How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[rohirrim TR]

it was a good post, and, i remember reading it,whats your point in reposting it?

[Curubethion]

I can't see what the big deal is in KS. All they did was allow criticism of Evolution. That's it. No "establishment of fundamentalist fanatic Christianity". No teaching of ID. So all the evolutionists are just being paranoid and using us as an excuse to promote atheistic evolution and attack theism. And I do resent that.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

it was a good post, and, i remember reading it,whats your point in reposting it?

I thought you wanted me to repost it. Heh, never mind.


Curubethion, it seems there's more to it than simply allowing criticism of Evolution. After all, any school in North America can point out the weak points in ToE without changing their mandate. So why did they change then?

[Count Comfect]

What Nurvingiel said, plus they changed the definition of science.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Curubethion, it seems there's more to it than simply allowing criticism of Evolution. After all, any school in North America can point out the weak points in ToE without changing their mandate. So why did they change then?

Any school CAN, but IMO many DON'T. So the Kansas thing is to put it actually in the curriculum that valid, mainstream scientific criticisms of the ToE get a miniscule amount of airtime to ENSURE that the students hear the whole truth, to defend them against any über-evolutionist teachers that might be out there.

Count, I thought that the revisions were in my link. They had them last time I looked at it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for the definition of science: A) one shouldn't backtrack.

I was a computer science major/math minor at my uni. And during my career in math, esp., I found that for those rare occasions when I was on the wrong track , it was wise indeed to backtrack.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Any school CAN, but IMO many DON'T. So the Kansas thing is to put it actually in the curriculum that valid, mainstream scientific criticisms of the ToE get a miniscule amount of airtime to ENSURE that the students hear the whole truth, to defend them against any über-evolutionist teachers that might be out there.

Sounds like it has gone from one extreme to the other then. It is not good for science to not allow criticism. It is also not good for science to teach religious views as if they were science. Hopefully the school can find some middle ground.

The motivation of the Kansas school board appears to be the promotion of ID rather than the promotion of good science.

[Rían]

I strongly disagree but am too tired to put a coherent response together *yawn*

I had a wonderful harp weekend - details on the happy thread tomorrow!

g'nite!

[Count Comfect]

Rian - what link you posted with the definitions? The one with the comparative study doesn't include the new Kansas guidelines, just the old ones and the other states' (and I just went back and checked - I hope I'm not missing something).

One shouldn't backtrack from a more accurate definition of science, and I feel Kansas had a more accurate definition than the other states did. Clearly, if it were wrong, I'd agree one should backtrack. But it isn't/wasn't, so

An important point to remember is that we're not, in the school board cases, talking about people who are actively going out and investigating new realms of scientific thought (I don't really think we are when we discuss ID in any event, but certainly not in the school board cases). We're talking about what gets taught to kids in school. I don't think that the emphasis on potential inaccuracies in evolution is actually beneficial to their science education. It may be valuable in a research setting, but not in a basic instructional one.

EDIT: maybe that's why, although anyone can teach the gaps in evolution already, very few do?

[Spock]

P.S. YES, I watched TWOO again last evening and it looked better than ever.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Any school CAN, but IMO many DON'T. So the Kansas thing is to put it actually in the curriculum that valid, mainstream scientific criticisms of the ToE get a miniscule amount of airtime to ENSURE that the students hear the whole truth, to defend them against any über-evolutionist teachers that might be out there.

every science class in every public school typically spends the first week or two talking about the scientific method, hypothesis, testing, theories, etc.

it applies to all things that will be studied for the rest of the year... evolution, gravity, stellar formation, etc.

i'd suggest you look at some actual science textbooks RÃ*an... i checked out my own son's (currently in 6th grade), who is in the "liberal" northest... and it is very specific about what the difference is between theory and fact

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rian - what link you posted with the definitions? The one with the comparative study doesn't include the new Kansas guidelines, just the old ones and the other states' (and I just went back and checked - I hope I'm not missing something).

Oh, it was the first post of the original thread, but these threads got mixed together and moved around, and it probably dropped off the face of the earth

One shouldn't backtrack from a more accurate definition of science, and I feel Kansas had a more accurate definition than the other states did. Clearly, if it were wrong, I'd agree one should backtrack. But it isn't/wasn't, so

Well, the right/wrong is a matter of opinion.

An important point to remember is that we're not, in the school board cases, talking about people who are actively going out and investigating new realms of scientific thought (I don't really think we are when we discuss ID in any event, but certainly not in the school board cases). We're talking about what gets taught to kids in school. I don't think that the emphasis on potential inaccuracies in evolution is actually beneficial to their science education. It may be valuable in a research setting, but not in a basic instructional one.

