Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's Teach the Controversy of Evolution vs Intelligent Design **Updated with Poll question** (365 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  basically, yes (11+ / 0-)

    But the arguments have become much more complex and difficult for non-scientists to reject over the past decade.  Thus the need to teach this stuff as part of a critical thinking focused science cirriculum

    •  At what level? (6+ / 0-)

      At the college level? middle school? high school?

      I would very much support classes that discuss pseudoscience, in all its incarnations, from ID to homeopathy but you dont have to promote ID to science to do it. Its not discussed nearly enough and our society seems to have become only more credulous.

      It seems to me though, no matter how much we know differently, and no matter how many times its explained to cdesign proponentsists, the second we promote ID to science curriculum (even if its only to disprove/ridicule it) then they will run around claiming how we've finally acknowledged ID as SCIENCE and it will be repeated often enough that it becomes a defacto fact to them.

      •  I can teach this at kindergarten level (6+ / 0-)

        Young-Earth Creationists and IDers maintain that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. There are single ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica with many more annual layers than that. The oldest trees are older than that. The Grand Canyon has many times more layers than that. We can measure how fast the Grand Canyon is rising using GPS. We can calculate from that how long it took the Colorado River to cut it, since the river has run at the same level the whole time. Any child can see on a map that South America split off from Africa. We can see on underwater cameras and measure with GPS sea-floor spreading, and calculate when that split happened. There are related plants and animals in both continents from before that. There is no way they could have traveled from one to the other. Similarly, there are sea-floor fossils and rocks on top of the Himalayas.

        I can multiply these elementary examples a hundredfold. At higher levels, where we can bring in astronomical measurement (parallax of stars more than 10,000 light years away), geological chemistry (such as fossilization), elementary quantum mechanics for stellar evolution and dating rocks, and molecular biology, I could multiply them by a thousand topics with literal billions of examples.

        None of this is promoting ID to science, any more than discussing Copernicus and Galileo promotes the marriage of Ptolemaic astronomy, astrology, Aristotle, and Catholic Church doctrine to science. Of course, Aristotle and Ptolemy were trying to do science, and got part way there, laying a foundation that led to modern science much later. So we must help students to understand which is which, and how some people got through the muddle.

        Kepler, for example, found the true Ptolemaic/Copernican hybrid solution to the orbit of Mars (one cycle with one epicycle within the sun-centered framework) long before he discovered that that generated an ellipse, the correct solution within the precision of measurement of the time.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Mon May 06, 2013 at 03:42:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with your premise, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          not your example.

          We can measure how fast the Grand Canyon is rising using GPS. We can calculate from that how long it took the Colorado River to cut it, since the river has run at the same level the whole time.
          There are many who believe that evidence supports the catastrophic theory of Gand Canyon formation- a huge lake which emptied rapidly, periodic damming and sudden flooding, etc.

          As my father used to say,"We have the best government money can buy."

          by BPARTR on Mon May 06, 2013 at 04:29:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Of course you can.... (4+ / 0-)

          Hells I'm not a teacher, I'm just an Architect and I could probably teach it with enough prep, thats not my point.

          My point is the DI has been trying to get ID into the science classroom for years, it seems to me letting it in the classroom even if only to disprove/ridicule it, lends it credibility among the credulous.

          The Diary says, "lets teach the controversy" yet you (clearly) know far better than I, that there is no controversy. Teach that, reinforce that. Surely all the facts you've noted in just those first two paragraphs and the hundredfold that sit in the wings are taught already. I see no gain in even mentioning ID.

          If ID is to come up at all in a class covering the subject it should be a simple line stating, "The second ID, predicts something, that can be tested and verified, the second a reasearcher discovers ANYTHING using ID, then ID might be able to be a part of this class until then I will instruct you on the facts and leave out the lies and wishful thinking of fools"

          Nor do I think your example of Copernicus and Galileo are equivelant in any way, ID is entirely based on lies, misinformation and religious dogma. I dont think we can say the same about Copernicus, Galileo  and Kepler.

          Like I've said though, lump it in a class covering pseudoscience, along with crystals, psionics, alien abductions, energy bracelets and homeopathy and I'm all for it, because ID deserves not one iota more respect than those other "Theories"

        •  Um, ot exactly: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh
          Young-Earth Creationists and IDers maintain that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. .... The oldest trees are older than that.
          The oldest is a conifer in Sweden the root system of which is 9,550 years old. What is seen above ground isn't ancient, though. (I'd have given a link to the Nat Geo page where I found this but I'm having problems this morning getting a link properly embedded.)

          Just wanted to give you a heads-up on tree ages so you don't get blindsided by someone who disagrees with everything you say.

          And besides that, you know how it is: If someone is wrong about something on the Internet, ... ;)

          Being the single intellectual in a village of 1,100 souls ain't much fun, especially when 1,099 of those don't think you're all that smart.--Lucy Marsden

          by Miniaussiefan on Tue May 07, 2013 at 04:14:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  students shouldn't waste time on this.... (0+ / 0-)

        they can go to church to hear this and to the science classroom to hear science evidence.  These are two different belief systems, and you can't test for a creator with a hypothesis.

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:08:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site