Bush: 'Teach the controversy'

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Dragar

To my mind, this isn't a problem that can be fixed by teaching philosophy and critical thinking skills in science classes, but by instead teaching philosophy and critical thinking skills in philosophy and critical thinking classes. Including philosophy of science, what makes a theory, why ID is not a theory and why creationism is a falsified position, etc.

I get your point here, Dragar, but I'm not sure it's very realistic. Last I heard science was a mandatory part of the American high school curriculum. I'm not aware of any philosophy or critical thinking courses (except maybe as part of social studies or something). I'm just guessing, though. I never really went to high school myself.

[Dragar]

I get your point here, Dragar, but I'm not sure it's very realistic.

It's not at all realistic.

I suppose you could throw ID into science class, and teach why it's not science, etc. But for what reason?

It's not a scientific controversy. So it would be a social controversy. I suppose you could teach it as an example of where religion clashes with science, and explain why ID is not science, etc.

But do you really think they would be allowed to teach that? Or would you just end up with ID handouts and stickers in the textbooks?

[viscousmemories]

Oh I'm not arguing for teaching ID in science class; I'm inclined to agree it has no place there. I was just saying I didn't think covering it in a mandatory philosophy of science or critical thinking course was an option.

[Clutch Munny]

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.

I don't think there's any way to do this systematically -- class upon class, teacher after teacher, thousands of schools in hundreds of districts -- that won't largely amount to teaching serious mistakes about science (ie, the content of ID/creationism) while giving religiously-inflected positions a free pass.

"The controversy" simply does not exist among credentialed biologists. (There are innumerable controversies among them, of course; just not this one.) The way that the appearance of a genuine controversy has been half-conjured is a fabulously interesting topic in the political, cultural and sociological reactions to science. I think students might be really interested in it. But it's precisely

- because ID/creationism has no serious positive proposal,

- because its methods invariably reduce to appalling strawmen and cynical quote-mining, and

- because (unlike the historical examples you may be recalling) there are community leaders and parents at home that currently deeply invested in the fight

...that the side-by-side method won't work. In order to work, teachers would have to be diagnosing some gobsmacking stupidity and outright malfeasance on the part of those who purport to be standing up for Jesus.

But this is an unreasonable, even unfair, expectation to have of teachers. Few would want to, I expect, and far fewer would practically be able to do so. It's hardly a new observation that genuine scientific analysis is the last thing that creationists ought to want for their views, since whenever it happens they are shown up for ignorant or unprincipled gits. But that's precisely why it would be wrong to try: the socio-political costs and difficulties of effective teaching on the topic make it certain (IMO) that genuine critical analysis would be the thing that gives, rather than the muddled thinking.

Says me, anyhow.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Clutch

It's hardly a new observation that genuine scientific analysis is the last thing that creationists ought to want for their views...

Flaming dogdish. I just meant to make this observation myself without claiming originality. On a re-reading I see that livius already made it. I was not somehow taking her to task for pretending the point is original to her!

[Dragar]

Thanks Clutch. You said what I was trying to get across much better.

Oh I'm not arguing for teaching ID in science class; I'm inclined to agree it has no place there. I was just saying I didn't think covering it in a mandatory philosophy of science or critical thinking course was an option.

Understood and agreed. But if I had my 'ideal' world...

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Ari

I think ID should be taken to task in court.

You'd think so, at first blush, since creationists have never prevailed there. But there are three potential problems if, for example, the Dover, PA case gets beyond the trial level.

First, Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 case that essentially banned Biblical creationism from public schools, was decided by application of the Lemon test. The Lemon test has come under serious attack in the intervening years by conservatives not only on the Supreme Court but throughout the federal system. Given the way the Court (and the courts) may look in a couple of years and presented with the opportunity, Lemon will be a dead letter.

Second, McLean v. Arkansas, an older, lower court case, although the creationists were spanked soundly,* was decided on dubious grounds, according to philosophers of science. The Discovery Institute, in its legal arguments, can (and has) use this to great advantage, together with the next point. The Discovery Institute has been able to put to good use criticisms made of McLean by experts that are otherwise no friends of the DI.

Finally, although the standard for scientific evidence for several decades depended on whether "the deduction ... made [is] sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs," that all changed in 1993 with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The evidentiary standard announced in Daubert is far more liberal, based on a reading of the Federal Rules of Evidence that allows more "novel" scientific testimony so long as it "both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand."

All of the above favor the creationist position in courts. These considerations may appear on their face to be entirely irrelevant to the fundamental scientific questions at issue here. That's because they are. But this is precisely how the Discovery Institute wages its campaign.

