Mike Dunford was a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studied evolution. Life as an army spouse has since moved him on to Pensacola, where he's currently trying to figure out what to do next. While he's doing that, he writes stuff here, although not usually in the third person. He's also a contributer to 
There's an interesting op-ed on teaching evolution in today's edition of the International Herald Tribune. The opinion piece is written by Michael Balter, and suggests that, "The best way to teach the theory of evolution is to teach this contentious history." To support this position, Balter points to a 2005 study by Steven Verhey that was published in the November, 2005 issue of BioScience, that suggested that creationist students were more likely to change their views if the curriculum directly addressed creationist objections to evolution.
Balter has been advocating this position for a while now, and his views have been discussed at The Panda's Thumb before now. Still, the position appears to be at least superficially reasonable, so it's probably worth another quick look.
In theory, I think directly addressing creationist concerns is a good idea. The issues are out in the open, and it is a simple matter to explain why these so-called-concerns are nothing more nor less than total bull. In some cases, the massive misunderstandings of biology that are involved in the creationist "concerns" can provided good jumping-off points for teaching the real biology involved - I've done that from time to time myself.
The problem comes with the question of who decides what is addressed and how. Verhey's approach was possible because it was a university course, and the professors have a great deal of leeway when it comes to establishing the curriculum. It also helped that the person teaching the course was a professional scientist, well-trained in biology. In the American public school system, on the other hand, the curriculum is set at a local level, and political interference from elected school boards is very much a possibility.
If I was confident that Balter's suggested approach would result in science being taught the way that Verhey taught it, I would be happy to support it. As things currently stand, however, I think it's a lot more likely that his approach would result in science being taught the way the Discovery Institute wants to teach it - heavy on the Jonathan Wells, light on the honesty.
Comments
"In the American public school system, on the other hand, the curriculum is set at a local level, and political interference from elected school boards is very much a possibility."
Public schools are way too micromanaged to for teaching Biology via teaching creationist objections to evolution. The minute a teacher started explaining why creationist concerns were BS, he/she would be besieged with angry Fundie parents, and would probably get fired.
That's the trouble with the public school system's local control doctrine. It tends to allow too many people who are not educators to have input into curriculum. Also the American public is rather ignorant about science to begin with.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | January 31, 2007 4:19 PM
Guitar Eddie put his finger on a central problem--some whiner would complain loudly and persistently if a biology teacher pointed out that IDC is not science, etc.--but there is more to the problem than that. Bio teachers don't have enough time to cover the basics in HS biology as it is without delving into the comparison of evolution and its harebrained alternatives. In fact many teachers, just to avoid those IDC whiners, even elide right past evolution making a discussion of IDC in comparison moot. That, of course, is the real crime in that many, many students, for whom HS biology is their only biology course, never hear about evolution in that course. It's no wonder that a very large portion of the American population then doubt or reject evolution.
Posted by: Keanus | January 31, 2007 5:16 PM
I agree with Balter's opinion, but keeping the curriculum content balanced enough to bring students to the scientific point of view would be difficult in light of the religious faction's desire to misrepresent science. Nationwide, it would be impossible to provide enough oversight to keep this from happening, considering that creationism is already slipping in.
I'm leery about tearing down a wall that might be difficult to erect again.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | January 31, 2007 5:24 PM
I agree. Let's teach the controversy. I suggest starting with a debate in sexual education classes between intercourse between two human beings, stork delivery and cabbage patch origination. Followed by physics classes where we can discuss how the moon can travel so fast and not burn up when it's made out of cheese and why if it's so high up cows can jump over it?
Next let's move to the math classes and discuss why the metric system is inferior to the cubit system.
Let's teach it!
