Shouldn't We be Teaching ID in Science Class?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
You might think irreducible complexity is not worthy of being challenged in the science classroom, but given there are probably millions of others and their children who will be hung up by this concept, don’t you think it needs to be addressed by science?
[/QUOTE]

Of course; the children should be taught how to evaluate theories and their presentation with intellectual rigor.

As for the specific example, I’ll bet some-one has a list of structures in cellular organisms that starts with something like a cillium and increases in complexity to the multi-component flagellum.

If not, some high-school biology teacher should develop one. The important lesson in that show was not that ID is re-dressed Creationism, but that lots of people, including people on school boards and children, find the arguments compelling.

One problem is that most high-school compulsory science curricula leave out some thing very important: certain structures and configurations in molecules are thermodynamically more stable.

“The existence of the same structural molecule in so many disparate organisms is evidence of a grand design, and, therefore, Intelligent Design.”

“The existence of the same structural molecule in so many disparate organisms is evidence of a common ancestor, and therefore, evolution.”

No, it is evidence that the bond angles between the atoms and internal electronic forces favor that structure at that pH and that ionic concentration, and, therefore, thermodynamics.

We simplify science to the degree that we actually misrepresent basic concepts to the kids.

42

[QUOTE=John Mace]
There is nothing [in science] higher than a “theory” unless you are looking for truth (which is outside the realm of science).
[/QUOTE]

That’s beautiful. Thank you.

But, before I get the t-shirts & bumper stickers made up, what about basic, functional mathematics?
Math is a science, and, I think, 2+2=4 qualifies as truth. How do I reply to that argument?

43

[QUOTE=j666]
But, before I get the t-shirts & bumper stickers made up, what about basic, functional mathematics?
Math is a science, and, I think, 2+2=4 qualifies as truth. How do I reply to that argument?
[/QUOTE]
By asking why your correspondent thinks that math is science.

Generally, science is the investigation of the physical world. Mathematics is a discipline that explores concepts of relationships.
There is a bit of confusion when people use the word “science” (meaning “knowledge”) to describe math, but it is clearly not a physical science.

(One can also get into a philosophical debate over whether 2+2=4 is a truth or something else, but I am staying out of that discussion.)

44

[QUOTE=j666]
That’s beautiful. Thank you.

But, before I get the t-shirts & bumper stickers made up, what about basic, functional mathematics?
Math is a science, and, I think, 2+2=4 qualifies as truth. How do I reply to that argument?
[/QUOTE]

We just had a discussion about this the other week, here you go:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=440787&highlight=math+science

45

[QUOTE=tagos]
week 3. Trickle-down economics
[/QUOTE]
Hey now! Reaganomics actually worked! It just took a little longer than anticipated. See Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down To Area Man:

“Had Mr. Kellener received that money in 1981, like the Democrats wanted, it would only be worth $4.24 today because of inflation,” Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. said during an official announcement of the economic policy’s success at a press conference Monday. “Instead, Kellener has a solid $10 to spend right here and now. The system works, and our current president intends to keep making it work.”
And if you start knocking Nessie, where is it going to end? Next it’ll be the Sasquatch, the Charleston Mothman, and the Jersey Devil, and pretty soon you’ll be doubting even established cryptozoology finds like Reticulians, La bête du Gévaudan, and the Skunk Ape.

Stranger

46

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Hey now! Reaganomics actually worked! It just took a little longer than anticipated. See Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down To Area Man:

“Had Mr. Kellener received that money in 1981, like the Democrats wanted, it would only be worth $4.24 today because of inflation,” Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. said during an official announcement of the economic policy’s success at a press conference Monday. “Instead, Kellener has a solid $10 to spend right here and now. The system works, and our current president intends to keep making it work.”
And if you start knocking Nessie, where is it going to end? Next it’ll be the Sasquatch, the Charleston Mothman, and the Jersey Devil, and pretty soon you’ll be doubting even established cryptozoology finds like Reticulians, La bête du Gévaudan, and the Skunk Ape.

Stranger
[/QUOTE]

Don’t forget my favourite - the Chupacabra.