* Duane Gish was so frightened at the ACLU lawyers' questioning that he refused to take the witness stand.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Including philosophy of science, what makes a theory, why ID is not a theory and why creationism is a falsified position, etc.

Are all versions of Creationism falsified?

From what I can tell, evolution and creationism are not side by side theories, they deal with two totally different questions. Evolution deals with how things came to be if anything is and creationism deals with, "Why is there something, why isn't there nothing? How can there be anything?" Personally I think they are both valid questions, one doesn't make the other one obselete and they both need to be asked and dealt with. It's silly to me to say we must assume an atheist position just because they say so for in order to assume evolution alone I would have to assume Occam's Razor true, the Universe just Is. Occam's Razor it seems to me, is a philosophical theory and therefore, Creationism as a philosophical theory, should also be discussed in schools. Inquiring minds want to know why my children should be taught there is no why as if that is the only possible thought to think. Let them think.



"Thus, for instance, Catholicism, in a sense little understood, stands outside a quarrel like that of Darwinism at Dayton. It stands outside it because it stands all around it, as a house stands all around two incongruous pieces of furniture. It is no sectarian boast to say it is before and after and beyond all these things in all directions. It is impartial in a fight between the Fundamentalist and the theory of the Origin of Species, because it goes back to an origin before that Origin; because it is more fundamental than Fundamentalism. It knows where the Bible came from. It also knows where most of the theories of Evolution go to. It knows there were many other Gospels besides the Four Gospels, and that the others were only eliminated by the authority of the Catholic Church. It knows there are many other evolutionary theories besides the Darwinian theory; and that the latter is quite likely to be eliminated by later science. It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up. It does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. "

http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/theolo...hycatholic.htm

[Clutch Munny]

Sweetie, I think that's a fair point. Probably fairer still to say that 'creationism' and 'evolutionary theory' are both ambiguous -- especially the former. When people talk about the falsification of creationism, they are (I think) virtually always talking about one particular family of positions that travel under that label, which do set themselves up in opposition to evolutionary theories, broadly conceived. (Darwin and otherwise.)

Indeed, the most commonly discussed kinds of creationism essentially define themselves as denying that common ancestry is consistent with some holy text or other, and is therefore false.

But it's certainly correct that one can strictly and literally be a creationist while accepting the science of the day at face value. Presumably whatever our best theory T tell us, there is a theistic story that goes, "God brought it about that T would apply". That seems more or less what Chesterson is saying.

[Ari]

Sweetie:
Semantics are a bitch.
When people talk about creationism, they are normally talking about the scientific theory of creationism. That has been falsified. What I think you are talking about is a belief in creation. Creation beliefs haven't been falsified but they are also not science but philosophy.

Occam's razor is often misunderstood. The razor basically says that all evidence being equal the simplest answer is often the best. In the case of God and creation we have no scientific evidence for or against. Since lack of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, we can't use occam's razor to cut God out of the picture. At best it says, "need more information."

[Dragar]

Sweetie, I meant to suggest the '4000 year old Earth, seperately created 'kinds', global flood' position that creationism usually speaks of. Those have been pretty much falsified (by creationists, quite some time ago!).

The 'God created the universe' or 'God used evolution to create mankind' or 'God created seperate kinds but left evidence that looks precisely as if evolution did it all' are all unfalisfied, but also unfalsifiable. Which means they aren't science, and we can't say anything about them other than, "Maybe, but no reason to think so."

Of course, you think there is reason to think so regarding at least some of those. But that's a seperate argument for us.

[viscousmemories]

I just saw the tail end of Biologist Michael Behe going head to head on the subject of Bush's comments about "teaching the controversy" with Theoretical Physicist Lawrence Krauss on the Jim Lehrer Newshour on PBS. Highlights were Behe calling Krauss a "Darwinian Evolutionist Sympathizer" and Krauss arguing that there are far more legitimate challenges to Newtonian gravity theory than evolution, if anyone thinks more controversies need to be taught.

[Dragar]

...and Krauss arguing that there are far more legitimate challenges to Newtonian gravity theory than evolution...

/me giggles

Of course there are. Newtonian gravity is generally accepted as a falsified (but still approximately accurate) model!

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I think that's a fair point.

What is?

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

What is?

That creationism comes in many versions.

[D. Scarlatti]

Maybe "special creationism" is a more accurate term then, since it's common to all versions, from YEC to ID.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Ari

Sweetie:
Semantics are a bitch.
When people talk about creationism, they are normally talking about the scientific theory of creationism.

