I’ve often wondered about smart teachers approach this situation. If forced to teach ID, would you do it? Would you cop an attitude while doing so? Would you flat out refuse, or even quit? In weighing truth vs. your career, which wins out?
What aggravates me the most is how the debate is over two concepts/philosophies/theories as if they are oppositive to each other, yet there is no discussion of how adherents of these two schools of thought arrived at the conclusions they have made. If there were, students could understand that religion and science aren’t exclusive to each other.
I find the ‘evolutionists’ as guilty of this as the creationists, by the way. Maybe it’s just the way the debate has been framed by the latter.
But simply put, what I would love for our schools to do is not teach the talking points of either side. Rather, I’d love for them to teach students a way of understanding the conclusions made on each side of the argument.
To comprehend evolution, students would have to understand the scientific method. They would have to understand the value of creating a hypothesis, of rigorously testing it and refining it until it comes to reflect a solid, useful statement of understanding how one particular aspect of our physical universe operates. This, by the way, is how I understand the term “theory” is used in a scientific context, a point which seems lost on the creationists.
To comprehend creationism–and not just the Christian version, but also those other religions–students would need to understand the nature and power of religious faith. I don’t claim to know exactly how this can be done. However, there has to be value in understanding faith, since it is so powerful in our species. (This last statement doesn’t necessarily apply to any nonhumans reading this board.)
Obviously, it would require our public schools to teach something approaching religion, which I’m skittish about, and which I would assume the creationists would also object to–“Why are my tax dollars going to teach my children about Hinduism?”. This is why my idea has no chance in hell of seeing the light of day.
But how is it not worth it to try to explain to students a force so powerful that it can comfort a tsunami victim who has just seen everyone in his village swept out to sea, or compel someone else to fly a jumbo jet into a skyscraper? And could anyone argue that in general the typical moral precepts put forth by a given religion do help bind a group of individuals into a community?
And I say this as a religious skeptic who has been to church maybe 5 times in my life, excluding weddings. But I’ve never felt the devout are simply deluded and ignorant in what they believe. I don’t care if they believe that 2000 years ago, Jesus came back from the dead, saw his shadow, and proclaimed six more weeks of winter. (I may be a little hazy on my theology there.)
Above all, what I object to is the muddling of scientific theory with religious faith. These concepts (I struggle to come up with a better word) are each useful in their own way, but they basically are coming up with different answers to different questions. Students right now–hell, many adults, too-- don’t know how to discriminate between reason and faith. They don’t know that seeing everything through the filter of either viewpoint is inappropriate and invalid. Creationists don’t understand that the quickest way to kill the power of God would be, IMHO, to prove scientifically that S/he exists. And evolutionists don’t see that science’s blind pursuit of knowledge is seen as cold comfort, almost a threat, to that part of the human psyche who is awed, almost afraid of the simple fact of our existence. And what is lost in all of this is the ability of students to understand how to appreciate and apply these two different abstractions to comprehend our existence.
Sorry for the ineloquence, I look back at this and think that I wrote this in a freshman writing seminar. Must get coffee . . .
Gotta disagree. At least every “official” text I’ve read includes a disclaimer about how it’s not out to disprove religion, just discuss the facts of the science. Most debates on informal fora like this usually include at least one post saying the same thing. Not to say that no Darwinist has ever claimed religion to be dead wrong, but by comparison that’s very rare.
But I agree with your second sentence above – “debate” on the subject normally takes the form of creationists attacking, Darwinists refuting. It’s absurd to expect Darwinists to propose ways of integrating science and religion when they’re too busy putting out little fires of ignorance.
I re-read the opening post, but haven’t visited the FARK site. I’m not sure this fits, but the state of education is a little slanted all around according this alternet site.
Evolution may be a debatable theory, but I would think there might be some evidence that slavery did not constitute a: “multi-racial society … with … mutual intimacy and harmony.”
The pro-slavery texts are used at Cary Christian Academy–color me surprised.
This is just my experience, but I had a great teacher that did exactly that in my freshman year of college. I had already had some high-school level physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry by that point, but what changed my mind about evolution was a class called History of Science. My teacher was a Christian, and pointed out several things:
- Most of the Great Scientists of history who were also Christians thought that to assume we can know everything about nature by studying the Bible is wrong. In order to discover more about God, we must study his creation with as few preconcieved notions as possible, and only then can we make pronouncements about the nature of, well, Nature. To go into a scientific study thinking that you know the outcome is to make assumptions about God, the height of arrogance.
This is also known as the Voluntarist view, as opposed to the Aristotelean Intellectualist view.
-
The anti-intellectual, anti-scientific view of fundamentalist Christians is very recent, and before about 50 years ago most Christians had no problem with evolution or Darwinism.
-
Science can never threaten Christianity, because while Science can explain the how of a process or phenomenon, it can never explain the why.
My hat’s off to you. You’re one of the good people in the world. My sincere thanks for fighting ignorance.
I am happy to report that the biology teachers in the Pennsylvania district refused to read the ID statement, and they had to send in administrators to read it. No adverse consequences were reported.
I live in California, and I got involved in my district out of concern for just this, and got on the textbook review committee. Happily, the new Biology textbooks are very good. The AP one even had a full page interview with Richard Dawkins.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years. I don’t think there’s any competent scientist out there that would suggest that science will discover why we are the way we are, or why the universe operates under the rules it does. It will simply continue to provide answers as to how various processes work.
