I was trying (and failing) to summarise my argument with an elegant soundbite.
To me, education comes in two parts - learning facts, such as 1+1=2 and learing to manipulate the facts. I am having difficulty in articulating exactly what I mean, so bear with me.
Facts should be uncontentious statements of truth - scientific, geographic, spelling of words, historical (although the later is open to interpretation). Add or subtract to the list as required.
With raw data to work on, the student is next taught to intepret, to speculate and to theorise.
For the OP subject matter - evolution is a demonstrable fact. Evidence exists for evolution (www.talkorigins.org has loads of examples).
The theory of evolution is the result of examination of the data and thinking about why evolution occurs and what is the mechanism.
Proponents of ID have access the same raw data but discard any that don’t fit with pre-conceived ideas. They assume God created the Universe and therefore any data that suggest an alternative explanation are discarded. That’s not education, that’s lying, brain-washing, thought control, [insert pejorative term of choice].
Bloom’s taxonomy would support that idea… although I’m not so sure I’d choose the word ‘manipulate’… however…
One man’s fact can be another man’s lie, thought control, brain-wash etc. (to use your terminology). Even in ‘hard’ subjects such as you chose… science, geography, spelling etc., there is often debate and differences of opinion. Yesterday’s fact can be tomorrow’s delusion. Progress in knowledge will not only re-inforce certain facts, it will also destroy some. How can we know with certainty that the facts we chose to teach are uncontencious statements of truth to use your term?
What happens when you get into the ‘soft’ subjects such as philosophy, history (in terms of our interpretation of the chronological facts), literature, music, interpersonal skills etc. Should we exclude them as subjects? Difference of opinion is actively encouraged here…
Are you simply against the teaching of ID because you (or I, or anyone else) disagree with it? I’m not sure that’s a desireable approach to determining how we should educate our children.
To be able to ‘think’ I need ‘knowledge’… and the more knowledge I have, the better I’m likely to ‘think’. IMHO
Walor, You’re right, “manipulate” is not the best choice of word.
Identification and agreement of the facts is the hard part. Get that right and the rest is easy.
I’d argue that the softer schools of knowledge (history, philosophy) differ in interpretation rather than the facts.
Subjects like art, music & literature differ again, but in degree, not in kind. There are bodies of work (i.e. facts) with shedloads of interpretation (i.e. thinking). But nobody is declaring Mozart or Meatloaf the one true source of music and that anything outside his body of work is to be ignored.
ID is not about facts. It’s about belief. There is only one true belief and one true interpretation. No-one is allowed to think differently. That’s the problem.
Evolution works. Our growing biotech industry is proof positive of that . . . and people that simply want to deny it away risk becoming irrelevant. Not that they should be ignored, because they can still cause some trouble, but I really believe they feel they’re fighting for their way of life – and they’re going to lose. It’s sort of sad, really.
Unless you’re a fundamentalist Mozartian or Meatloafian (are there such things?).
That’s why it’s important to be careful about what you believe. We can believe anything we choose… for example, that ID is bunkum… we just run into difficulties if our belief is flawed! I guess we are all likely to be inclined that our own beliefs are the truths and that everyone else got it wrong. Doesn’t that apply to everything… not just ID?
Walor,
I don’t think evolution can truly be classed as ‘someone’s belief’ any more than gravity can. It is a quantifiable and measurable. Our language used to describe it may be lacking, but the principle is sound.
And its not that everyone wants to stop the teaching of ID outright any more than the teaching of religion. It’s the idea of people deliberately falsifying evidence to create a more ‘viable’ or ‘believable’ theory. And that they wish to destroy evolution as a theory and replace it with ID.
Where’s the tolerance of ideas in that approach?
Has “Intelligent Design” put forth a single testable hypothesis, or lead to any investigation of any phenomena? If not, it is not science, period, no matter how much one wishes it were.
erislover,
That’s the whole point, its not. But they have enough of a clue to be able to smudge the edges of a debate, bend rules, blur facts and convince school boards of the validity of their cause with their pseudo-scientific arguments.
Regardless of how many disbelieve or detest their methods, who is actually going to stand up and deny them? Not the school board. The teachers in the targeted schools are sick & tired of fighting them. Will you…?
It’s just too easy to let it slide, to let them win. they, basically, want it more.