I don't know that we have that controversy here. I grew up in a Fundamentalist town with a public school and an atheist science teacher who, no matter that he was really bright, wasn't a particularily good teacher. Anyways, the point, I don't remember being taught either theory to be honest.

So what you are saying that has been falsified is the theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old and the controversy is over the kids learning that theory side by side the theory of evolution? Or that theory as if it was a verifiable scientific theory which it's not.

Creation beliefs haven't been falsified but they are also not science but philosophy.

Yes, I already stated as much.

Occam's razor is often misunderstood. The razor basically says that all evidence being equal the simplest answer is often the best.

I can't see that Occam's Razor however, is any answer.

In the case of God and creation we have no scientific evidence for or against. Since lack of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, we can't use occam's razor to cut God out of the picture. At best it says, "need more information."

You maybe "can't" technically, but you also "can't" tell me that that isn't exactly what a scientific theory without enough philisophical questioning is trying to do.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

But it's certainly correct that one can strictly and literally be a creationist while accepting the science of the day at face value. Presumably whatever our best theory T tell us, there is a theistic story that goes, "God brought it about that T would apply". That seems more or less what Chesterson is saying.

Chesterton is saying basically just what I have said.

He is saying that we're watching both Fundamentalists fighting and the Evolutionists, or whatever they're called, and we're standing at a distance saying, you guys are fighting over nothing and you're missing the real question. It's like quibbling over whether 6+3=9 if you can't say there is anything before 6, including 3. 6 just Is. (Granted, 6 in that case just becomes one and 9 becomes 3 but that's entirely the problem. You never escape the necessity of starting at 0 and 1, what we may call Nothing and First Thing)

Catholicism stands outside the fight because she recognizes firstly, that the two theories are not incompatible in their essence. He is saying that Catholicism need not accept an exacting six day Creationism theory because that is strict literalistic interpretation by the Fundamentalist who doesn't even have the Bible he is trying to interpret grounded in anything.

The Catholic Church has for two thousand years seen philsophical and scientific theories rise and fall, and any at any time on the "verge" of declaring theism or Catholicism false.

Catholicism notices that you have a theory, but that theory is in a box. If you haven't been able to explain what's outside that box, you can't accurately interpret that information for parts taken out of context of the whole can be greatly misunderstood and can be used to say anything. Information is way too maleable. What is an eye without a face?

And no, he's not suggesting that Catholicism is unfalsifiable. He's more than not saying that Catholicism has already beaten you guys to the punch.

He expressed in "Orthodoxy", "Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself....it does not destroy religion, it destroys rationalism," and prior, "The sages, it is often said, can see no answer to the riddle of religion. But the trouble with our sages is not that they cannot see the answer; they cannot even see the riddle."

Granted, I question part of the point of the first thought or rather, the conclusion as applied but, in context and that's his thought.

[Sweetie]

But as far as things go, Christianity has nothing to fear from evolution, just Fundamentalism does which is why she is fighting it so hard and obviously stupidly so. At the other extreme, as livius already said, if Evolutionists force Creationsism out entirely, she looks like she has something to fear.

Teach the Controversy indeed!

[But]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

It's like quibbling over whether 6+3=9 if you can't say there is anything before 6, including 3. 6 just Is. (Granted, 6 in that case just becomes one and 9 becomes 3 but that's entirely the problem. You never escape the necessity of starting at 0 and 1, what we may call Nothing and First Thing)

Sorry, but er.. what?

[D. Scarlatti]

Also, in what sense does this Chesterfield character's befuddled musings apply?

[Ari]

Well, it looks like we will be seeing less biologists coming from Kansas.

Kansas moves to stem role of evolution in teaching

"The 10-member board must still take a final vote, expected in either September or October, but a 6-4 vote on Tuesday that approved a draft of the standards essentially cemented a victory for conservative Christian board members who say evolution is largely unproven and can undermine religious teachings about the origins of life on earth."

Oh yeah, ID isn't about pushing God into school, really it isn't, I promise.

"The new science standards would not eliminate the teaching of evolution entirely, nor would they require that religious views, also known as creationism, be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution theory as required curriculum."

Because everyone knows evolution isn't the backbone of modern biology.
While they are at it, maybe they should eliminate relativity from Physics, after all, I'm sure it undermines someone's religious views.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Ari

"[...] it would encourage teachers to [...] eliminate core evolution theory as required curriculum."

Yeah that's some disturbing shit right there.

[MonCapitan2002]

If I ever have children, I am getting the fuck out of this country. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age there are still people who believe bullshit like creationism is true.

[Ari]

The scary thing is, it's not just "people" it's the majority to just under the majority (depending on which poll you look at). Which explains a lot of things IMO.