Posted by: MYOB | January 31, 2007 5:54 PM
I think, rather than risk playing into the ID bunch's strategy, instead of 'teaching the controversy', we should instead 'address the implications' while making it very clear that there is NO scientific controversy. You have to address the misleading conceptual arguments anyway if the students are really to understand evolution.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 31, 2007 6:41 PM
Only students who are going to major in the biological sciences really need to be familiar with evolution theory, because the theory is used in cladistic taxonomy and because terms and concepts from the theory are widely used in scientific biological literature. And no one needs to believe evolution theory, because people can use the theory even while believing that only part of it or none of it is actually true. As an engineer, I know that engineers use concepts that are not believable at an intuitional level, e.g., (1)imaginary numbers and complex-plane vectors are used in the analysis of AC circuits, and (2) in the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, rotating cylinders are used to determine the aerodynamics of fixed-wing airfoils.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | January 31, 2007 6:43 PM
Guitar Eddie:
Well, that comes from the fact that the country's always been rather decentralized -- more so in the past, but communities of all political stripes tend to take the concept of home rule very seriously. In any case, centralizing educational policy could be either a great idea (in a pro-science administration) or a total disaster (as it would be under the current administration).
Larry:
That's like Rick Santorum's position that the National Weather Service's job is only to report on weather hazards, and that it doesn't need to do public weather reports. Considering it still has to do the forecasting work to know when the hazards are coming... well, let's just say I'm sure it was a big factor in Santorum's defeat at the polls last year. You need the theoretical foundation to understand the principles involved in biology.
But you've surely had that explained to you on many an occasion...
Posted by: Brian X | January 31, 2007 6:53 PM
Surely you're not serious? Perhaps we shouldn't tell students about physics unless we know they're going to be physicists. Students cannot know whether they're interested in a subjects unless we tell them about it. Plus, all students will eventually be voters (unfortunately), so they must be able to make intelligent decisions about governmental policies.
But these are mere tools to represent what most would consider to be physical reality. The rotating cylinder for an airfoil represents the circulation around the aifoil that produces lift.Posted by: Nathan Parker | January 31, 2007 6:57 PM
While in theory a history of science course is a good thing (and when I was in school science class included that, not just in biology), there are pretty severe time constraints now. However, the history of post-Darwin evoltionary science does not include creationism or ID, since they just aren't science. The only teaching of flat-earthism stops after we figured out that it wasn't scientifically valid, even though there are still flat-earthers today.
There is plenty of controversy in evolutionary thought post-Darwin, though, and that could be taught, but none of it includes creationism or ID. And I don't see there being time for it in high schools. Even in advanced biology (40 years ago) we just had time for detailed DNA, RNA, cell divsion and the like.
Posted by: QrazyQat | January 31, 2007 9:12 PM
I appreciate this interesting discussion of my piece. There is no doubt that my suggestions raise practical difficulties in American schools, and these would need to be overcome. But as I argue, simply keeping creationism out of the schools is not doing the job, as the poll numbers make clear and as most here are keenly aware. We need a strategy to change these numbers. I have offered mine, others should offer theirs. But I am sure that we agree the status quo is not acceptable, and that is what we will continue to have if creationism is not engaged with directly.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 12:53 AM
But as I argue, simply keeping creationism out of the schools is not doing the job, as the poll numbers make clear and as most here are keenly aware.
but as has been pointed out to you MANY FRIGGEN TIMES, your conclusion as to WHY evolution is still not being accepted is incorrect, thus your suggestion that teaching creationism alongside science is based on faulty reasoning and conclusions, and is exactly why NSF, NAAS, and every major scientific organization in the country strongly disagrees with this approach at the secondary level.
now as a comparative/historical religio/philosophy course at the collegiate level, there could be arguments made for the value of such an approach, and several have tried it already (Allen McNeill comes to mind).
but, it's not like these aren't the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that shot your idea down the last time it was discussed.
your either brain dead or have a very specific agenda. Are you writing a book to sell by any chance?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 1, 2007 2:04 AM
"but, it's not like these aren't the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that shot your idea down the last time it was discussed."