47

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I think you miss the point of the statement you are discussing. By asserting that the theories are taught “almost as fact,” the poster is correctly noting that the theory of evolution of species is taught as if it were The Correct Answer, i.e., the Truth (or, if you will, a factual statement). Indeed, many scientists (as well as people in general) seem to lose their recollection that the theory is just that, a theory, and, in the case of this issue, an unprovable theory (that is, as you noted, something about which the Truth cannot be known, by science anyway). Competing concepts are treated with derision, especially if the concept is unscientific, and therefore not truly a competing concept.

The schools need to emphasize that any theory, no matter how evolved or complex, is just that: an attempt to explain what we see around us, based upon our observations. In the case of many theories, especially those about past pre-historical events, the actual Truth cannot be known, but we try to figure it out (which represents a significant evolution in how humans think (!), a fact which goes unnoted in our classes, unfortunately). If we were to simply fall back on the acceptance of some belief system about deities to answer the questions, we are no more advanced than the Greeks who saw no point to figuring out what the True nature of things was, since after all, they could simply be affected by the gods at a moment’s notice. Thus, science and religion don’t mix; theory and belief (faith) are entirely separate thought processes, and they do not belong side by side in a science classroom.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, however, the problem with this (and the problem actually exists as a symptom of the stupidity of the audience) is that it opens the way for lunatics to say “Aha! you’re not sure! Therefore, it’s equally likely that I’m right”

48

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I think you miss the point of the statement you are discussing. By asserting that the theories are taught “almost as fact,” the poster is correctly noting that the theory of evolution of species is taught as if it were The Correct Answer, i.e., the Truth (or, if you will, a factual statement). Indeed, many scientists (as well as people in general) seem to lose their recollection that the theory is just that, a theory, and, in the case of this issue, an unprovable theory (that is, as you noted, something about which the Truth cannot be known, by science anyway). Competing concepts are treated with derision, especially if the concept is unscientific, and therefore not truly a competing concept.

The schools need to emphasize that any theory, no matter how evolved or complex, is just that: an attempt to explain what we see around us, based upon our observations. In the case of many theories, especially those about past pre-historical events, the actual Truth cannot be known, but we try to figure it out (which represents a significant evolution in how humans think (!), a fact which goes unnoted in our classes, unfortunately). If we were to simply fall back on the acceptance of some belief system about deities to answer the questions, we are no more advanced than the Greeks who saw no point to figuring out what the True nature of things was, since after all, they could simply be affected by the gods at a moment’s notice. Thus, science and religion don’t mix; theory and belief (faith) are entirely separate thought processes, and they do not belong side by side in a science classroom.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you know what the word “theory” means in science. It does not mean “unproven” and it doesn’t mean the truth can’t be known. Would you have a problem teaching the existence of the atom as settled fact? ow about gravity? Those are “just theories” too. Evolution is a directly observed phenomenon. Natural Selection – as an explanation – for the phenomenon and common descent as a necessary inference, represent the “theory” part of the ToE and both of those things are confirmed, proven facts. There is no reason whatever not to teach evolution as known fact unless you want to make the same epistemological equivocations about every other facet of scientific education from astronomy to the germ theory of disease.

49

DtC hit it on the head…evolution is both fact (observable) and theory (possible reasons why the observable phenomena happens). We can and should be teaching it that way in the schools. Along with at least the rudiments of the scientific method (I think they should use Demon Haunted World as part of the curriculum).

Teach ID in science class??? Um…hell no. As another poster up thread said, you could teach it as part of a philosophy class, sure. But science? It’s not science, why the hell should it be taught there (well, maybe as an example of something that is doesn’t use the scientific method and is psudo-science yet still widely believed).

-XT

50

Teaching ID in science :rolleyes: could lead to a major simplification in the syllabus:

  • Geography only needs to teach the Great Flood
  • Law and Ethics are completely summed up by the 10 commandments
  • Sex Education is not needed, since some will be celibate and the rest will only have sex within marriage to procreate
  • Astronomy is bunk, since they can’t even calculate the age of the Universe correctly

and so on.

51

I find it hard to believe that someone could watch the Nova program on the Dover School District lawsuit and come out of it thinking that “irreducible complexity” is a legitimate idea. Its quite thoroughly debunked in the program, including the flagellum example – it is not irreducable - if you take out one protein you get a different structure which is also functional and also found in nature.