I think it's VERY valuable. Obviously we disagree I think taking a FEW MINUTES of time to present the areas that the theory has trouble covering well is a VERY valuable thing to do. After all, it may spark some ideas in the heads of some future scientists. I think giving information is a GOOD thing.

EDIT: maybe that's why, although anyone can teach the gaps in evolution already, very few do?

Personally, I think they don't, in general, because of their religion, not because of any scientific reason. But that's MHO

[Rían]

Nurvi - I was going to try to summarize some ID stuff, but I think these articles will probably be more helpful. Go to www.discovery.org and read some of them - I think they are well-written, insightful, and do NOT contain all the ridicules of the opposing side that sadly, I see coming from some evolutionist articles about ID. Most of the articles about ID are in the right-hand column.

[brownjenkins]

an explanation of scientific "fact" and "theory" from a science textbook:

Teaching about evolution has another important function. Because some people see evolution as conflicting with widely held beliefs, the teaching of evolution offers educators a superb opportunity to illuminate the nature of science and to differentiate science from other forms of human endeavor and understanding.

Chapter 3 describes the nature of science in detail. However, it is important from the outset to understand how the meanings of certain key words in science differ from the way that those words are used in everyday life.

Think, for example, of how people usually use the word "theory." Someone might refer to an idea and then add, "But that's only a theory." Or someone might preface a remark by saying, "My theory is …." In common usage, theory often means "guess" or ''hunch."

In science, the word "theory" means something quite different. It refers to an overarching explanation that has been well substantiated. Science has many other powerful theories besides evolution. Cell theory says that all living things are composed of cells. The heliocentric theory says that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. Such concepts are supported by such abundant observational and experimental evidence that they are no longer questioned in science.

Sometimes scientists themselves use the word "theory" loosely and apply it to tentative explanations that lack well-established evidence. But it is important to distinguish these casual uses of the word "theory" with its use to describe concepts such as evolution that are supported by overwhelming evidence. Scientists might wish that they had a word other than "theory" to apply to such enduring explanations of the natural world, but the term is too deeply engrained in science to be discarded.

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. For example, Chapter 3 describes how the geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory." A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. As the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations.

Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories—which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nurvi - I was going to try to summarize some ID stuff, but I think these articles will probably be more helpful. Go to www.discovery.org and read some of them - I think they are well-written, insightful, and do NOT contain all the ridicules of the opposing side that sadly, I see coming from some evolutionist articles about ID. Most of the articles about ID are in the right-hand column.

I've found an interesting article at the site about the state definitions of science.
Definitions of State Science Standards

According to the full text, this is Kansas' definition (bolding mine):

"Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes."

I don't see what all the kerfuffle is with Kansas' definition. In their own words, science currently has no tools to test supernatural causes (of a scientific process?). This means supernatural or other non-natural causes are outside the realm of science and Intelligent Design, according to Kansas' own definition, is not science.

Except, in a different article (Intelligent Design: Professors discuss Teaching the Controversial Subject, the author writes:

Last Tuesday in Kansas, the Board of Education voted 6 to 4 to approve new science standards that will expand the definition of science beyond natural explanations and incorporate criticisms of evolution into the state curriculum.

However, Intelligent Design being a scientific theory directly contradicts the Kansas' definition of science quoted above. That article was from November 10th, so this must be the new definition. How can they teach something that violates their new standards? I would so fail in that school.

In its simplest form, I.D. posits that there are natural realities too complex to be explained by chance; rather, these realities are the product of an intelligent designer.

An intelligent designer would be supernatural, and therefore not science.

I can tell you one way to teach anything, including Creationism: forthrightly!


RÃ*an, what is Cascadia? According to this part of the site, it is a "bi-national region".

[Count Comfect]

Cascadia is my beloved homeland (I'm from Seattle). It's used to refer to the area between the Cascade Mountains and the sea, and so extends from British Columbia down to Oregon (hence, binational, since BC is in Canada). Discovery Institute has some weird ideas about development in Cascadia, along with their ID stuff.

That, what you quoted Nurv, and (unless there is yet another link) what you linked to Rian, is the old definition (2001, I believe). The new one isn't online yet anywhere that I can find... I quoted from the August draft of it somewhere upthread, but I've been unable to find the actual one that was voted on.

I still don't believe that poking holes in theories is a good idea in basic instruction. We don't teach deconstructionism in high school English. We don't teach postmodern culture theory in high school History. Both of those are dedicated (to the extent that they can be pigeonholed) to pointing out the flaws in previous interpretations. I don't see a reason to teach science differently. Definitions like what bj posted, which tell students how science uses terms are good. But I don't think that the (potential) holes in evolution are any more necessary to a basic education (which is what primary and secondary schools provide) than the other two examples I just mentioned - and I don't believe any of them should be there.