Well, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Why all the hysteria? My idea has not exactly been shot down. It has been published in the Los Angeles Times, with hundreds of thousands of readers, and now in the International Herald Tribune, which is read all over the world. So the debate goes on. As for my agenda, it is very simple: Find a way to increase acceptance of the theory of evolution.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 2:17 AM
I am far from happy with the current situation, but I think that your suggested strategy is more likely to hurt the situation than to help it. The Discovery Institute et al. have been pushing for "Teach the Controversy" for some time now. They have sample curricula prepared already, and materials for use with such lessons. Given the way the educational system operates in the US, I think that any move toward a "teach the controversy" would result in the "controversy" being taught the Discovery Institute way much more often than it would result in a presentation of real science.
As far as the "I've presented my idea" argument goes, it seems to be strangely similar to the argument that the White House is using to support their "surge" plan for Iraq, and it fails for the same reason - I don't need to have a plan of my own to be able to see that, as bad as the status quo is, your suggestion is worse.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | February 1, 2007 2:51 AM
Mike, your Iraq analogy is apt in this situation. Like it or not, the Democrats have to come up with an alternative strategy, even if it is Bush's fault. The voters expect them to, because it is all of America's mess now. Likewise, if you don't like my idea, which is fine, you still have to come up with your own or live with stay the course. Where are the ideas from the pro-evolution side? I haven't heard them.
As for the Discovery Institute's strategy, are evolutionary ideas so weak and scientists so ineffective that they can't stand up to it and turn it to their advantage, as I have argued? That's pretty pathetic if true.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 3:03 AM
When I wrote my first comment I didn't include anything on Michael Balter specifically, but having seen his comments here, especially the one just above, I have to say that he's writing like a DI troll. Sorry, Michael, if this isn't what you are trying to be, or what you want to be, but you are using the exact same BS arguments, especially that last paragraph. Shame on you.
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 1, 2007 5:48 AM
Sadly, we are starting to see the same tactic here as was used ad infinitum when we debated this on The Panda's Thumb in late 2005. Anyone who does not agree about how to counter ID is an ID troll, a dupe of the creationists, etc etc etc. Sorry, but that is not an argument. I stand entirely by that last paragraph, because it is intended to counter the argument put forward by so many evolutionists that somehow the DI would win any debates over this issue, they are just so clever, so devious that they actually prepare lesson plans and materials as Mike said! What is wrong with scientists doing the same and working with local educators to help with their discussions of creationism in the classroom. Maybe instead of students role-playing Richard Dawkins, a few scientists could show up as guest speakers and play Richard Dawkins themselves.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 6:33 AM
"As for the Discovery Institute's strategy, are evolutionary ideas so weak and scientists so ineffective that they can't stand up to it and turn it to their advantage, as I have argued? That's pretty pathetic if true."
For someone who claims to be on the scientists side, you sound an awful lot like an ID'er. The problem with a 'controversy' is that it can go on and on and on. It's not that evolutionary ideas are 'so weak and scientists so ineffective', but rather that the people who promote creationism don't give a **** about evidence contrary to their position. And they will always appeal to the public's sense of 'fairness' that their opinions should ALWAYS be allowed to be heard. Then they complain that the science world dismisses them out of hand because they believe that man and dinosaur lived peacefully together eating veggies.
In case you hadn't noticed, science has shown this to be wrong for more than a hundred years. The science isn't weak, it's just the creationists don't care and demand 'fair' treatment. Well 'fair' treatment is peer reviewed science, and until they come up with any then no-one has to take them seriously. ID was shown IN COURT to be scientifically baseless religious apologetics intended to circumvent the law os separation of church and state, but it also showed that many people are willing to take any means possible to get around it. 'Teach the controversy' in any format would be taken advantage of by creationists in many areas. Do YOU think it's a good idea to spend valuable time in science class discussing whether the T-Rex lived with people 6000 years ago and ate daisies?
Posted by: Darth Robo | February 1, 2007 6:53 AM
"Anyone who does not agree about how to counter ID is an ID troll, a dupe of the creationists, etc etc etc."
