"Teaching the controversy"
August 31st 2007 05:37
What bloody controversy?
Creationists and intelligent design proponents tell us that evolution is “just a theory”. To be fair (and what could sound fairer?) we should also teach creationism in high school science curricula so that students can be exposed to “both sides of the controversy”. The notion that life on this planet was designed by an intelligent artificer, on this reasoning, should be taught alongside the theory of evolution because there are gaps in the latter that are best addressed by invoking the creative power of (they’re not fooling anyone, however much they pretend not to be about religion) God.
There’s one tiny problem, though. I’ll say it clearly and unambiguously because all too many people have been lulled into accepting at face value a pernicious falsehood that has been propagated by those with an active interest in misleading the ignorant and gullible: there is no controversy. As far as scientific theories go, evolution is about as secure as you can get (and no, theory doesn’t mean a wishy-washy guess as per the word’s usage in everyday parlance. That’s not what a “theory” means when we’re talking about something like evolution, or indeed electromagnetism or plate tectonics or a range of other models for explaining the operation of aspects of the universe). It’s accepted by the vast majority of biologists and scientists not on the basis of “hating God” or some other such nonsense, but upon the basis of the support garnered for it by a vast multitude of overlapping and converging evidence from disparate fields. To be sure, there are many things that we (shock! horror!) don’t yet know or understand. This is a reason to keep looking for the answers, rather than to resign ourselves to religious mysticism. Many would rather wallow in their ignorance but feign offence when someone else is rude enough to call it such, but in the next breath castigate scientists for their “arrogance”. Yet we acknowledge our ignorance every day when we marshal the skills of others better qualified to tell us what’s what. We hire contractors to build our houses because we are ignorant of how to build houses (I am). We go to the doctor because we don’t know how to treat that worrisome rash (you get the picture). Yet on the “sensitive” topic of evolution – no, we’re instead supposed to consult an archaic Bronze Age text for the answers. Those who would tell me that I’m ignorant of embroidery, bridges and surveying wouldn’t offend me by their stating so. There’s nothing sinister or untoward about telling someone that they’re ignorant about science, especially when they really are ignorant about science. It’s time to grow up.
Creationists and intelligent design proponents tell us that evolution is “just a theory”. To be fair (and what could sound fairer?) we should also teach creationism in high school science curricula so that students can be exposed to “both sides of the controversy”. The notion that life on this planet was designed by an intelligent artificer, on this reasoning, should be taught alongside the theory of evolution because there are gaps in the latter that are best addressed by invoking the creative power of (they’re not fooling anyone, however much they pretend not to be about religion) God.
| 92 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
They're all morons as far as I'm concerned.
Lets start teaching something RELEVENT in schools, like sex ed, and i'm not talking about those 'just say no' campaigns, something more real, about what sex actualy is.
Comment by LuisC
Biology Issues
Who cares about it, you ask. Obviously I care, which is one of the reasons I'm contributing this blog in the first place. If you're going to employ a bullying tone, do it somewhere else, because this blog is for people (those who are interested) to LEARN, not throw venom at one another. Obviously you don't care, which is fine, but please don't bring your invective over here if you're just going to complain without contributing anything. I suppose I should apologise for writing my own blog rather than yours?
It might interest you to know, however, that to understand what "sex actually is" requires an evolutionary perspective. Otherwise we are left with a bunch of disconnected facts that make little sense. I recommend a book called "The Red Queen - Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley. It is only after you delve into these issues a bit that you can get a real appreciation for why sex matters at all.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
You tell me, what does it matter that some 16 year old knows organisms can evolve legs, arms and eyes, what good will it do to him/her over the years of his/her life? None whatsoever, it's basically useless knoweldge.
That isn't to say knowing it is useless, it's interesting, but practically speaking it is a pure waste of time. No ones going to need to know how evolution works (or spin a truth on it) to make any progress in life unless they're richard dawkins or ted haggard.
And no, to understand what sex is you don't need to know jack shit about evolution. Were talking practical knoweldge of it, not some bullshitty scientific matter that no one is going to benefit from.
You want to know what STDs are, you want to know what safe sex is, and thats what you want to teach. You don't want to bother teaching 'evolution evolved such and such to be used here or there'. Thats just empty knowledge, something left for those who want to specialize in such and such field and shouldn't be taught to a vast majority of people who won't really care in the end.
But, oh, thats right, you have the creationists and the evolutionists trying to make everyone believe they are absoloutely correct, and to do that they go too schools and force their teachings to students who won't ever make any practical use of it.