[Insidious Rex]

You know, I never in my wildest dreams thought Id ever say that I agree completely with arch conservative Charles Krauthammer on ANYTHING but by gum boy did he hit the nail on the head in this article on Intelligent Design. And remember before you go off on him for being some godless liberal with an agenda, this is one of the most conservative journalists out there. Hes certainly up there with George Will and the like:

Phony Theory, False Conflict
'Intelligent Design' Foolishly Pits Evolution Against Faith

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 18, 2005

Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

Newton's religion was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and a member of the Church of England. Einstein's was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. "He believed he was doing God's work," James Gleick wrote in his recent biography of Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation -- understanding the workings of the universe -- as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. Newton was trying to supplant the view that first believed the sun's motion around the earth was the work of Apollo and his chariot, and later believed it was a complicated system of cycles and epicycles, one tacked upon the other every time some wobble in the orbit of a planet was found. Newton's God was not at all so crude. The laws of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine.

Which brings us to Dover, Pa., Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education, and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.

Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" -- today's tarted-up version of creationism -- on the biology curriculum. Pat Robertson then called the wrath of God down upon the good people of Dover for voting "God out of your city." Meanwhile, in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions -- arguably, the most important questions in life -- that lie beyond the material.

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.

"I think I'll make me a lemur today."

[Nurvingiel]

I don't know anything about the guy as a journalist IRex, but Wordy McWord from Wordistan:

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

This ties in to Count's post, because he pointed out that I was quoting Kansas' old (and perfectly good!) definition of science. (I have no idea why it was in a Novermber 10th article, leading me to believe it was the new definition.)
What is the current definition then? If they dropped "natural explanations...", did they also drop the last phrase about not being able to test the supernatural?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Cascadia is my beloved homeland (I'm from Seattle). It's used to refer to the area between the Cascade Mountains and the sea, and so extends from British Columbia down to Oregon (hence, binational, since BC is in Canada). Discovery Institute has some weird ideas about development in Cascadia, along with their ID stuff.

What are their ideas about Cascadia? As I live in my beloved Vancouver (I really want to visit Seattle too!), I'm interested to know. The Coast and the Cascade mountains have certainly contributed to some fascinating human geography and interesting history of First Nations people. Why the Cascades though? There are six mountain ranges in BC if I recall correctly.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

That, what you quoted Nurv, and (unless there is yet another link) what you linked to Rian, is the old definition (2001, I believe). The new one isn't online yet anywhere that I can find... I quoted from the August draft of it somewhere upthread, but I've been unable to find the actual one that was voted on.

I should go find your post from the August draft then. Where did you get a copy of that? (I don't want a copy, I'm just impressed at your non-internet based research.)

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I still don't believe that poking holes in theories is a good idea in basic instruction. We don't teach deconstructionism in high school English. We don't teach postmodern culture theory in high school History. Both of those are dedicated (to the extent that they can be pigeonholed) to pointing out the flaws in previous interpretations. I don't see a reason to teach science differently. Definitions like what bj posted, which tell students how science uses terms are good. But I don't think that the (potential) holes in evolution are any more necessary to a basic education (which is what primary and secondary schools provide) than the other two examples I just mentioned - and I don't believe any of them should be there.

I think it is a good idea to point out, in upper level science (I mean, maybe not grade 8), that there are flaws in a theory. I graduated from high school thinking the Bohr model was an exact representation of an atom! Boy did I get a wake-up in first-year Chemistry (which I then failed, but not because of the Bohr model.) I think you should say that a theory has some holes; you don't have to go into detail. It would make sense to not go into detail, since you already cover a huge amount of material in high school science, but people should at least know that the flaws exist IMO.

[Rían]

Nurv, did you get to read any of the articles at the Discovery Institute, whose members include non-Christians and agnostics, btw?

I'm sorry to see Charles Krauthammer apparently didn't bother to research ID very much at ALL, judging by the lines he wrote. If he is who I think he is, I've liked what he has had to say before.

Count, I have some more things to address that you've brought up, but it's SO hard - I'm SO weary of this subject, esp. because of the anger and ridicule that so often comes along with the discussions and articles involved. (not from you, though)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Count, I have some more things to address that you've brought up, but it's SO hard - I'm SO weary of this subject, esp. because of the anger and ridicule that so often comes along with the discussions and articles involved. (not from you, though)

i wouldn't take it too personally... i think it is more a reflection of just how important an issue it is... the future of humanity itself may very well depend upon how are children are taught, and not taught, to view the world

to feel strongly against a belief does not have to mean you feel strongly against the individual who holds it