No, people usually (quite rightly) get called a troll when making a criticism of scientists when they are themselves ignorant of the science and the scientific method.
Posted by: Darth Robo | February 1, 2007 7:06 AM
"Do YOU think it's a good idea to spend valuable time in science class discussing whether the T-Rex lived with people 6000 years ago and ate daisies?"
Yes, it would be an excellent idea, if the majority of students come into the class believing that. The majority of students nationwide in the USA come into class as creationists. That is the beauty of Verhey's study, it shows that minds can be changed--and it shows how to do it, by engaging with students' prior beliefs rather than ignoring or belittling them.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 7:14 AM
"when they are themselves ignorant of the science and the scientific method"
Well, that leaves me out. Do a search of my articles in Science, just over the last two years say, and tell us all if I am ignorant about science.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 7:16 AM
btw, I've only got today to debate this here, because tomorrow I will be covering the IPCC final report here in Paris. So let me say this: Attacking me personally won't get my piece in today's IHT unprinted or deleted from its Web site. Engage with my arguments and not with my alleged motivation, because you will have a hard time proving I am a closet creationist. I've got a pretty thick stack of science writing clips to counter that accusation.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 7:21 AM
Michael Balter--
I realize you're getting a hard time here, but please don't be naive about what we're up against in America. The creationists' tools of the trade are misquotations, outright lies, vicious insinuations about anyone who opposes them, and emotional appeals based on bizarre logic, in which evolution is blamed for every ill in society. Reasoned responses on the part of evolutionary theorists are simply shouted down. THAT's the controversy the creationists (whether IDers or YECers) want to teach. Sure, if we could teach kids all the challenges to the theory of natural selection-- and why they have failed-- we would be able to show them why evolution is so firmly established in scientific thinking. But the chances of this happening in present-day America are just about nil. And a lot of us are very, very angry about having our children's education hijacked by what, in my opinion, are a bunch of bunko artists whose only real interest is milking sincere Christians for every dime they can get.
I'm sorry, Michael, if you caught a lot of anger here that you don't deserve. I hope this helps explain where it's coming from.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | February 1, 2007 9:01 AM
hoary puccoon, thanks for your kind words, although I got pretty thick skinned after the tar and feathering I got on The Panda's Thumb in 2005. I think that the places to start with my proposed strategy is where it would be most likely to work and be accepted, say major urban areas like New York City or Los Angeles (and where perhaps some high school teachers are already doing it.) Success in places like that would make it easier to put into practice in Dover or Kansas later on, because the school board elections in both places make clear that there are parents who want to see creationism countered. The court victory in Dover was important but will end up being Pyrrhic if creationist views continue to dominate so completely in American life. It is not enough to be defensive against creationist intrusions, evolutionists need a more aggressive, proactive strategy.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 9:31 AM
I wrote an article back in the early '80s in Journal of Geological Education arguing for using Creationism to teach about evolution, and talking about how I did that in my Historical Geology classes. The "creation scientists" had set up this whole alternate scientific reality in great detail, but the arguments had many obvious weaknessnesses that could be found with just a little thought and research, and the reasons why what they were doing was not science, and was in fact doomed to failure from the outset, were relatively easy to grasp.
The problem with doing the same with Intelligent Design arguments are that the portion of the material that is not warmed-over creationism is so much more obscure. The creation-scientists generally presented arguments as clearly as they could in hopes of convincing people to their way of thinking. In contrast, the ID folks tend to shoot for obscurantism, muddying the waters over really minor issues to the point where their supporters can spout off impressive sounding word salad that takes forever to unpack and refute. It's designed to leave the audience confused about everything, rather than convinced about ID, so that they'll conclude that there seem to be legitimate points on both sides and so we ought to teach the controversy. With the creationist arguments you can spend an hour on a few chosen arguments and your audience will come away better informed about a few important aspects of geology and biology. With ID, you spend four hours on the arguments and the audience is likely to come away more confused about philosophy than when you started. Perhaps this is more a comment on my shortcomings as a teacher, but I've concluded that I don't think teaching about ID is pedagogically very useful prior to college, and even there it is too much a waste of time.
