I believe in at least this part of "teach the controversy," and that is that supporters of evolution shouldn't suppress aspects of evolutionary biology that are problematic, for fear of (God forbid, oops that should be Darwin forbid), providing cannot fodder for creationists.
As the article says:
Ball suggests that popular accounts of evolution may be sanitized because of anxiety that the uncertainty might be exploited by people who want to undermine evolutionary theory. But, he writes, "We are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers."
But, if we can't talk about the problems with any theory, then the whole self-correcting mechanism of science is threatened.
Just for fun, I am including a link to the Pistol Annies' song "Hush Hush."
Hush hush don't you dare say a word
Hush hush don't you know the truth hurts
Hush hush when push comes to shove
It's best to keep it hush hush
Best to keep it hush hush
8 comments:
I believe in at least this part of "teach the controversy," and that is that supports of evolution shouldn't suppress aspects of evolutionary biology that are problematic, for fear of (God forbid, oops that should be Darwin forbid), providing cannot fodder for creationists.
Oddly enough, this is the most down to earth aspect of the whole ID movement, but also seemingly the one that most spooks the hell out of people.
I remember the incredibly outrage that came out of... I think it was the TN education bill. The advantage there was that the entire bill was about 2 pages, easy to read and easier to understand, but it still managed to make some people go ballistic. The fact that it did was telling.
I would recommend "With Catlike Tread" from Pirates of Penzance. When your attempt to warn people to be silent creates the loudest thing ever. "Hush hush, not a word..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJg6Duzzf4
The problem with the whole 'teach the controversy' nonsense is that the controversies are all in the deep end of the pool, so to speak. It takes years of study of evolution to properly understand the nature of these 'controversies' - schoolchildren do not generally even the most rudimentary understanding of evolution. Just getting them to •understand• the Central Dogma (as opposed to merely recite it) - just a small part of evolutionary theory anyway - is difficult enough - even experienced science writer Philip Ball gets it wrong in his article. See:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/04/dna-nature-celebrates-ignorance.html
(this contains a further link about the Central Dogma)
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/09/breaking-news-wikipedia-is-wrong-about.html
Plus, the motivation behind the legislative attempts to 'teach the controversy' is to undermine the teaching of evolution - see the Wedge Document for an example. These attempts are almost always, if not just plain always, led by Christian fundamentalists who are worried about evolution, or the potential implications thereof, conflicting with a biblical understanding of life.
As to the DI article, everything out of the DI's 'mouth' is straight b-llshit. If you, Victor, are reading the various DI websites to learn about the 'controversies' of evolution, then you are learnin' wrong, because the nincompoops at the DI are serial liars and, on their best days, hopeless misunderstanders of evolutionary science. Their attacks on evolution are just aimed at (and revealing of) their own misunderstandings of it - irrespective of whether there is a God behind evolution or not.
I'm certain there is no effort or conspiracy to keep silent about real problems or disagreements with the scientific theory of evolution (except, of course, in the mind of the DI proponents). The things that are subject of disagreement among scientists are generally not at the level that would be taught in high school.
This sounds rather like the 'conspiracy' to keep silent data about environment change, which was conjured up by similar pseudo-science advocates, based on nothing more than a remark made by a scientist and taken out of context. The remark was about not volunteering to THEM certain pieces of information that he knew would be taken out of context, misinterpreted, and exploited by them. And he was right.
The real issue here is that their pseudo-science of ID doesn't receive equal billing, and rightfully so. There is no controversy in the scientific community about ID. It is religion masquerading as science.
By all means, teach children that there are disagreements and gaps in our understanding, and that even well-established scientific theories are not equivalent to absolute truth. But don't use that as an excuse to inject religion into the science curriculum, which can only result in creating confusion among students as to what science is. (Oh, that's right. That's the wedge strategy.)
The problem with the whole 'teach the controversy' nonsense is that the controversies are all in the deep end of the pool, so to speak.
Not really. Quite a lot of the problems with and limitations of the understandings within that domain are pretty easy to grasp, and the general thrust of 'Teach the Controversy' - that you shouldn't treat science as dogma, and that it's quite alright to dissent or even be agnostic about claims you either disagree with based on what you've read, or (in the case of agnosticism) knowledge you lack - is so benign that it's actually hard to oppose without looking frantic.
Just getting them to •understand• the Central Dogma (as opposed to merely recite it) - just a small part of evolutionary theory anyway
The most common metric everyone gripes about isn't 'getting people to understand the Central Dogma' or the like, but 'Getting people to recite it, and say they believe it's true'.
Plus, the motivation behind the legislative attempts to 'teach the controversy' is to undermine the teaching of evolution
Not really. Even the Wedge Document itself is primarily concerned with what they see as unwarranted metaphysical insertions and motivations in science education - they have far less to say about 'evolution' in that than 'materialism' and 'atheism'.
As to the DI article, everything out of the DI's 'mouth' is straight b-llshit.
Not at all. They actually tend to look more benign compared to a lot of the BS that goes on with the grand and glorious Defenders of Science. Jerry Coyne flat out misrepresents evolutionary theory as a science, and most defenders misrepresent ID wildly. (Which inevitably turns into 'Okay so they don't say ID proves God exists, or even that they can infer the supernatural.. but darnit I bet they believe that so I'm going to say that's what they argue as a shortcut. This isn't dishonest at all.'
I should probably devote a post to "Why I don't believe the DI/ID conspiracy theory. I have bones to pick with some ID arguments, and some of the activities of Discovery Institute, (although I am proud to have published an essay in "The Magician's Twin.")
In the words of Buffalo Springfield
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away
You're showing your age, Victor (by your song choices).
What do you mean? Hush Hush is brand new!
Post a Comment