And in the end, thats what it is, a stumped field, ruined by petty rivalry, extremists on both ends and no science. What little of it is left has little to no benefits to anyone least of all high school students.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Keep up the good work!
BTW, don't worry about Ahmed. His day on Orble is not complete unless he provokes a confrontation with someone. Let him have the last word, as he will never, ever, ever concede a point or let something rest.
Comment by LuisC
Biology Issues
Really? Did you know that evolutionary theory is extensively used in disease control, fisheries management, ecology, and farming? Tell these people how it's a "pure waste of time".
"And no, to understand what sex is you don't need to know jack shit about evolution. Were talking practical knoweldge of it, not some bullshitty scientific matter that no one is going to benefit from."
Evolutionary theory is now being applied to psychology, where it can yield insights into the differences between the sexes. Armed with that knowledge, we can have a better idea about how to address problems that arise from sexual differences. We can better understand what it is that makes women and men tick. I'd call that beneficial.
"But, oh, thats right, you have the creationists and the evolutionists trying to make everyone believe they are absoloutely correct, and to do that they go too schools and force their teachings to students who won't ever make any practical use of it."
Do you mean like calculus and differential equations? Obviously you have no idea that creationism is propaganda, and evolution is science. Just because both sides argue with one another doesn't mean they're both bullshit. One side happens to be wrong. Since it is evolution that is science, it should be taught in a science class (or perhaps we shouldn't have science classes anymore?). And since it is the most significant biological discovery ever made, students should at least be made aware of the basics of it. It is creationists who want to "force" their ideas on students, and their motivation is purely religious. As for teaching sex eduction, I fully agree with you. Students should be made aware of the real issues, like STDs as you say. But why should it be a CHOICE between sex education and evolutionary theory? Why not teach both?
"And in the end, thats what it is, a stumped field, ruined by petty rivalry, extremists on both ends and no science."
A stumped field? Tell that to a biologist. They'll look at you as though you should be in a padded cell. It is in fact a flourishing field, with discoveries being made every week in genetics, palaeontology and ecology. As for creationism/ID: that isn't even a field to begin with, but a propaganda front that spreads disinformation about evolution.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
Again, what relevence does it have to high school kids? Oh, thats rihgt, you're trying to teach themyour view is right and the other view is wrong, 'take that creationists, more people agree with me than you!'. Of course the creationists do the same (and are probably worse becuase they're further away from facts and reality).
Wonderful, maybe this knowledge can be used to better help teach the different genders about sex, though it has nothing to do with practical knowledge about sex. Just like driving a car has little to nothing to do with how the car actually works, just need to know the handles
Actually you're wrong here, most schools have severel strains of maths, those who want to go to uni can take advanced maths and do those tings that are relevent, those who just want a practical understanding take lower level maths that focus on different things.
Not the same with evolution/creationism. One way or another it's going to be taught, either creationism or evolution. No matter how little you care about it or how little relevence it has. This goes back tot he center of the petty fight between the extremist atheists and religous types.
So it isn't 'oooh, why not teach sex ed and evolution', because sex ed seems to be an optional subject wherein either evolution or creationism are compulsory. Heck, some subjects like physics or chemistry can be taken purely as an optional, but not evolution/creationism, it's pretty pathetic when you think about it.
Yeah, I'll tell that to a biologist worried about his/her field. Darwinian theory has 'held up' for too long to be true, science is about finding flaws in theories and developing on them. Newtonian laws have flaws, Einsteins findings have flaws but for some inexplicable reason it would appear darwiniasm is absoloutely perfect.
This is not how scientists are trained and the fact they repeatedly imply at some sort of perfectionism of this theory is a clear indiciation it isn't going anywhere. It's going to be bled dry as it is and left at that.
There could always be progress, but theres too much politics in the mix which is why it is here. Kind of strange given global cliamte change is a continuingly changing theory yet it is under the same pressure as evolution, though the pressure is primarily political, not religous. I think it's quite easy to deduce the reason that theory evolves as opposed to evolution is because there are no extremist atheist types who are trying to disprove religion. Theres no need for them, it doesn't have as much to do with religion as evolution does.
