lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 9, 2006 22:52:41 GMT -4
Is this an issue any where in the World other than the US? Even here in "3rd World" Brazil when stories about resistence to teach evolution are shown on TV news it's always with an "only in America" air. A friend of mine said 'next thing they'll want to teach that the Universe is geocentric!'
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 9, 2006 23:31:35 GMT -4
Alas, it’s something of an issue in Australia.
Australia is a fairly secular country, and the curriculum is in the hands of public servants in the eight state and territory education departments. So there’s no likelihood of it ever being officially added to any curriculum.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of howevers…
The first ‘however’ is that the Federal Education Minister was asked a couple of months ago in an interview what his views were on the teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom. Bless his soul, he said he didn’t have any particular problems with it if parents requested it. He was irritatingly unclear as to whether he thought it belonged in the science lab or the religious education classroom, and I don’t know whether he’s really clarified himself since then.
The second ‘however’ is that there are quite a few new Christian schools in Australia, and probably quite a few of them will be getting either creationism or ID or both in their science along with the compulsory curriculum material. The Roman Catholic schools aren’t a problem, and the Anglican grammar schools shouldn’t be a problem either. The problem schools are the ones which are aligned with Pentecostal Protestant Christian churches.
There’s a Christian group in Australia which has bought large numbers of an Intelligent Design DVD, and they’re trying to distribute them to all Australian schools.
The good news is that scientists and the scientific media have been making lots of noises about the problems with Intelligent Design, so there’s been a fair bit of information in the other direction.
In summary, it shouldn’t be a problem, but there’s certainly a bit of debate.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 10, 2006 5:37:42 GMT -4
I don’t believe it’s as bad in the UK as in the US. The reason being that the UK’s National Curriculum includes Religious Education as subject. ID therefore may be taught along with the other creation myths and kept well away from science.
I don’t think that this is an option in the US because state schools have to be secular. This is why Creation/ID proponents try to get religion into US schools under the guise of science.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 10, 2006 8:44:19 GMT -4
... the Federal Education Minister was asked a couple of months ago in an interview what his views were on the teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom. Bless his soul, he said he didn’t have any particular problems with it if parents requested it. He was irritatingly unclear as to whether he thought it belonged in the science lab or the religious education classroom, and I don’t know whether he’s really clarified himself since then. Ronald Reagan was infamous for appointing cronies and campaign donors to positions for which they held no qualifications. His Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs was asked about which countries would need special attention. He mentioned several including Rhodesia AND Zimbabwe *, Is the Australian Ed. Minister one of those? *Rhodesia was the colonial name for Zimbabwe
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 10, 2006 21:20:07 GMT -4
Actually, he should be better than he appears. He's a medical doctor, and was for a while the head of the Australian Medical Association. I understand he was for a time also a subscriber to the Australian "Skeptic" magazine.
When he entered Parliament, there was some hope that he'd make a good Health Minister. I can't remember whether he's ever been Health Minister, but he's certainly left people unhappy with his performance as Education Minister.
The Australian Parliamentary system is similar to Britain's. This means that ministers must be members of the parliament. This is as opposed to the American system where members of Congress are not allowed to be secretaries (ministers). The result of the British system is that the Prime Minister has only a limited pool of people from which to appoint ministers, and may sometimes be required to honour factional deals within the party as well.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 2, 2006 17:19:22 GMT -4
Intelligent Design is not much of a theory really, but would it be out of place to mention it in biology textbooks? Teach evolution theory, and then include a section about possible criticism or unsolved problems of the theory, and include "some biologists feel that biological life is too complex to have developed by chance. This idea is known as 'Intelligent Design'". I like the idea of encouraging critical thinking in the sciences, even on matters that appear to be settled.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 2, 2006 18:23:01 GMT -4
Jason
IIRC my old high school science text books discussed phlogiston in the context of the discovery of oxygen in the late 18th century. But they also explained why phlogiston theory was wrong. Likewise, when we learned about the structure of the atom, we were shown the various theories developed by scientists, like [whoever's] Plum Pudding theory of atomic structure.
But Intelligent Design is different, in that it's not an explanatory theory. It's simply an objection to Evolutionary Theory. The Plum Pudding theory was an attempt to explain atomic structure in the light of evidence available at the time. By contrast, ID simply says that certain biological structures are too complex to have evolved, and so must have been intelligently designed.
