Comments on: Teach the Controversy

By: John Rinaldo

John Rinaldo — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:24:01 +0000

Dennis,
If god has been mathematically proven, then let’s see the proof. And, don’t ask me to provide it, you asserted it.

John

By: Frank Lacey

Frank Lacey — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:15:10 +0000

This article puts into context my daily quandary as fifth grade elementary school science teacher in Texas. Neither our state-approved textbooks nor (more disturbingly) our state curriculum even contain the word “evolution” at our grade level. While I very much want to teach my students the basics of biology, to prepare them for what’s to come, I’m hindered by the fact that if I do so using the word “evolution” I may offend the wrong parent–and I have no assurance that I will be backed up for doing so, since some might interpret my teaching to have officially “strayed” from the approved curriculum. If that isn’t bad enough, the Texas science curriculum is up for a rewrite this fall, and with the departure of Chris Comer, (google it) who knows what will happen. This, my friends, is where we are right now. Wish me luck! :)

By: Lucas Glover

Lucas Glover — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:57:36 +0000

Good article. Interesting link between ID and bioterrorism.

Also, if we are teaching our children, or even mentioning, ID, then they will grow up possibly rejecting evolution to a degree that hinders their scientific progress. ID is not science. It is based on pseudo-scientific claims that are hardly ever tested, and when they are, fail miserably. Examples of such “designed” machinery that the ID’ers hold in the air are the immune system, bacterial flagella, hemoglobin, and some others. However, all of these have a more proper, elegant, and wondrous explanation of their development through evolution. These failings are evinced by the ruling in the Dover, PA trial (trying to get ID taught in the scientific curriculum in the local high school).

ID kills the aesthetic beauty of science and how apparently designed species came to be naturally.

For the simple fact that ID/creationism does not follow the scientific method and is not based on natural phenomena, it is not science. If people would like to read about ID/creationism, go to a “Religious Approaches to Biology” class — not a science class. If we start “teaching the controversy” (what controversy, anyway?), then we are going to have to start presenting alternative explanations to sexual reproduction (namely the Stork Hypothesis), how the brain works (namely a little wo/man is inside our brain controlling everything we do and think), and many other ridiculous, unfounded claims.
Furthermore, to the comment’er that mentioned this, there is no debate about evolution and there is no controvery. The only thing that is debated in the scientific community (in the slightest way possible) with the theory/fact of evolution is HOW evolution progressed. Some scientists debate over the minutia of natural selection (e.g. punctuated equilibrium vs. not), but they do not disagree on evolution and natural selection as a whole.

By: Dennis L. Oberholtzer

Dennis L. Oberholtzer — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:16:30 +0000

Mr. Moreno, I’m sorry to say that you appear to have a phobia about people who do not believe the same as you. Yes, the label of “Intelligent Design” is a less confrontational term for “God created”. But it also IS a science!!! Intelligent scientists understand that all radioactive isotopes DO fluctuate, even though they are steady for a period as is today. That is why the new material from Mt St Helens is dated to be a billion years old. Non-creationists do not comprehend things like this.
It is better for every scientist to realize that when there is a competing view, that neither view is totally correct. For only in a world of total truth is there no competing viewpoints, for truth has no competition.
And by the way, the existence of a Creator of the Universe has been mathematically and linguistically proven, not to mention the FACT that the Spirit of Jesus Christ lives within myself and other Believers in the Eternal God.

By: Kathy Barker

Kathy Barker — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:51:05 +0000

I found the focus on bioterrorism and security quite depressing. And it seems to me that linking a scientific knowledge of evolution with increased security, linking liberal-ascribed thought with conservative issues, is itself a political manipulation.
Competition, military, security, freedom….here’s another thought- Better scientific knowledge could help the world battle disease, poverty, and the ravages of climate change.
But that isn’t why we teach evolution. We do it because it is the only scientific theory that explains life on earth.

By: Cathy

Cathy — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:45:18 +0000

Creationists do little if any research and do not submit articles to publications. If they are scientists then I deserve a gold medal in gymnastics–I just didn’t go to the try outs. But trust me, I’m as good as Shawn Johnson.

By: Ronald Ein

Ronald Ein — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:24:20 +0000

In a less politicized atmosphere, takunda’s comments would sound an important cautionary note. The scientific enterprise requires a willingness to subject even the most “obvious” truths to harsh questioning when phenomena don’t fit the prevailing paradigm. And, yes, there are completely credentialed biologists who have issues with Darwinian theory, but they don’t denounce the scientific method or the general structure of science while they disagree with specifics.

The right, however, has a well-developed strategy of manufacturing pseudo-scientific arguments that are actually political in nature. Both intelligent design and creationism are such erzatz constructs carefully designed by right-wing think tanks–Discovery Institute, most notably–to wedge themselves into the public policy debate, not to advance scientific truths and understanding, but to forward a moral and political agenda.

Prof. Moreno’s analysis of the consequences of allowing such nonesense to alter public education and public policy seems both clear and directly connected to reality. One impact he might have addressed emerges from this exchange of comments. Because of the politicization of every idea, we almost never hear or have an intellectually honest discussion of matters that affect all of us as individuals and our nation as a whole. That is a very profound impact of the ginned-up war on science and the intellect waged by the reactionary forces in the USA that cannot be alleviated by politicians’ promises to end partisan bickering. It is not bickering, but a foundational disagreement on core purposes carried on in an intellectually dishonest way by at least one side of the argument.

By: Takunda

Takunda — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:54:07 +0000

Jonathan, I think you express legitimate concerns about the future of our national security in particular and science education and progress in general. However I also feel that your concerns about teaching the theory of intelligent design suggest an equivocation of that theory with a stance that’s anti-science. Despite the possibility that some advocates of intelligent design might also be anti-science, the two can be quite different. While I don’t personally prescribe to the theory of intelligent design, I think it’s important to recognize that what might be at issue is simply the mechanism of change. One does not need to prescribe to the idea of intelligent design to contest the received view of the mechanism of evolutionary theory. One prominent scholar who disputes adaptationalism, for example, is Jerry Fodor (see “Against Darwinism”). I am by no means claiming that Fodor believes in intelligent design as he does not, but his objections should give us pause. He suggests that many scientific theories are “best understood as historical narratives” (Fodor 2008). And I think he makes a good point. A theory of intelligent design that disputes evolution certainly should be rejected, but room should be made for competing explanatory models. The controversy over the mechanism of evolution is certainly something that should be taught, and that is something that would benefit science and technological advancement. I think that until Fodor’s objections are answered intelligent design might have a place in that conversation, and as such it might not be as anti-science as it might seem. As much as we should avoid being anti-science, we should also avoid falling into scientism.