Comment by LuisC
Biology Issues
Actually, it's got absolutely nothing to do with spite. This might come as a shock to you, but the reason I'd want evolution to be taught in school is because we're living in the 21st century and we owe it to students to give them an idea about how we actually got here (it’s about time we did, and we should dump all the old superstitious explanations that have no place in a modern world). We teach students about lots of "useless" stuff because we want them to have a bit of cultural grounding and to know how to evaluate information in a highly science-dependent world. Yet we shy away from teaching them about the process that generates the extraordinary complexity we see in living systems because we're afraid of the backlash from religious myopia. We “respect” this state of affairs because we’re too chicken to tell things as they are. In a better world, we wouldn't even be having this debate, because this fake controversy (not of the evolutionists’ doing, by the way) wouldn’t exist. If you don’t teach evolution, you might as well not teach biology, because without the former, the latter is just a bunch of disconnected facts. Evolution is the edifice that binds them all together. Everything makes significantly more sense when placed in an evolutionary framework, and it not only aids in learning the facts themselves; it also gives them a new and more profound dimension.
"Yeah, I'll tell that to a biologist worried about his/her field. Darwinian theory has 'held up' for too long to be true, science is about finding flaws in theories and developing on them. Newtonian laws have flaws, Einsteins findings have flaws but for some inexplicable reason it would appear darwiniasm is absoloutely perfect."
This is so far from the truth it's not even funny. There are many genuine debates within evolutionary biology going on all the time, with, for example, some scientists taking a more "adaptationist" view than others who might place more emphasis on historical contingency as an important factor in certain cases. Darwinian theory has been extensively refined and expanded since its inception, but it's true that it has mainly held up. What, exactly, is so wrong with that? The reason it's held up is because (get ready for it) it contains a good dose of truth. We can argue about the details, but it is largely correct and is the best available explanation we have for explaining the complexity (though some would argue about the diversity) of life.
Your caricature about "perfection" is a complete fantasy. Controversial hypotheses are in fact proposed all the time by evolutionary biologists. It seems to me that you have either been taken in by creationist propaganda that seeks to make evolution look like a "dogma"; or that you simply don't care to look into this at anything beyond the surface level as perceived by the public. It’s completely up to you whether or not you pursue this matter any further, but if you don’t, then please don’t come here to throw around a bunch of ill-gotten accusations.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
How about we teach 'em how to balance a cheque book and deal with other financial things? how about we teach 'em about paying bills and being economical in what they use?
Your 'modern world' is a mythology, the modern world is reletive to its time. Dont give me the typical superstitious crap, just because we believe in Aliens instead of demons doesn't make us any better than someon from the past. Every new generation seems to think it's a leap above the last w hen in fact it's more of a small crawl and often a few steps back.
Your explanation carries no wait, practical learning is what needs to be taught, not scientific mumbo jumbo thats literally forced teaching. It's a useless waste of time and is only cannon for the evolutionists/creationists in their never ending battle of immaturity.
How about 'we' grow some balls and teach relevent, yet controversial subjects? At least then we make progress with society and 'victory' isn't something just earned for the sake of claiming a victory.
In a better world, how often I hear that. 'If only everyone agreed with me the world would be better', so goes the words never uttered but implied.
Who cares what makes sense in scientific terms? Hmm? You think highschool students are all 'OMG! Now I know about evolution! yay!', pfft, right, as if. About four years ago when I was in year 10, they were teaching evolution, hardly anyone paid any attention. Pity it went on FOR SO GOD DAMN LONG, it was just a waste of time so that people like Dawkins could rub it in the face of creationsists. Ooh, yay, good job.
Move over to sex ed, and thankfully I don't live in the US, the class was visibly more awake, students paying attention because it interested them. It didn't have anything to do with your oh so precious evolution that supposedly helps us understand everything (because thats just an ignorant last standyou're taking). People are only interested in things that interest them.
You're no better than a religous type trying to enforce rleigion in schools in that you only want it to be this way because you are absoloutely convinced it will make everything better because you think that people agree with you.
You know, if everyone agreed with any one person the world would be more peaceful, but it isn't like that, and for good reason, were different, and differents good. Once someone develops the idea that all people should agree with some inane topic 'just because it makes sense for the given reasons' we start heading off in the wrong direction. No one person or ideal can ever be absoloutely right and when someone is convinced they are as such then they are absoloutely wrong.
Comment by LuisC
Biology Issues
You're asking that whilst using a computer? (That's my irony dosage for the day). I'm sure that the engineers at Dell and IBM don't give a toss. But since science is so "useless", who cares. Right? Who cares about anything except sex and balancing bank accounts? Did it ever occur to you that some students ARE interested in science?
"You think highschool students are all 'OMG! Now I know about evolution! yay!', pfft, right, as if."
Gee, I wonder why that is. The small-mindedness on display here is almost comical.
I can see that we're not going to agree. But thank you for sharing your opinion.