctly.

I think that's a separate issue, really, and one that runs far deeper than any evo/crea controversies. In one sense, the whole teach both sides thing might well work to the advantage of those of us who'd like to see a well-endowed curriculum.

Okay, Mr. President. I'm totally down like a clown. Now cough up some federal money and we'll get right on beefing up that science curriculum just like you recommended.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Evolution is a scientific theory (supported by tested and replicated hypothesis organized into models of relevant information from areas of biology, chemistry, physics etc. all through the scientific method) Saying “god started it all” is not related to anything mentioned above, not science, can’t be supported, can’t be tested, can’t be organized because no scientific information would apply to begin with, information from any of these scientific areas again can’t apply and of course the scientific method can’t possibly apply, because, well, it’s not science. Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence and has nothing to hide. I don’t think a math teacher objecting to Shakespeare being taught in his classroom as math is hiding anything.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by HighOnHotSauce

Evolution is a scientific theory (supported by tested and replicated hypothesis organized into models of relevant information from areas of biology, chemistry, physics etc. all through the scientific method) Saying “god started it all” is not related to anything mentioned above, not science, can’t be supported, can’t be tested, can’t be organized because no scientific information would apply to begin with, information from any of these scientific areas again can’t apply and of course the scientific method can’t possibly apply, because, well, it’s not science.

That's a very narrow view of science, imo, one so narrow that if it were implemented as a curricular structure whole chunks of the history of science would have to be discarded as irrelevant. In practice, science is and has been a lot more chaotic than that.

If you're not allowed to mention the notion that God or some such prime mover was involved, then how would you even go about describing the birth of geology, for instance, or how much chemistry as we know it owes to alchemy? The history of science is replete with these kinds of eternal arguments, and I find them riveting.

They most certainly belong in a science class, just as the Pythagorean notion that everything in the universe was in harmony driving them to suppress their own discovery of the irrational ratio of the diagonal to the side of the square belongs in a math class.

[HighOnHotSauce]

I agree with you that the building blocks to where science is now should absolutely be covered. This is not the same thing.

[Ari]

High: I agree it's not science. ID could be used to teach science and the scientific method. Unfortunately IDists have used a bunch of scientific sounding words to hide the fact it's just "God did it."
To be fair, current classes teach outdated theories/laws because they are easier to understand and help create a foundation that can later be built on.
The most basic scientific foundation, what science is and isn't, is either lacking or being taught poorly.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by HighOnHotSauce

I agree with you that the building blocks to where science is now should absolutely be covered. This is not the same thing.

I was just responding to your claim that "God started it" doesn't belong in a science class. I think there are contexts when it does belong: history and current events being the salient ones.

Teaching controversies is important, imo. It's important to impart a grasp of the issues to students who might not otherwise get a nice, overall exposure, to face head-on any implications that science is trying to silence controversial views, and to spark interest in a subject that although full of crazy good times is often presented as dry and formulaic.

Originally Posted by Ari

The most basic scientific foundation, what science is and isn't, is either lacking or being taught poorly.

Is that the most basic scientific foundation, though? The demarcation problem is really complex, after all; scientists and philosophers of science have been arguing over it for years.

[HighOnHotSauce]

Originally Posted by Ari

High: I agree it's not science. ID could be used to teach science and the scientific method. Unfortunately IDists have used a bunch of scientific sounding words to hide the fact it's just "God did it."
To be fair, current classes teach outdated theories/laws because they are easier to understand and help create a foundation that can later be built on.
The most basic scientific foundation, what science is and isn't, is either lacking or being taught poorly.

Agreed.

[Dragar]

ID doesn't really have much to say other than God started/directed it.

Um...

To my knowledge, it says a lot more than that. At the very least, it says that there is good reason to think that natural processes such as evolution are not capable of producing all the complexity of life we found about us, and that we need to posit an intelligence designing organisms to understand the world.

[livius drusus]

Ah, there you have it. If only someone had explained ID to me in high school.

What do you think, Dragar? Do you feel discussions of evo/crea/ID controversy in the US would be out of place in a science class? It's not so much of an issue over in your neck of the woods, I suspect. From what I've read, high school science in the UK isn't the quite the bone the dogs of politics and religion fight over as it is in the US these days.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Is that the most basic scientific foundation, though? The demarcation problem is really complex, after all; scientists and philosophers of science have been arguing over it for years.

Yes I think it is. It is fitting that it is also one of the most controversial. It is hard to pin down, but the basics are not.
Why a theory is more than a guess.
What assumptions science makes.
Why a supernatural being can't be the answer to a hypothesis.
Etc.

Basic questions with relatively solid answers especially when dealing with High school science.

Originally Posted by Dragar

To my knowledge, it says a lot more than that.

But it can all be summed down to "God did it" Not to generalize or stereotype the different creationist beliefs but ID is basically a complicated shell, trying to hide that phrase.
Both Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity break down into "I don't know/I don't want to look hard so a supernatural intelligence must have done it."

[Dragar]

What do you think, Dragar? Do you feel discussions of evo/crea/ID controversy in the US would be out of place in a science class?

Yes, primarily because there is no controversy in the scientific community. It would be nice if there was, because that way the scientists would be interested enough to take note and argue the point (some, of course, do care enough - but it's a time consuming job to correct IDists, and quickly becomes frustrating).

It would be like discussing the 'controversy' of a flat Earth/round Earth in geography, or the heliocentric/geocentric 'controversy' in physics and astronomy.

At least the latter actually has an angle to it that might make it worthwhile on seeing how theories change.

ID might have a purpose in a critical thinking or logic course, or in a philosophy of science course. But it has no place in biology or actual science class.

It's not so much of an issue over in your neck of the woods, I suspect. From what I've read, high school science in the UK isn't the quite the bone the dogs of politics and religion fight over as it is in the US these days.

Quite so. The British (as a generalisation) regard them as nutcases. That said, we still get the nutcases, and as much from Muslims as Christians.

[Dragar]

But it can all be summed down to "God did it" Not to generalize or stereotype the different creationist beliefs but ID is basically a complicated shell, trying to hide that phrase.

Oh, absolutely. The main goal of ID activists is not to actually learn anything, just to make sure that nobody thinks it wasn't god that 'did it'.