What's wrong with this picture?: Liberal goes batty about evolution

[BurtWorm]

I posted last week about Mark Kleiman, self-appointed spokesperson for the "reality-based community" and his bizarre accommodationism to creationists and ID proponents. He hasn't gotten any more intelligent in the time being, despite having his reality-base handed to him by several biologists and philosophers of science, especially PZ Meyers of http://pharyngula.org/.

Here's Kleiman's most recent ramblings:


http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/spirituality_and_religion_/2005/07/wittgenstein_on_religous_belief.php

My sense is that most religious believers don't believe in God the way they believe in the Sun or the supermarket, and that most of them couldn't give a coherent account of the meaning of the word "believe" in, e.g., the sentence "I believe in One God." But if the "demand" is simply that the state not use its control of the educational system to denigrate those beliefs, then it is not necessary to be a literal believer in the Genesis story to be queasy about having biology teachers teach as Truth what seems to be a directly contradictory account.

One option, suggested by my friend Mike O'Hare, would be to make the teaching of evolution less dogmatic.

Teachers could say, "This is the theory of evolution. It is believed by almost all scientists competent to form an opinion, and it is based on the following observations and reasoning. You are responsible for being able to state the theory and the evidence supporting it, but it's not my job to tell you what to believe."

That approach would be useful in teaching critical thinking, but of course since it's not the way most things are taught in school, singling out evolution for such treatment would suggest -- falsely -- that it is a matter of legitimate scientific controversy in a way that the heliocentric theory of planetary motion is not.



Reality-based people of America need to get on the same page about this: Evolution is not dogma. Evolution is not an opinion. Queasiness over facts that contradict religious beliefs is not the problem of the public schools' biology departments.

Kleiman and others who feel sorry for people unable to deal with the fact of evolution need to realize that you can't have both separation of church and state AND accommodation of creationist doctrine in taxpayer supported schools' science curricula.

[SmokingJacket]

1. I don't think it's THAT crazy.

If I remember, that's pretty much how evolution was taught in my high school: "This is evolution, which is a core tenet of biology. Some religious people don't believe in it, but this is what it is. Go ahead and decide for yourself."

Nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that it's controversial. I seem to remember feeling kind of cool and sophisticated being allowed to "make up my own mind."

[K-W]

2. By that logic teachers shoul qualify every piece of information they give.

"Most credible historians say the decleration of independance was signed in 1776, but I am not hear to tell you what to believe"

"A large majority of qualified Mathematicians say 2+2=4, but you should decide for yourself what to believe."

Is there such thing as a wrong answer in school anymore, or just different beliefs?

[Minstrel Boy]

3. There are different kinds of knowledge,

as demonstrated by your examples. I have no problem with their being taught in different fashions.

[K-W]

13. That is a totally bogus argument.

This isnt a discussion about teaching differently based on the actual differences of subject matter, this is a discussion about teaching differently based on whether or not a group of activist christians doesnt like what you are teaching.

Biology and History are already taught differently to accomidate the natures of the subjects.

Anyway, the destinction I am making doesnt relate to the subject matter. It relates to whether or not we tell teachers to pretend that biological lessons are special and can be disregarded.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Actually, by placing evolution in this context,

you'd be making a mildly subtle point. "Well, you don't have to believe in evolution. You don't have to believe that 2+2=4 either."

(Ignoring for the moment that one is and the other an a priori statement.)

[SmokingJacket]

11. Exactly! nt

[zbdent]

8. Yeah, and make the case that Elephants can fly

because you saw it in a David Copperfield show and you can't explain how it happened.

[SmokingJacket]

9. Weeellll.... not quite.

Acknowledging the controversy -- which WILL be on the students' minds -- is perfectly legitimate, and is somewhat different from saying, to pick an extreme example, "the Holocaust may or may not have happened." The fact is, today in the US, evolution is a hot button, even if you and I wish it weren't.

I would definitely object to there being a rule that a teacher must teach evolution that way, though.

And if I were a biology teacher I probably wouldn't make any accomodation whatsoever. I'm just saying it's a reasonable way of handling a community's discomfort if a teacher wants to do it that way.

[K-W]

14. I never said teachers shouldnt discuss the controversy

although if a biology teacher, rather than a social studies teacher does it, he/she is not doing thier job properly. The dispute is not a scientific dispute, it is a political dispute.

What I stated is that teachers should not make caveats when discussing evolution implying that unlike other things taught to them at school, this one they can ignore if they want.

If we dont make a point of explicitely telling children after every single fact that "knowledge isnt garunteed true", than doing it selectively after an evolution discussion presents the appearance that evolution is especially lacking credibility.

[SmokingJacket]

16. Eh, I don't 100% disagree, as I've said.

However, I do disagree with the idea that a science teacher isn't doing a good job if s/he brings in other subjects. That's silly! There are lots of fuzzy areas between subjects, and a lot of subject boundaries (between chemistry and physics, for example) are practically arbitrary.