I’m not sure that I’d disagree here… there is compelling scientific evidence…that’s for sure.
However, some would simply say that evolution happened after ID and that gravity is simply a reflection of ID. That is, the two could be considered compatible rather than antagonistic.
Good (IMHO)
I’m not comfortable with that approach, just as I sense you are not.
We choose to believe what we choose… that’s made easier if we are given choices… our decisions are then better informed. Even then, what we choose to believe could still be flawed. Such is life.
If ID is not a science (for the sake of the discussion), does that necessarily mean that it is not the truth or true?
Well, a Christian who is broadminded enough to discern a divine purpose in natural selection could take a tip from Devo:
Of course the errors there are twofold–Pongidae (apes), Cercopithecidae (baboons and Old World monkeys), and Cebidae (New World monkeys) are different families of the order Primata; and humans did not evolve fom monkeys: humans, monkeys, and apes are all descended from a common ancestor.
The trouble with fundies is that, by and large, they are unsophisticated people who can only think in bumper sticker slogans. They are unable or unwilling to take the effort to understand the principles of the scientific method and what evolutionary biology really is. They would rather cling to the simplistic explanations of natural phenomena (Why does X exist? God made it, now stop asking questions), than swim out into the wide sea of scientific exploration.
Frankly, there is not much difference between a fundamentalist and a pagan who lives in fear of the thunder god. Both are primitives who have no real understanding of the forces that shape their world.
Hell, the average fundie is too stupid to learn the proper definition of a theory (Hint: it doesn’t mean a wild guess.)
No, of course it doesn’t. But it does mean it should not replace evolution taught in schools. Which is what this whole discussion is about.
Look, I’d be happy if kids were required to read a little of David Hume’s work on human understanding. In fact, I think we’d be a lot better of for it. Fact of the matter is there is a hell of a lot of choices out there, and schools should teach what seem to be the most accurate and confirmable ideas out there; ID does not fall into this category, I am sorry to say.
It would fit tolerably well into a philosophical discussion of Aquinas and his first mover argument, as from what I can tell it really is just the first mover argument in a different guise, in which case the choice to learn that is already there: go take a philosophy class.
Religion and religious implication has its place. It is not in a science class.
walor, ID could be true. No question. However, the Intelligent Designer designed out any evidence of design. In other words, It covered its tracks and fooled us into inventing this wonderful thing - evolution - and scattered lots of evidence to support our non-ID theory.
In other words, no experiment can be devised to prove or disprove the theory.
You’ve made mention of the Big Bang Theory several times now Brutus. Let’s be clear here and now, the Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution or the Evolution vs Creation debate, regardless of how many fundamentalists like to bring it up. The Big Bang Theory could be proven completely wrong tomorrow, and a new theory of the universe being created by a giant chicken having laid an egg, and evolution wouldn’t be affected one iota.
walor
See above about Evolution and the Big Bang. The creation/beginning of the universe and evolution are two totally different topics.
cjhoworth
Teaching religion is certainly not banned in America, theoretically or not. I think you mean, teaching religion in publically funded schools is banned, which is sorta correct. Comparitive Religion classes would almost certainly be allowed in high school, and is offered at probably every public college/university of any decent size. Teaching religion in the sense of “this is what the bible says. Its a fact and thats all there is to it.” in a public school would certainly not pass constitutional muster(one would hope so at least).
Of course, thats not really the issue. Its more about teaching religion in biology class, which is and should remain unconstitutional. Evolution is no more a religion than gravity is. ID is absolutely a religous belief, a fundamentalist Christian one at that.
Ok, Back to fundamentals….(if you pardon the pun):
Outside all the semantic discussions of what evolution / ID means or represents, what is the prospect for the US educational system if the pro-ID lobbyists manage to force their way into main-stream science classes in one state or another.
Ok, they failed in Kansas. Now they are back trying in Ohio. If they fail they could be in Virginia next, or South Carolina, wherever. They will learn the system as they go, and how to argue their case to convince whomever they need to convince.
The question remains….how does the average school refute / ignore their pressure? Can they? Should they?
Nanook, are there actual constitutional laws to stop the teaching of religion in biology classes?
The elegance of design is conspicuous by its absence - ask anybody with knee trouble (me:( ) or prostate trouble (not me, fortunately). Again, www.talkorigns.org has masses of evidence for crap design, which I won’t repeat here.