Posted by: N.Wells | February 1, 2007 9:52 AM
N. Wells, countering ID is not necessarily easy, but it can be done. Ken Miller in "Finding Darwin's God" demolished ID arguments in clear and simple language, without giving up his belief in God, and Jerry Coyne has written some terrific and clear stuff in the same vein. Verhey had pretty naive first year biology students read The Blind Watchmaker, not an easy book, and Aristotle, and yet they were right out of high school (like, um, HS ends in June and first year university starts in September, so we are talking three months here. Verhey pointed that out himself in the Panda Thumb discussion of his study.) Some people here may forget how smart they were in high school, but don't underestimate the ability of kids to absorb very sophisticated things. The UK guidance I talk about in my article is intended for 14 year olds.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 10:44 AM
As for the Discovery Institute's strategy, are evolutionary ideas so weak and scientists so ineffective that they can't stand up to it and turn it to their advantage, as I have argued? That's pretty pathetic if true.
It's comments like these that demonstrate that Balter hasn't a clue about the present situation. It's sort of like saying, "If AFDave's 'arguments' are really so bad, why can't you convince him that the earth is old and evolution happened?"
He's got one thing fixated in his mind, the fact that "keeping creationism out of public schools" hasn't won the nation for science. That's like saying that putting fluoride in the water hasn't eliminated tooth decay. A non-sequitur.
Well, is the situation in Canada and in Europe better because creationism/ID was discussed by teachers there? Especially, by American-type teachers there? Neither one, of course.
Now if Balter could actually discuss what situations effected which outcomes, then he might even be able to make a case in favor of his idea. However, he's now more or less falling for the old fallacy, that "something has to be done, teaching evolution in comparison to ID is something, therefore it has to be done."
Who knows, maybe he's even right. The point is, he certainly doesn't know that.
The fact is that he's playing an old ID canard right here on "Questionable Authority," the tired nonsense that if evolution really had such great evidence in favor of it, then there should be no trouble teaching it alongside pseudoscience. There's an important fact about kids, Balter, which is that they weren't born understanding science. If they were, it'd be a cinch.
When he has to resort to such lame arguments you know that he's run out of good arguments for his "proposal" (which isn't a real proposal, as it takes no account of the realities of American education). Go off and get some more arguments from the DI, Balter, and maybe then we'll be convinced.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 1, 2007 10:58 AM
For those who don't know the glories of the aforementioned AFDave and his irrefutable arguments, here's near where he starts off:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=3131;p=32499
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 1, 2007 11:13 AM
Everyone has agreed forever that a philosophy/religion/socialstudies/history class on the topic is a perfectly fine thing. The problems is getting into the science -- where there is a world of pedagological difference between 14 yr.olds and 18 year olds. And, not only is the British religious ed curriculum focused more toward religion and history, it is national. In the US, states would give general guidelines but local districts still have huge leeway in implimentation.
As someone who's also been thinking about strategies for some time, I shout Hear! Hear! to N. Wells for his point. Imagine the prospects for bamboozlement by the fog of ID's mathematico-philosophical rambling under the guidance of local ideologues. Bits of the BlindWatchmaker and Aristotle won't be the only readings, ala Verhey. "Complex specified information"? Even Haldane's Dilemma? To 14 year olds? The result will be that while they may be convinced to accept a possible compatiblity of relig.&evo., they would take away "scientists disagree on these incomprehensible issues". Taking a page from Exxon and the tobacco industry, the IDer's have intelligently designed this fog of complexity->uncertainty, hence their "Teach the controversy" approach.
Posted by: JohnK | February 1, 2007 11:13 AM
"Go off and get some more arguments from the DI, Balter"
Yes, continuing to call me a dupe of the DI really raises the level of the discussion, doesn't it?
