One side can be wrong: 'Intelligent design' in classrooms would have disastrous consequences

Guardian UK ^ | September 1, 2005 | Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

[billorites]

Discuss!

[Tax-chick]

'Intelligent design' in classrooms would have disastrous consequences

What's this we've got now, guys?

[hflynn]

Right, Intelligent design would be a disaster in the classroom but the F word, as we learned last week, has been deemed an absolutely indispensable learning tool in UK classrooms. Let's face it England is doomed.

[gobucks]

LOL!

[doc30]

Ping

[doc30]

This is a very well written arguement that illustrates the scientific fallacy of ID in a very logical manner. It also highlights that controversies in the sciences do not disqualify current theories and understandings, but merely show that there are always new things for science to learn. It is important, for the sake of science as a whole, to keep ID out of science classes.

[gobucks]

Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

Discuss what, exactly? This author ascribes to ID supporters the numero uno lash of antisemitism .... denying the Holocaust.

But, as usual, I'm not surprised. For if Darwinian Evolutionary science was so compelling, so convincing, just why on earth would such a lame attempt at tarring ID supporters be attempted?

Oh....I forgot: b/c evolution itself has turned out to be a faith system itself which its practicioners relentlessly deny. It is said all cults have the same thing in common: one person, usually a man, writes a set of 'documents'. Then, followers ooze out of the woodwork, and proclaim the person 'the answer'. And then the cultists start acting really weird. This article sounds alot like that...

[The Red Zone]

Will you keep science out of philosophy classes, as a quid pro quo?

[gobucks]

"Without needing to make a single good point in any argument, it (the ID thesis) would have won the right for a form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of science."

Well, silly string theory, with its 7 of its 11 dimensions by definition being UNTESTABLE ... I guess that is NOT supernatural ... because it IS accepted as science? Wow.

[GarySpFc]

Perhaps the most powerful witness at the Kansas hearings was Jill Gonzalez Bravo, a middle school science teacher.

It took enourmous courage for her to buck the establishment and cross the picket lines of the boycott.

Here is her vivid description of why she made that decision.

********************

The Kansas State Board of Education revised science standards to incorporate about 95% of the Minority Report’s suggested changes. The new standards would allow for a more critical approach to the teaching of evolution. The basis for adopting these new standards was the testimony given by twenty-four individuals eighteen of which were PhD scientists with accolades too numerous to account for here.

The testimony presented in the May hearings has yet to be rebutted by those in opposition to the adopted changes. All but four board members support the revised standards. These members represent their constituents and they have the right to oppose the changes however, their decision should be an informed one. Sadly this is not the case. Sue Gamble (District 2, Shawnee), Janet Waugh (District 1, Kansas City), Bill Wagnon (District 4, Topeka) and Carol Rupe (District 8, Wichita) all chose to support the boycott and did not attend the hearings.

Distressing? Yes. If one cares about the education of our children should they support a boycott on an issue that many families find important? To be honest when asked to testify at the hearings I myself declined twice. Though I had never felt comfortable with the way evolution was presented in the classroom, I did not want to get involved. What would people think?

I began to research the minority report reading documents both in support of and opposition to the changes. I even contacted the president of Kansas Citizens for Science. I had hoped to have open dialog with him. I respect what he has done to support many science educators and believed him to be reasonable. After first accusing me of trying to bait him into making a comment, he encouraged me to boycott. He told me that if I testified I would be aligning myself with the Intelligent Design group's "political and religious agenda".

Applying the skills I try to impart on my students, I developed the following hypothesis based on his comment. If testifying for the minority report indicated an alliance with the Intelligent Design Network, then boycotting must mean that I align myself with the ACLU who argued for the opposition. As a mother of three children, the oldest being a boy, I could not with conscience back an organization that supports NAMBLA.

In my life I try to focus my actions on one question, "Whom do I serve?" Well as a public educator my job is to serve parents and their children. I do not serve special interest science organizations and I most certainly do not serve the ACLU. So I testified.

I testified that in my early years of teaching I was confronted with questions posed by students about the controversies surrounding evolution. Putting my pride aside I admitted that I was unequipped to answer them and would often prematurely end the discussions.

I testified that as educators our job is to teach, reflect and alter instruction in order to better serve students. After observing an opposition to instruction into the theory of evolution, I began researching what students believed to be a controversy.

I testified that there were discrepancies in data displayed in text books and that an objective overview on this theory was not presented. But in light of the hostile environment toward debate over evolution, I kept silent for over ten years. Why? To be honest, it was self-preservation.

As a public servant I realize that I do not always have this privilege. So I take issue with board members that are elected to make decisions about our children’s education and then do not exhibit enough courage to participate in an event of interest to many Kansas families. As servants of the public it is our responsibility to create academically sound learning environments. This debate was not so much about "good science" but good pedagogy. Teachers must be informed and students must be allowed the academic freedom to critically analyze all content. So I ask these four individuals, "Whom do you serve?"

Jill Gonzalez

[SeaLion]

I couldn't agree with you more, billorites, let's keep ID out of the science classroom, it doesn't belong there.

I think it is a dangerous 'cause' for Conservatives (I'm an ultra-Republican and strong supporter of our President, but I was dismayed by his recent remarks on ID, which--by seeming to equate modern scientific research with theological speculation--seems to me to smack of the kind of liberal relativism that has caused many of our social ills).

Science per se isn't our enemy, though science can of course be misued--but the methodology of science does have very strong mechanisms for correcting its own errors, and where there are errors or omissions in the current model of evolutionary theory, they can (and are) addressed by valid scientific research. But ID smacks of a hidden agenda, it's 'junk science' that is too easy to refute.

I don't accept that Evolution is taught as some kind of 'faith'--science just doesn't work like that. By all means, follow and practice your faith--but I hope your faith is not (as mine is not) so fragile that it is threatened by the other beautiful truths available to us through science.

[Shery]

Running scared, huh?

[Just mythoughts]

There was NO 'Intelligent design' in these public schools.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1478230/posts

[stremba]

Worthy of a ping? I think it's a pretty good explanation of why ID shouldn't be taught as science.

[PatrickHenry]

Dawkins article:

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[Rippin]

In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it.

Of course theory A (Neo Darwin Orthodoxy) has no difficulty explaining anything, it is the most confirmed theory every formulated in the history of science. I learned this in public skrewl.

[Tax-chick]

Excellent post, GarySpFc. I appreciate the opportunity to see this.

[Rippin]

There is much controversy about these claims, largely because it is hard to reconstruct the evolutionary forces that acted on our ancestors, and it is unethical to do genetic experiments on modern humans.

This guy is exactly right, the experiments must be done on those pre-modern 'christian' types.

[stremba]

String theory as a whole is not in principle untestable, however. There are various particles that should appear in high energy particle accelerator experiments, for example. If no particles or particles different from those predicted appear in such experiments, then string theory is wrong. Furthermore, it may be possible (but admittedly difficult) to test for the presence of the additional dimensions predicted by string theory. At macroscopic distances, gravity obeys an inverse square law. This is a direct result of the fact that there are three macroscopic spatial dimensions. Were there 7 macroscopic spatial dimensions, gravity would obey an inverse sixth power law. By testing at microscopic dimensions, it may be possible to determine that gravity obeys a force law different from an inverse square law which would be evidence of extra microscopic spatial dimensions.

[Tax-chick]

No, no, you just don't get it. As long as the students believe in Darwin's theory, without question or doubt, they've received the essentials of a good education. What, you say they can't read? Why, that's just irrelevant piffle!