The, “Why,” questions are the realm of religion and philosophy.
Here’s a good answer for that one - the flu bug. It evolves like crazy. Every year there is some new strain. That is evolution in high gear. Then there are dogs, cats, horses, cattle etc etc etc, that we deliberately “evolved” to suit various purposes.
Well, you know I used to get all hot and bothered about them damn creationists tryin’ to muck up science, but now I just get the giggles about it. [giggle] Because it really is funny that whatever designed humans, creationists want to call intelligent. Y’all just need to just step back a minute and think about this. Somethin’s just not addin’ up right. Humans fuckin’ up the atmosphere, killin’ each other left and right, and ain’t usin’ half the brain cells they got. You’d think we’d learn a little somethin’, but we just seem to be goin’ in the same damn circles.
Okay, seriously, I sort of changed my views after watchin’ the film: “Inherit the Wind” because they arguin’ that we have the right to consider other perspectives–the other perspective in the film is Darwinism. So let the creationists muck up the science curriculum with philosophical theory while the rest of the secular world laughs at America, and China, Japan, Russia, and heaven only knows what other countries surpass us in science and technology. However, ask them creationists how they goin’ provide data through scientific method–I do believe this is the foundation of scientific inquiry–to support the notion that some alien/designer produced us humans. If there is some kind of designer–we’ll not tack on the “intelligent” just yet–then I want to see what s/he looks like. Ooh, and let’s make this really interesting, when them folks what believe in creationism/:dubious: “intelligent” design can figure out who that designer is and how to contact that designer, I want to be first in line to ask that designer: What the hell were you thinkin’?!
I’m afraid I don’t see how this can be done, either. Religous faith is so varied, not only in the various creation myths, but also in approach to the purpose of life, philosophy of worship, nature of afterlife, et cetera, that I don’t see how you could teach this in a public school from an “value of understanding faith” point of view.
You could teach the history and culture of common religions around the world, and I think students would be better people for it, in terms of understanding how other cultures think, but an actual appreciation for faith in the unseen is more of a cultural and familial obligation, and in any case would open the door to way more controversy than evolution versus Fundamentalist Christianity. “What, you’re teaching my kid about them eight-armed gods from Asia!”
In any case, such teaching is in the area of social studies, and does not belong in a science class. Neither, IMHO, does Intellegent Design, which is a backdoor into a “God of the Gaps” explaination.
I have to admit I’m a confirmed athiest, and have been so since I was seven (much to my mother’s chargrin), but I’ll also admit that supernatural gods are a non-falsifiable proposition, and therefore are beyond the realm of science to prove or dismiss. However, the false claims of the necessity of a supernatural creator (in the guise of Irreducible Complexity and the like) are fair game.
Stranger
On the way to work this morning, I saw the following bumper sticker:
Evolution is Science Fiction
I don’t know whether to cry or to smack the nimrod upside the head. Maybe I’ll do both.
A bumper sticker that says "Evolution is science fiction? I guess this means that people should turn to other sources for the “truth”? (Like maybe the Bible?)
Since the Bible purports to tell the “truth” about the creation of the world, human beings etc, couldn’t science be wrong in other areas?
Could anyone give me the Biblical references where I could find the “truth” about - covalent bonding, the atomic mass of dysprosium, the half-life of plutonium 239, the magnitude of Sirius B … ?
Check this guy out:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1darre.htm
He thinks we should teach Intelligent Design in schools. Why? Because scientists are just crazy in thinking that mutations and variation arises randomly. No no, you see, since they can’t PROVE that bacteria don’t WANT to evolve in a particular direction, we must be able to teach the theory of bacterial desire (which is apparently what he understands intelligent design to be all about)!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!
Did someone drop the whole world on its head when it was a baby or something?
Just give him a copy of [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192860925/qid=1106785596/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7400697-9446535?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The Selfish Gene and a pot of coffee, lock him in a room, and don’t let him out until he’s read the whole thing.
This whole “fighting ignorance” thing would be a lot less tedious if people would just read, damnit.
Stranger
“The School District requires me to teach you about ‘Intelligent Design’ at this point in the curriculum. ‘Intelligent Design’ is total nonsense. Now, moving on to the next topic…”
That would leave time for the important things kids do in school today - which seems to be watching movies.
In any case, to follow current education philosophy, we need to test the kids on this. Might I suggest:
Intelligent design is:
a) A hypothesis that an undefined entity at an unknown time did unspecified things to the genome, none of which is necessary to explain any living or extinct being.
b) The theory that space aliens are responsible for the development of mankind.
c) Hi, Opal!
d) A total piece of shit
e) All of the above.
That says all I need to hear from this bozo. He neither understands natural selection nor intelligent design, which is pretty pathetic all around.
One time, a Christian friend of mine despite him being very reactionary, when asked “do you believe in evolution” responded with “let’s just say there is no way I came from bacteria.”
Remind me again, what is dirt made of?
Gotta love the irony! I just happened to begin teaching the unit on evolution this week, and I showed “What Darwin Never Saw” yesterday. It’s an excellent documentary that showcases Peter and Rosemary Grant’s research on the Galapagos Islands, which was the among the first to directly document evolution and natural selection in action. After watching this video, one can virtually see the seeds of doubt begin to germinate in the minds of the creationists. So…using movies and videos of significant quality to help teach is worthwhile, IMHO, but moderation IS key.
Oh, and do you mind if I use your multiple choice question (word-for-word) on my test for this unit? 