There is only so much time that kids get instruction on evolution. You’d take up too much of it to do that. And then you’d have to train all the teachers on the debunking of ID.
Folks, you just have to let it go. The world will get along just fine w/o making every science class into a forum for debunking ID (plus the dozens of other crackpot ideas out there).
No, I don’t; no, it’s not; and no, it didn’t.
Sorry, I’m just not much of one for blind faith, even in Nova.
I did not come here to attack Nova, 'GBH, or evolution; I came here to argue that the Dutchman might be sincere. (I refer you to Hello Again’s post).
To do so, I pointed out that the dramatization did not present a rigorous scientific critique of Irreducible Complexity. I fail to see how anyone could argue with that proposition. And persist in arguing. And persist.
Nova never presents a rigorous critique of anything. It introduces scientific concepts to non-scientists. It has never been, nor represented itself as, rigourous scientific education.
It’s a nice show, and a good show. I’ve probably been watching it as long as it’s been on the air. I’ve proudly supported its production financially (that you for reminding me to pledge). I am not going to undermine its goal by claiming it performs a function that is simply impossible for the medium.
In short, I know Nova; Nova is a friend of mine. You, John Mace, do a disservice to Nova.
In fact, those who are so hung up on debunking ID in schools are actually furthering the cause of ID. It’s kind of the equivalent of asking a frontrunner for the presidential nomination to answer attacks by some loon who doesn’t even get invited to debates. It just makes the loon look respectable.
But your way is like asking people to study the football rules book when they’ve never seen a game or even a football. The first set of experiments I remember from high school physics, sometime back around the time of Newton, involved learning how to measure, how to observe and write results, how to follow the steps of an experimental protocol, and to a limited extent how to create a hypothesis. How are you going to get a kid to care about falsification if they’ve never created a hypothesis? One good thing about that level of student - their hypothesis gets falsified all the time. Unfortunately how physics is taught usually encourages students to copy a hypothesis from the book, so it will come out right.
Really:
You just moved them again.
Pfffft. It was compelling enough that a buddy of mine, sure that ID had merit, watched the show and changed his mind. NOVA isn’t the journal Nature or Science or even Scientific American, but that’s an absurd standard to hold a TV show up to.
Exactly. They want to teach “the controversy”. When you got nuthin’, I guess “controversy” is as good as it gets.
Furthermore, there is no controversy in scientific circles. It’s a controversy invented by ID proponents.
Scientists are not arguing about evolution. They may be arguing about relatively minor details (e.g., punctuated equilibrium vs. gradual change), but not the overall concept. And disagreement about details is how science works – it doesn’t mean, as IDers claim, that the theory is in deep trouble.
IDers want to introduce a debate where there isn’t any.
“Teach the controversy”? There is none.
When the arguement for irreducible complexity rests on particular examples that can be shown to be reducibly complex, I’d have to say that demonstrating reducibility is about as good as you can hope for. I don’t think there’s some general proof of reducibility out there, so I have to say the program did a pretty good job of showing that the current examples of “irreducible” complexity are not.
I can also see how someone who believes in ID might not be convinced, but I don’t think they’re going to be convinced anyway. ID almost always comes with the faith of someone who thinks they know who the “Designer” is.
If I were a science teacher I would devote an entire day to studying all the peer-reviewed scientific literature on Intelligent Design.
I’d start off by pointing out the importance of peer review and fixed formats, and perhaps throw in a little bit about falsifiability of hypotheses. I would then force the students to sit in absolute silence for the rest of the period while I presented all the articles (zero), ending with, “Any questions?”
I think that would illustrate the point very nicely.
Just to be clear, that is exactly why I put “the controversy” in quotes.
Whilst I appreciate your good intentions, if I were a creationist I would reply “Here we have a so-called science teacher who makes his class sit in silence for most of a day because he does not understand the theory of Intelligent Design.” :eek:
There’s a theory of intelligent design? :eek:
While that might make you feel good as you “stick it” to the creationists in the audience, I doubt it would sway a single person. People who rely on the Bible for their world-view, and think it’s incompatible with evolution aren’t going to give a flying frack about “peer review”. Making students sit “in absolute silence” in a room with nothing being presented is pretty cruel. You’d just make enemies of most of the students, creationists or not.