Darwinist fight back

[jdobbin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

It has been a battle of the boards of education and in the courts. Could the Supreme Court eventually decide that Darwin shouldn't be taught in schools?

[Guest Warwick Green]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

It has been a battle of the boards of education and in the courts. Could the Supreme Court eventually decide that Darwin shouldn't be taught in schools?

Not in Canada. I don't think any school board has dared even approve Dumb Design for use in schools.

[jdobbin]

Not in Canada. I don't think any school board has dared even approve Dumb Design for use in schools.

Can't say that I've even heard of it being an issue in private schools in Canada either.

The U.S., on the other hand, seems destined for a court challenge.

[Myott2002]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

It has been a battle of the boards of education and in the courts. Could the Supreme Court eventually decide that Darwin shouldn't be taught in schools?

Not in Canada. I don't think any school board has dared even approve Dumb Design for use in schools.

Intelligent Design is in fact taught in Christian Schools (Private) in Ontario. The text being used is the same text that is being introduced at the back of science classes in Kansas.

[Guest Warwick Green]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

It has been a battle of the boards of education and in the courts. Could the Supreme Court eventually decide that Darwin shouldn't be taught in schools?

Not in Canada. I don't think any school board has dared even approve Dumb Design for use in schools.

Intelligent Design is in fact taught in Christian Schools (Private) in Ontario. The text being used is the same text that is being introduced at the back of science classes in Kansas.

I'm not suprised that fundamentalist Christian schools might teach ID. I have never heard of it being approved for use in public shools though. As far as I know ID is pretty well dead notwithstanding that it might be surfacing here and there.

[jdobbin]

Intelligent Design is in fact taught in Christian Schools (Private) in Ontario. The text being used is the same text that is being introduced at the back of science classes in Kansas.

Do they teach evolution as well?

[Black Dog]

Whew.

Kansas voters dealt a blow to national efforts to put creationism in science classes, evolution proponents said Wednesday.

“I don’t think there is any other way to interpret it,” said Nick Matzke, a spokesman for the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education.

The results of Kansas State Board of Education primary contests on Tuesday mean there will be at least a 6-4 majority of moderates in office in January.

That reverses the current 6-4 conservative majority that has put in place science standards that criticize evolution and have drawn international attention and some ridicule.

[geoffrey]

Intelligent Design is in fact taught in Christian Schools (Private) in Ontario. The text being used is the same text that is being introduced at the back of science classes in Kansas.

Do they teach evolution as well?

They'd have to, at least in my province. Standardized testing ensures that you need to believe in evolution to graduate high school.

It's unfortunate. I'm not a ID supporter by any means, but the evolution group has become way too groupthink to ever be open to alternatives. And the education system currently ensures that trend remains.

[jdobbin]

They'd have to, at least in my province. Standardized testing ensures that you need to believe in evolution to graduate high school.

It's unfortunate. I'm not a ID supporter by any means, but the evolution group has become way too groupthink to ever be open to alternatives. And the education system currently ensures that trend remains.

Scientists tend to dismiss what can't be proved by science.

[geoffrey]

They'd have to, at least in my province. Standardized testing ensures that you need to believe in evolution to graduate high school.

It's unfortunate. I'm not a ID supporter by any means, but the evolution group has become way too groupthink to ever be open to alternatives. And the education system currently ensures that trend remains.

Scientists tend to dismiss what can't be proved by science.

Which is fine, just there isn't any dissenters, no one looking for alternatives. It's a sad time in science.

Then again, most paradigm shifts don't come from within the academic body but from outsiders, so I still have faith the scientists are out there somewhere doing science. My thoughts on the scientific academia aren't very positive, I find they are just in search of the next grant and won't touch anything controversial as it would reduce their attractiveness for future chairs.

[Black Dog]

Which is fine, just there isn't any dissenters, no one looking for alternatives. It's a sad time in science.

Er...what makes you think there are any? Evolution is broadly accepted as the basis of biology. Now there's plenty of different theories about the nuts and bolts of it, but the basic idea of evolution is accepted as fact. Kind of like how Einstein revised Newton's theories of gravitation, though the basic principles remained.

[geoffrey]

Which is fine, just there isn't any dissenters, no one looking for alternatives. It's a sad time in science.

Er...what makes you think there are any? Evolution is broadly accepted as the basis of biology. Now there's plenty of different theories about the nuts and bolts of it, but the basic idea of evolution is accepted as fact. Kind of like how Einstein revised Newton's theories of gravitation, though the basic principles remained.

The helio-centric and earth-centric models of the universe were once widely accepted on empirical data of their time too.

What I'm saying is that there should not be 'defenders' of evolution, it goes against the scientific method. Everyone should be trying to disprove it, and when they can't, they add more to the theory. When I see all the biologists trying to disprove evolution, instead of looking for evidence to support it, I'll find their science more respectable.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just that we've given up on the pursuit of science and the scientific method. I blame alot of it on the creationists, evolutionists are kind of in a corner, if they appear critical, then the creationists gain strength.

Which is too bad. The best discoveries come from those trying to crush the status quo.