There are two main problems with this concept. Firstly it tells scientists that there's no point looking for an explanation for currently unsolved problems in biology, because by definition no answers exist. Secondly, the objection itself is based on judgements rather than evidence; as described by biologist Richard Dawkins, it's an argument from personal incredulity.
Many supporters of ID say that school kids should be taught everything about evolution, including all the problems with the theory. The implication is that they will then be more receptive to the ID alternative. The problem with this is that schools are not the place to teach controversies in subjects. Instead, children should be taught the mainstream of all theories. When the mainstream is changed due to an improvement in evidence, that is when you change the curriculum. Otherwise, there will be no time to teach kids anything about any topic except the controversies.
I forget who said it, but someone said that Einstein didn't try to promote the theory of Relativity by getting the "Relativity controversy" taught in schools. Instead, he convinced the physicists of the world that he was right, and everything followed from there.
Finally, it's simply impossible now to separate ID from the agenda of its main proponents, the Discovery Institute. There is absolutely no doubt that the DI has used ID as a stalking horse for its plan to replace secular science with its own brand of Christian "science."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 3, 2006 11:39:47 GMT -4
But Intelligent Design is different, in that it's not an explanatory theory. It's simply an objection to Evolutionary Theory...There are two main problems with this concept. Firstly it tells scientists that there's no point looking for an explanation for currently unsolved problems in biology, because by definition no answers exist. Secondly, the objection itself is based on judgements rather than evidence; as described by biologist Richard Dawkins, it's an argument from personal incredulity. I can see that it would be a problem if it were taught as a valid explanatory theory, which is apparently what its proponents would like, but if it is mentioned only as a criticism, wouldn't that tend to spur biologists to find refutations to it? The problem with this is that schools are not the place to teach controversies in subjects. Instead, children should be taught the mainstream of all theories. When the mainstream is changed due to an improvement in evidence, that is when you change the curriculum. Otherwise, there will be no time to teach kids anything about any topic except the controversies. I agree that the mainstream should be taught and should have the most time devoted to it, but as you said earlier, if everything is presented as "the way things are" with no problems mentioned then no one will question it, and no one will improve it. I forget who said it, but someone said that Einstein didn't try to promote the theory of Relativity by getting the "Relativity controversy" taught in schools. Instead, he convinced the physicists of the world that he was right, and everything followed from there. But the theory of Relativity had mathmatical proofs. It's hard to argue with mathmatics. Evolution doesn't have this benefit. Finally, it's simply impossible now to separate ID from the agenda of its main proponents, the Discovery Institute. There is absolutely no doubt that the DI has used ID as a stalking horse for its plan to replace secular science with its own brand of Christian "science." I don't believe that just because supporters of an idea have an agenda that the idea itself should therefore be disqualified from being taught or expressed.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 4, 2006 9:24:02 GMT -4
...but if [ID] is mentioned only as a criticism, wouldn't that tend to spur biologists to find refutations to it? But biologists, as all scientists, already have plenty of incentive to seek provable refutations of existing theories. Would this view extend to math classes teaching that the value of pi might be precisely 3? Or to history classes teaching that the Apollo program...or the holocaust... might have been a hoax? It doesn't? Of course not. The fact that the idea was invented solely to further that agenda is.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 4, 2006 11:30:31 GMT -4
...but if [ID] is mentioned only as a criticism, wouldn't that tend to spur biologists to find refutations to it? But biologists, as all scientists, already have plenty of incentive to seek provable refutations of existing theories. Then why would teaching Intelligent Design cause them to stop seeking refutations? (If you recall, that was one of PeterB's objection to teaching it - that it would cause those taught it to stop looking for other answers) I don't think anyone really takes the "pi=3" idea seriously, not even the politicians who tried to pass it into law. In their minds, I think, they were making a political statement of protest, not a statement of fact. It might be worth mentioning the existence of holocaust deniers when teaching the holocaust, however. Knowledge that there are people who question the reality of the holocaust can cause people to investigate it further, and realize more fully the depth of the tragedy and the abhorrent nature of its perpetrators, just as claims that the Apollo landings were hoaxes may have spurred any number of people to look more closely at the methods and technology involved in Apollo, and educate themselves a bit on things like orbital mechanics and the nature of radiation in the process. Indeed, doesn't this entire website, and any good that comes from it, depend on the existence of criticism of the factual nature of the Apollo landings? If you're aware of any mathematical proofs of evolution I'd like to see them. Not that I'd understand them all, being not much of a mathematician, but I would be interested. So, in your opinion an idea is more dependent on who it came from and what their motive was in creating it than on whether the idea itself may have any merit? Don't simply say "but it has no merit" - that's not what you've been arguing to this point.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 4, 2006 22:14:40 GMT -4
I said:
Jason said:
I’m sorry, I don’t quite follow what you mean when you talk about spurring biologists to find refutations to it. If I follow you correctly, you seem to think that biologists need to keep finding refutations for ID. That’s not necessary. ID as a concept has already been so thoroughly discredited from a scientific point of view that there simply isn’t a scientific argument about the validity of ID – it has none. The only people who dispute this are its proponents.
