Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[js1138]

Then the question begs, who wrote the program? The program itself?

Don't know. How would you go about finding out?

[MacDorcha]

Not by scientific philosophy, that's for sure.

[js1138]

Ask me if I'm surprised.

[AndrewC]

The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.

The price of not allowing the questions to be raised in a controlled manner. And there are questions.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Even after decades of debate, Americans remain deeply ambivalent about the notion that the theory of natural selection can explain creation and its genesis.

Evolutionary biologists have never claimed to explain creation and its genesis. Makes you wonder if some of the creationists even know what they're complaining about.

[MacDorcha]

Ask me if I think you will ever figure out that "Truth" exists, and that science alone will not achieve it.

[samtheman]

When you talk about an author's writings, I think it's ok to use the present tense.

Shakespeare handles the subject of death with subtle grace and ageless wit.

[MacDorcha]

Evolutionary biologists have never claimed to explain creation and its genesis. Makes you wonder if some of the creationists even know what they're complaining about.

---

On point, I will agree with this statement. In practice, you are a silent majority (if you are majority in your actions and thoughts)

[MacDorcha]

Do you still hold that scientific thought is NOT a philosophy?

[js1138]

Science is a methodology. It makes no claims to producing any final truth. It does, however have the capacity to debunk fraud and error in claims about the way things work.

It does produce statements about the world that are more reliable than armchair philosophy, even if limited in scope.

Individual scientists can be armchair philosophers and say anything they want. they can be wrong in that same way and for the same reasons that non-scientists can be wrong.

But within the scope of observable phenomena, science produces better and more reliable statements than any previous method.

[MacDorcha]

Science is a methodology.

And methodology is what now? (Note that definition you never responded to a week or so back)

"But within the scope of observable phenomena, science produces better and more reliable statements than any previous method."

And does non-observable phenomena exist?

[MacDorcha]

Why don't we look at the effects of avoding/condeming bringing religious influences into schools:

USSR, People's Republic of China, North Korea, North VietNam...

Extremism is the problem here. Not religion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[doc30]

Something interesting about this issue. If students are questioning evolution with these creationsit/ID talking points, the biology teachers should be able to do more than refute them, but use it as an opportunity to teach more science. As I've mentioned in previous threads, my biggest pet peeve are people that don't get the basic science right when they argue creationism. If the teachers can correct scientific misunderstanding, it will go a long way to improving scientific education in this country. I've seen the ID/creationsist websites and they are terrible with misrepresentations, outdated (i.e. 19th century) thinking and outright lies. We've all seen it in these threads and responded with a great breadth of knowledge. In other words, the creationists types are right by promoting critical thinking, but for the wrong reasons. It is up to the teachers to be prepared for these questions and respond accordingly. It does make an excellent learning opportunity.

[js1138]

And methodology is what now? (Note that definition you never responded to a week or so back)

Sorry if I don't respond to every post. What are you asking? Your question makes no sense.

And does non-observable phenomena exist?

How would we know?

I do believe that some phenomena are private -- our consciousness, for example. But invisibile is not the same an non-observable. Anything that has effects can be studied by its effects.

[doc30]

Those students have probably read the Bible, and have made their own decisions.

That's a great way to make up your mind. Hear only one side of an issue and ignore what the other side has to say.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

But Mr. Wheeler says the criticisms West raises lack empirical evidence and don't belong in the science classroom.

Sounds as if Mr. Wheeler's premise is also his conclusion. In business, it most often is your assumptions which get you into trouble.

[MacDorcha]

"Anything that has effects can be studied by its effects."

But do things have to have effect to exist?

---

And the point I was getting at was that "methodology" is an aspect of a philosophy. Science is thus a philosophy, and as such, is an attempt by Man to answer the questions he sees before himself. "Why" is just as valid as "How", yet science only addresses "How."

To get a complete answer, one must answer both. This makes scientific reasoning incomplete reasoning, thought essential to finding out what the Truth is.

[MEGoody]

"The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based."

I wasn't aware that answering a student's question was considered a waste of time by teachers. Another good reason to home-school.

[MacDorcha]

Imperical thought instead of Dialectical. A philosphy is just that, and I must say, the former is more adept at forcing opinion than arriving at Truth.