[Riverwind]

What I'm saying is that there should not be 'defenders' of evolution, it goes against the scientific method. Everyone should be trying to disprove it, and when they can't, they add more to the theory.

The actual process is a little different. Scientists should start with the existing accepted theory and try to use it to explain new phenomena that have not been studied before. If the theory does not explain new phenomena then they must extend or create a new theory that not only explains the new phenomena but all of the things that used to be explained by the old one. Scientists do not need to be out to actively disprove existing theories - they just have to be willing to embrance new theries when the old ones are found lacking.

That is why creationism or intelligent design is _not_ science. The proponents of these ideas absolutely refuse to accept that their theory could be wrong and they only seek to 'prove' their pet theory by pointing out flaws in other theories.

[Black Dog]

The helio-centric and earth-centric models of the universe were once widely accepted on empirical data of their time too.

I would posit that humaity in general and science in particular has advanced a lot since then. IOW, we're a lot better at the whle "empirical evidence" game than we were 600 years ago. And the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

What I'm saying is that there should not be 'defenders' of evolution, it goes against the scientific method. Everyone should be trying to disprove it, and when they can't, they add more to the theory. When I see all the biologists trying to disprove evolution, instead of looking for evidence to support it, I'll find their science more respectable.

Well for starters: what do you mean by evolution? The broad theory of evolution includes such concepts as common descent and speciation, as well as specific evolutionary mechanisms (ie natural selection, genetic drift) by which the process is advanced. All of this is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of biology, genetics, paleontology and more. So when you say "no one's trying to disprove evolution", what bit are you talking about?

[gc1765]

What I'm saying is that there should not be 'defenders' of evolution, it goes against the scientific method. Everyone should be trying to disprove it, and when they can't, they add more to the theory. When I see all the biologists trying to disprove evolution, instead of looking for evidence to support it, I'll find their science more respectable.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just that we've given up on the pursuit of science and the scientific method. I blame alot of it on the creationists, evolutionists are kind of in a corner, if they appear critical, then the creationists gain strength.

Which is too bad. The best discoveries come from those trying to crush the status quo.

I think that to most scientists, trying to disprove evolution is much like trying to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system. Both are considered as irrefutable to most scientists.

They'd have to, at least in my province. Standardized testing ensures that you need to believe in evolution to graduate high school

Maybe in Alberta, but not in Ontario where I graduated high school. Actually, I never even learned about evolution in high school (though I never took OAC biology, but we didn't learn about it in gr 12 biology). Also, at least in Ontario, those biology classes are electives so you don't actually need to learn evolution to graduate high school, unless you want to become a biologist

I think the solution that makes the most sense is to teach evolution in biology, but any student who wishes not to be exposed to the theory of evolution can sort of opt-out and do an alternative project instead. That might not work in provinces with standardized tests though. And teach ID or creationism in church only. That way nobody has to be exposed to any teachings that they do not want to be exposed to, but everyone has the option of learning about either.

[Gowch]

What I'm saying is that there should not be 'defenders' of evolution, it goes against the scientific method. Everyone should be trying to disprove it, and when they can't, they add more to the theory. When I see all the biologists trying to disprove evolution, instead of looking for evidence to support it, I'll find their science more respectable.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong, just that we've given up on the pursuit of science and the scientific method. I blame alot of it on the creationists, evolutionists are kind of in a corner, if they appear critical, then the creationists gain strength.

Which is too bad. The best discoveries come from those trying to crush the status quo.

I think that to most scientists, trying to disprove evolution is much like trying to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system. Both are considered as irrefutable to most scientists.

They'd have to, at least in my province. Standardized testing ensures that you need to believe in evolution to graduate high school

Maybe in Alberta, but not in Ontario where I graduated high school. Actually, I never even learned about evolution in high school (though I never took OAC biology, but we didn't learn about it in gr 12 biology). Also, at least in Ontario, those biology classes are electives so you don't actually need to learn evolution to graduate high school, unless you want to become a biologist

I think the solution that makes the most sense is to teach evolution in biology, but any student who wishes not to be exposed to the theory of evolution can sort of opt-out and do an alternative project instead. That might not work in provinces with standardized tests though. And teach ID or creationism in church only. That way nobody has to be exposed to any teachings that they do not want to be exposed to, but everyone has the option of learning about either.

Great idea, but why stop there?

Why not give special dispensation in history classes to students who maintain that the Jews actually started WWII? And should those who believe that, say, blacks are inferior to whites be forced in civics classes to learn about attempts to create racial equality? Why not permit all students who are inclined to dispute certain scientific or historical facts to "opt out" of those studies so that they don't have to suffer having their precious delusions discredited?

But I have a better idea: Why not have our schools teach those things that have gained wide acceptance by the scientific and academic communities without interference from those to whom ideology or religious dogma is more important than knowledge. Those students whose religious beliefs or other prejudices are offended by reality-based education are free to drop out and pursue careers that won't challenge their preconceived notions.

The world needs residential refuse collectors and servers of yummy sandwiches at McDonald's, and who gives a rat's ass what those people believe?