Jason said:
Did I say exactly that? *looks puzzled!*
I think you’re making more of the issue than needs to be; I don’t think society is in much danger of accepting that nothing is in need of improvement. Yes, it may be worth mentioning controversies in passing at school, but unless the topic is the history of some subject, then I think there’s little to be gained by looking at discredited theories in any detail.
ID has as much place in biology as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion has in Modern History.
I said:
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 5, 2006 12:57:00 GMT -4
I agree with your general evaluation of Intelligent Design - it is far from a vaible alternate theory to Evolution and does not deserve to be taught as such. But my original post was dealing with the idea of mentioning it as a possible criticism of Evolutionary theory in textbooks, not teaching it as an alternate theory. Also, while it may be solidly discredited as a possible alternate theory for the reasons you cite, has it in fact been discredited? You said that it's not falsifiable, which would seem to indicate to me that it can't be discredited.
You did not say exactly "if it's taught as the way things are no one will question it." The phrase I was referring to is (speaking of ID) "..it tells scientists that there's no point looking for an explanation for currently unsolved problems in biology, because by definition no answers exist." It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to say "if a theory is taught as factually correct with no alternatives presented then it discourages scientists to look for alternate explanations," is more or less the same idea. If I stretched your meaning too far I apologize.
And also, I could care less who is supporting the idea of Intelligent Design or what their agenda is. I think who supports an idea and why should be completely irrelevent in determining the merit of the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 5, 2006 22:56:45 GMT -4
ID might be thought in social studies. Definitely not in science class. Else, where would it end, there being no shortage of pseudoscience.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 7, 2006 0:48:01 GMT -4
Intelligent Design is not much of a theory really, but would it be out of place to mention it in biology textbooks? Teach evolution theory, and then include a section about possible criticism or unsolved problems of the theory, and include "some biologists feel that biological life is too complex to have developed by chance. This idea is known as 'Intelligent Design'". I like the idea of encouraging critical thinking in the sciences, even on matters that appear to be settled. AFAIK NO biologists back ID. The closest they come is Michael Behe a biochemist. A theory with zero backing from any one in the field does not deserved to be taught in any schools except in history class along side ideas like the flat earth theory and geocentricism.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 7, 2006 19:52:59 GMT -4
Jason said:
Fair enough. I suppose it depends on how far you want to take things. But seriously, the only use ID has in the science classroom is in explaining how *not* to present a scientific theory.
There’s a difference between a theory which can’t be falsified and one which hasn’t been discredited.
A scientific theory is one which can be falsified. That is, it’s possible to propose a test which would prove the theory wrong. In the case of evolution, JBS Haldane’s example was “finding a fossil of a rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian.” And there are plenty of other examples we could come up with – humans and dinosaurs together, for example.
If you can’t propose a test for a theory, then the theory is discredited as a scientific theory. It might be true, but it would be trivial rather than scientific. This is precisely where ID sits. Because it can’t be falsified, it’s not scientific. As a result, it’s discredited as a theory.
In general, biologists have absolutely no time for ID, simply *because* it can’t be falsified.
No need to apologise, but there is a difference between the two concepts which I think you haven’t picked (and which I didn’t sort out in my mind until this morning!). The basis for this difference is the understanding that scientific knowledge is limited, and scientists know this. At any time, there are many unanswered questions in science, and the existence of these unanswered questions is *part* of scientific orthodoxy, and therefore part of what should be taught to students. *This* is what should encourage scientists to constantly seek alternate explanations.
Again, I see your point. I have no problem with scientists investigating ID, for the same reason that I have no problem with scientists investigating water divining or psychic powers. But once the flaw in the theory is shown, the theory should be dropped. The flaws in ID have been known for a long time, but the DI steadfastly refuses to acknowledge them, and instead continues to make false statements about ID.
|
|