Also within the program it is shown that “intelligent Design” is a “theory that describes the world” in the same way Astrology is – in fact, one of the proponents admitted that on the witness stand.

I suspect the OP did not actually watch the program.

52

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
I find it hard to believe that someone could watch the Nova program on the Dover School District lawsuit and come out of it thinking that “irreducible complexity” is a legitimate idea…

I suspect the OP did not actually watch the program.
[/QUOTE]

I am new here and do not know the FD, but I thought the question sincere, and a good reminder of the kind of challenges there are to science.

Valgard, I’m reading the thread you linked, but I have trouble with arguments such as 2+2=4 only by definition. If I have two things, and get two more things, I have four things; the only definitions involved are ‘two’, ‘four’, ‘plus’, and ‘equal’. However, I have grasped the point that basic mathematics are analagous to the alphabet, rather than science.

53

[QUOTE=j666]
I am new here and do not know the FD, but I thought the question sincere, and a good reminder of the kind of challenges there are to science.
.
[/QUOTE]

On its own, the question is sincere. But the OP claims to have been inspired in support of ID by watching this particular program, when in fact it methodically debunks the claims.

54

I too am a bit baffled by the conclusion of the OP. There’s an element of nature that ID proponents claim is irreducably complex. It’s since been shown how this element could evolve. Therefore, we should teach ID?

Feels like there should be a
“2. ???
3. Profit”
in there.

55

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
But the OP claims to have been inspired in support of ID by watching this particular program, when in fact it methodically debunks the claims.
[/QUOTE]

I hesitate to speak for the Dutchman, but I got the impression that this was his first exposure to the general argument of “irreducible complexity” and thought it might be compelling to some. I did not get the impression he was a proponent of ID.

(I did wonder that he seemed to have missed the model of the ‘stinger’ in the plague virus.)

56

[QUOTE=Hello Again]

I suspect the OP did not actually watch the program.
[/QUOTE]

Since you feel the need to challenge my integrity, may I suggest that I quite often doze off for brief periods when I watch tv or I may have been channel switching during NFL football program commercials.

But , as I think about it, I never dozed off when I was in science class, and if this ID misinformation is a serious problem for America then I suggest it should be addressed head on in science class with the facts. This issue did not exist when I went to school.

I don’t think a teleivision program is very helpful when one wants to get to the nuts and bolts of the truth, Colour me unimpressed with seeing a mouse trap on a neck tie.

I am not a proponent of ID.

57

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I don’t think a teleivision program is very helpful when one wants to get to the nuts and bolts of the truth, Colour me unimpressed with seeing a mouse trap on a neck tie.
[/quote]
Maybe you didn’t understand that the mousetrap tie clip was merely an illustration to make a point, not the point in itself?

What part(s) of the program do you feel avoided the nuts and bolts of the truth?

58

[QUOTE=Musicat]

What part(s) of the program do you feel avoided the nuts and bolts of the truth?
[/QUOTE]

The parts I saw ?

59

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
The parts I saw ?
[/QUOTE]

So, based on snippets of a television show, you wish to add Intelligent Design to the already complicated science program our children have to go through, even after it has been pointed out that the program actually came out against it?

60

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Since you feel the need to challenge my integrity, may I suggest that I quite often doze off for brief periods when I watch tv or I may have been channel switching during NFL football program commercials.

But , as I think about it, I never dozed off when I was in science class, and if this ID misinformation is a serious problem for America then I suggest it should be addressed head on in science class with the facts. This issue did not exist when I went to school.
[/quote]

ID is only a “serious problem” for people who don’t understand science. There is no need to teach crackpot hypothesis like ID in a science class. First, there are too many of them, and second, there is nothing substantive to teach about ID. It’s a baseless criticism of evolution, and makes not positive assertions itself. We don’t know anything about this alleged designer, how “he” works, or when “he” works. If they proposed that the designer was a giant spider living on Jupiter, at least that would be something you could test.

This was an excellent show and they did an excellent job getting at the nuts and bolts. Maybe you should consider watching it again.