-IG

[Black Dog]

I think the solution that makes the most sense is to teach evolution in biology, but any student who wishes not to be exposed to the theory of evolution can sort of opt-out and do an alternative project instead. That might not work in provinces with standardized tests though. And teach ID or creationism in church only. That way nobody has to be exposed to any teachings that they do not want to be exposed to, but everyone has the option of learning about either.

I'm starting to think ID should be discussed in biology classes under the banner of "Why ID is bullshit." Teach the controvesy? Hell: teach the truth. Sometimes the best way to kill bad ideas is to shine a light on them.

[gc1765]

Great idea, but why stop there?

Why not give special dispensation in history classes to students who maintain that the Jews actually started WWII? And should those who believe that, say, blacks are inferior to whites be forced in civics classes to learn about attempts to create racial equality? Why not permit all students who are inclined to dispute certain scientific or historical facts to "opt out" of those studies so that they don't have to suffer having their precious delusions discredited?

I didn't realize there was a large group of people lobbying to teach that Jews started WWII or that blacks are inferior to whites. Anyways, attempts to create equality through the civil rights movement is a fact that can not be disputed (well in my opinion evolution can not be disputed, but there are people out there who do dispute it). Are there people out there who don't think people like Marting Luther King existed?

As for an alternative project, I think it would be great to see people try and dispute the theory of evolution on a scientific basis only, no references to religion. That would be interesting.

[Black Dog]

As for an alternative project, I think it would be great to see people try and dispute the theory of evolution on a scientific basis only, no references to religion. That would be interesting.

Well, its advocates would tell you that's what ID is. And certainly ID "theory" never mentions who created the universe but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they ain't talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[geoffrey]

I think the solution that makes the most sense is to teach evolution in biology, but any student who wishes not to be exposed to the theory of evolution can sort of opt-out and do an alternative project instead. That might not work in provinces with standardized tests though. And teach ID or creationism in church only. That way nobody has to be exposed to any teachings that they do not want to be exposed to, but everyone has the option of learning about either.

I'm starting to think ID should be discussed in biology classes under the banner of "Why ID is bullshit." Teach the controvesy? Hell: teach the truth. Sometimes the best way to kill bad ideas is to shine a light on them.

That makes sense to me... in it's current form it doesn't represent science and should be debunked in science classroom on it's own terms.

It need not be anti-religious to be anti-ridiculous.

[yam]

It is a huge problem in many universities. . . .especially in the the humanities which crosses over into the social sciences.

People actually cannot think about social problems without reference to god and the devil!

I have to grade many essays and find many with quotes from the bible used to debate social theorists. Its horrifying to think that people are going to be let loose in society to become social workers, councilers (let alone working in science labs), etc.

It should be imperative to know whether each student believes in creation. This goes for those desiring to enter the scientific arena AND the social sciences including many of the disciplines in the humanities. The bible for them is more than a book, it is something that will save the world!! These kids will slot it into every essay they write. They actually cannot use the faculty of reason and refuse to engage critically with the material at hand. However, many have mastered the art of producing what is needed to pass. But once they have graduated they are out in the world seeking profesional humanitarian jobs

[Slavik44]

What worries me is that evolution is not really taught in schools. When I graduated, which wasn't long ago, I knew very little about evolution. In Highschool it really wasn't a topic that was discussed, infact I had never recieved any lessons on evolution/formation of the earth until I took geology in grade 12. But, even that was just a small lesson and provided just a small amount of information on the many processes that had helped shape and form both the earth and life on earth.

This lack of knowledge and understanding made me susceptable to believe what is basically bullshit. The fact is most of the arguements against evolution border on lunacy far away from the world of logic and science. I would read plenty of article that "disproved evolution" and at the end of it you would be left questioning how people could retain a belief in something so blatantly false.

The thing is, I was wrong, and the articles I read? They were wrong full of lies and when they did not present lies, they ommited the truth and misconstrued quotes. Why? The inherrent goal behind ID is not the discovery of the truth, it is not the promotion of education, in fact it is the opposite, it is the protection of a dogma. It has no desire to find truth, it has no desire to find alternatives. All the ID movement desires is to promote its world view often this promotion is done through lies and trickery. I see no reason to include this bullshit in grade school no more then I see reason to force med students to learn that babies come from storks.

What we need to start doing is teaching. It was never done, no one sat back and said this is what evolution is, this is how it comes about, these are the processes by which it operates, this is the evidence we have, this is how we know this, this is how we come to understand that. Unfotunately in our schools teachers do not do this or they never did this in any of my classes.

There is a serious problem with teaching ID in schools because it is not a theory backed by evidence. But when I look at the arguements in favour of ID they fit into two groups. One group, is very small, its the evidence in favour of ID and it goes like this. The world is a really big and scary place that we cannot understand.....God did it. And the other group, is a list of factual errors, outdated information, and misconstrued quotes used in order to "disprove" evolution. Niether group is something we should allow in our schools because it teaches students and sets a precedent that evidence can be sacrificed to personal beliefs.

[yam]

yes; evidence is often sacrificed for belief. Perhaps we should say for the benefit belief brings with it?

Can you imagine what would happen in the political arena if the school curriculum was ammended to drop such crock?

What really is at stake is winning the vote . . . education means nothing.