Skip to main content

View Diary: Creationists' new angle--it's in the name of academic freedom (81 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe there's something to this idea. (4+ / 0-)

    Maybe we can give the creationists what they're asking for.

    Let's start discussing creationism, shall we? Let's present alternative views to evolution...

    and show how fucking stupid they are.

    It shouldn't take all of half an hour, then biology classes can move on to discuss science.

    Maybe we could finally put this to rest, and start bringing scientific literacy in this country out of the middle ages.

    But somehow, I don't think this is what the ID crowd has in mind.

    •  I know if I were a teacher (5+ / 0-)

      this is exactly what I would do.  I would have a section on 'What is science' and lay out the tenets of the Scientific principle.  Then we could discuss what is science (astronomy) and what isn't science ( like astrology)

      Then I could list some other 'areas of study' and ask the class: Science or not Science?  

      Guess where creationism would end up?

      •  That's a damn good idea (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jules Beaujolais, fiddler crabby

        So many people don't know, frex, that "theory" means something very different in science vs. everyday speech.

        •  Or people who know better (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fiddler crabby, Neon Mama

          take advantage of those who don't. Some IDers try to portray evolution as a deducutive theory that turned out to be wrong when observations were made later. In fact it is inductive. The observations came first, and the constructs of the theory were based on the observations. Some constructs have been clarified over the years due to further observations with better technologies and such, but this is not the same as "proving the theory wrong."

          Such people clearly know what the scientific method is, the difference between inductive and deductive theory, the difference between modifying and abandoning a theory... . They just purposely misrepresent it, which is a far worse offense than being ignorant.

      •  And you are absolutely right on that point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fiddler crabby

        We need much more critical thinking skills taught in the schools, and education on what science is and how it works. Art and theology are different from science, people need more education from the get go in the schools. The great critical thinking class (it was actually titled 'Semantics' but they taught logic, fallacies, etc. in that class) I took in high school has stayed with me life long. Excellent comment, thaddeus74.

        Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 03:34:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  right. Science != Comp. Lit. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm just having a really hard time imagining how this 'teach the controversy' BS would work in practice.

          In a literature class it is common to go around the room and solicit the opinions on the meaning of a text...that's sort of the point.

          Do they expect to go around the room in a seventh grade class and say, 'Well, johnny, how do you feel about that last passage from our Biology textbook'.

          •  "Teaching the controversies" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            doesn't mean "everyone's opinion is of value."

            It means looking at science/history/etc as a series of questions, and that students will come to their conclusions based on the evidence.

            The various disciplines are hotbeds of controversy, with legitimate points of view duking it out through the use of evidence and logic.

            We ask our students to do the same thing.

            It's not about "feelings," but about a rigorous examination of the evidence.

            If this were done with the evolution/creation "controversy," it wouldn't take long for students to figure out that the facts show there really isn't a scientific controversy, but a manufactured one.

          •  My semantics class wasn't a lit class (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fiddler crabby

            It was an analysis of how language is used rhetorically, so that included an interdisciplinary study of logic and deduction.

            But you're right, it would be a challenge to merge/blur categories, first I think you have to teach the category/discipline first before anyone can understand how one can be applied to another, or can't be. You make a good point there.

            Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

            by doinaheckuvanutjob on Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 05:50:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site