How about if a teacher says, "Now, you may have heard that 'evolution' is just a theory. Let's discuss what a theory is, and you tell me what you think."

Now that I think about it... teaching the controversy as a part of the lesson on evolution would be a great exercise in critical thinking. In fact, if you do it right, the kid would be less inclined to fall for that "evolution is just a theory" bullshit.

[K-W]

21. There is no fuzzy area here.

There is no way shape or form that the evolution debate is a scientific debate, and teaching the debate alongside evolution in a science class is so obvioulsy going to confuse that issue Im really not sure where you are coming from.

"How about if a teacher says, 'Now, you may have heard that 'evolution' is just a theory. Let's discuss what a theory is, and you tell me what you think.'"

That isnt teaching the debate,that is referencing the outside debate, which I certainly dont have a problem with. And hey, odds are students will ask thier biology teachers about the debate, no way of avoiding that, nor would I want to.

What I am opposed to is the idea that an evolution carriculum should include anything except evolution. Not that it cant come up in classrooms, but the carriculum should be designed like any other carriculum and not specially designed because of the outside debate.

[SmokingJacket]

24. Okay, phew, we agree.

I agree that the curriculum should be designed like any other.

:toast:

[BurtWorm]

4. It's the use of creationist terminology like "dogma"

and the caution about religious queasiness that I find bizarre coming from someone claiming to represent the "reality-based community."

Nothing wrong with teaching critical thinking, or of insisting that students decide for themselves. But to pretend that ID is a biological theory on par with evolution is to let the camel stick its nose in the tent.

[bryant69]

5. I don't really get the conflict between some Christians and Evolution

And I am religious, by the way. I mean if Evolutionists claimed that the theory of Evolution definately proved the non-existence of God than that would be problemattic. But I don't know that's the point to evolution.

I mean I could understand it if the Creationists were sticking to 7 days as the time it took to create the world. But doesn't ID throw that out, largely?

I guess i don't see it. I accept Evolution as the most likely theory and believe in a creating God, and don't see a necessary conflict between the two.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Kraklen]

10. Evolution contradicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Now, I'm sure most Creationists never read the Bible, but they'll never stop believing the literal interpretation.

As for ID, it's just another name for Creationism. It's proponents usually fall back on a 6,000 year old Earth. It also hold that Evolution through natural selection is scientifically impossible, and it never happened the way scientists said it did. So it's just Creationism.

[BurtWorm]

12. ID proponents want to put it on par with evolution as an alternative

theory. In other words, either evolution is right, and humans and other species are descended from previous species through natural selection; or intelligent design is right, and human beings are the end product of a plan. Many people who believe in a planful God accept that evolution and natural selection are sufficient to explain the origin of all species (except maybe the first). But ID proponents adamantly do not. That is the crux of the controversy.

[bryant69]

20. That makes sense .

I don't agree with it, but I can see the apparent conflict.

[BurtWorm]

23. As fasttense suggests, though, the conflict is based on a false dichotomy.

Clearly you can believe in a creator and in evolution by natural selection. They are not mutually exclusive. The conflict has nothing to do with biology; it's purely theological.

[fasttense]

15. You know I agree with you there.

I believe in a God because it is logical. And I know evolution is how man and other animals evolved because that is logical too. I don't see where there is a problem with the two. Where is the contradiction? Seems to me these Creationists and ID people make them up where they don't exist.

[BurtWorm]

19. You make a good point. ID proposes a false dichotomy.

But since they insist on it, they ought to accept the consequences of having their argument utterly dependent on a logical fallacy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Just tell them that it's their right believe that 2+2=17.

That Ronald Reagan was a great president.
That the slaves really liked being slaves.
That all of the oil in the world belongs to us.
That we're winning the "War against terror".
That torture in Abu-ghraib and Gitmo are just pranks.
That we're "helping" Iraq.
That global warming is a myth.
That everyone in 'Murka has equal rights.

That ignorance is part of the "American Dream".

[drm604]

17. In college

my biology 101 Professor started his talk on evolution by flatly stating something like "Some people don't believe in this, but it's true."
I'm sure that there was no requirement that he say anything like that. I think he was just being a smartass (which he tended to be); maybe he'd had some bad experiences with students arguing with him. It made me grin.

[BurtWorm]

18. Apparently biology profs get that shit all the time.

I was just reading about one who had a student who said she could tell if a skeleton was male or female because females have one less rib than males. The professor had to count with her several times before she saw with her own eyes that men and women both tend to have exactly 12 pairs.

[GeekMonkey]

22. religon perpetuates ignorance

and has no place in our education system

http://www.cafepress.com/docpolitic.13249082">