What I was responding to were Mike's remarks way above that if ID and evolution were debated in the schools that somehow ID would have the upper hand. That seems to me a highly debatable, if not entirely defeatist, attitude. And Verhey's study, again, provides evidence that this is not the way it goes if it is handled properly. The idea is to put this strategy in the hands of science teachers, not to allow the DI to take over the classroom, and that is very clear in everything I have written about this.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 11:15 AM
continuing from the post above JohnK's:
And it goes for thousands of posts (including another thread of roughly the same length as this 160+ page thread), one of the greatest demonstrations of all times how it is impossible to change the mind of someone who has God's directive to defeat the heathens, and who has no respect for evidence and its rules.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 1, 2007 11:16 AM
Unless things have changed since I taught public high school, each teacher begins each year with a syllabus marking out all the topics to be covered (and maybe learned by some students) over the course of 170 or so days, including teacher workdays, snow days, hurricane and earthquake and firedrills and unscheduled programs, etc. While each teacher starts out optimistically, it soon becomes a re-run of "Lifeboat" with some "less essential things" thrown to one side or given short shrift.
My best suggestion is to give ID the place it deserves in Biology, the same place as astrology has in astronomy, the stork has in sex education, YE in Geology, suggestions that Andrew Johnson arranged Lincoln's assassination in History or that King James really wrote the later Shakespearean plays in Literature. In other words, a nod as an alternate theory whose time has come and gone or never arrived, and then move on. Most students who argue really don't care except for the attention engendered or they realize it slows down the class. Four days on ID really means less time on other topics which reduces the amount of material the teacher has to draw from to create his midterm or final.
Posted by: entlord | February 1, 2007 11:18 AM
"Go off and get some more arguments from the DI, Balter"
Yes, continuing to call me a dupe of the DI really raises the level of the discussion, doesn't it?
I never once called you a dupe of the DI. I know you're better than that, so you're better than to use one of their favorite arguments, and I meant to appeal to that better sense. There's a huge difference between noting that you've adopted a truly wretched "argument" and any suggestion that you're a dupe of the DI.
I made any number of points, and you just blew them off to make this false charge. Real sporting of you.
What I was responding to were Mike's remarks way above that if ID and evolution were debated in the schools that somehow ID would have the upper hand. That seems to me a highly debatable, if not entirely defeatist, attitude.
Yes, and you didn't actually deal with what he wrote, either. He was pointing to the fear that indeed we could not actually control how the two squared off in this most creationist of the highly-developed economies. He may be wrong. If so, then counter it with some arguments, and evidence if you have it, rather than with an old ID talking point.
And Verhey's study, again, provides evidence that this is not the way it goes if it is handled properly. (italics added).
There's the rub, in the last part of your sentence.
The idea is to put this strategy in the hands of science teachers, not to allow the DI to take over the classroom, and that is very clear in everything I have written about this.
Did I ever suggest otherwise? You're simply not dealing with the gritty details involved in putting "this strategy in the hands of science teachers". Untrue assertions that you're being called a dupe of the DI is not going to change this fact.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 1, 2007 11:29 AM
MB:The idea is to put this strategy in the hands of science teachers, not to allow the DI to take over the classroom
But the problem is that if the curriculum is about the scientific controversy, the local district has the right to insist that the DI effectively take over half the class time, no?
And I completely disagree the Miller's FDG is "clear and simple" at the points where the biological rubber really meets the IDiot's road - for highschool kids. BTW Miller had to but the details of the evolution of pathways on his website because the publisher cut them out.
Posted by: JohnK | February 1, 2007 11:34 AM
"Do a search of my articles in Science, just over the last two years say, and tell us all if I am ignorant about science."
Behe is a qualified biochemist. What of it?
"because you will have a hard time proving I am a closet creationist."
Well I never thought you were, but you did use a few daft IDist style arguments.
"N. Wells, countering ID is not necessarily easy, but it can be done."
The point is, it shouldn't HAVE to be countered at all. And you're sounding like we should teach evolution in a way that should get us more 'converts'. But that isn't what science is about and would only add to the old creationist argument that evolution is 'religion'. Science classes are not for converting people from any one religion and since we live in free countries, people can believe in whatever they wish. My science classes dealt with this by just teaching plain science. Sure, there may have been the odd religious question about how God fits into anywhere in science and we were told basically why it was untestable and a subject best left for religious class. We were NOT taught that science contradicts God (because it doesn't) and we weren't taught not to believe in religion. This brief couple of minutes was all that was needed to explain why the two are totally separate subjects and from there, we were taught good ol' plain science.
If we should make time for Xian creationism to explain why they're wrong about the age of the universe, then we should also make time for hindu creationism (that believe the universe is TRILLIONS of years old) and every other religion's different ideas - pointless. And the ID'ers will take advantage of any situation that arises to 'teach the controversy'. We don't have to convert anyone - just teach good science from the get-go.
Posted by: Darth Robo | February 1, 2007 11:40 AM
When we debated this issue on The Panda's Thumb in 2005, there were differing opinions about how much we should care what people think re science and religion. Some took the position that they did not care what people thought as long as creationism was kept out of the classroom. Others thought that it was important to foster scientific thinking, for a variety of reasons, including political ones. I sympathized with the latter viewpoint, and stressed the importance of finding some way to counter the unrelenting power of creationist thought in American life, as indicated by the amazing poll figures I cite in my piece: 45% of adults basically accept the Biblical view of creation. Nothing that scientists have tried to do has changed that, so I am looking for something that would work. Engaging the creationist views of students entering the classroom has been shown to work. People here should read Craig Nelson's commentary on the Verhey study in the November 2005 BioScience, and his commentary in the April 2006 issue when Verhey made some corrections to his paper that did not change the conclusions. Nelson did not think this strategy was suitable for high school, but I think it could be adapted for that situation and quite easily.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 11:58 AM
Balter wrote:
The ideas are as strong and effective as the educators choose to present them. That will depend on political willpower, which is weak.
As for alternative ideas, evolution, and science in general, needs to be marketed. Most people will not make decisions based on the evidence, they'll base their decisions on what they perceive everyone else believes or what they consider to be mainstream. This is what motivates the creationist lie "Even scientists no longer believe in Darwinism anymore", which implies that you're the only one who didn't get the memo.
Why can't science eat its own dogfood and use the science of psychology to sell science to the general population?
Posted by: Nathan Parker | February 1, 2007 11:59 AM
Others thought that it was important to foster scientific thinking, for a variety of reasons, including political ones. I sympathized with the latter viewpoint, and stressed the importance of finding some way to counter the unrelenting power of creationist thought in American life, as indicated by the amazing poll figures I cite
I've sat in classes where creationism/ID was discussed, but it was more on the line of entlord's experience. The reason ID/C was even discussed was that students might have objections, so there was a quick NOMA-like shuffling away of the whole matter. The teachers don't want to deal with it, they want to get on to the science.
I am guessing that the most tolerable way of contrasting evolution to ID would be to discuss it in a historical context, such as the matter of Paley and Darwin's response to Paley (and really the "Origin" counters those "arguments" quite directly, if not by name). I know that others have mentioned that the historical approach might work best, I'm simply adding that ID could be shot down in quite a reasonable manner by dealing with the strongest historical "argument" which still manages to be the strongest "argument" today.
I do think such an approach has some merit. I believe that telling teachers to (directly) wade into the morass of obfuscating claims that the IDists put out there is unlikely to be productive, for it is true that high school students aren't stupid, and they can pick up talking points to obscure the issues until one reaches exhaustion. The advantage of taking on Paley is that he's relatively reasonable (if not scientific), makes claims that can be turned into falsifiable claims, and he isn't trying to say that his version of ID makes no predictions (the CSC tries to make the observation of complexity into a "prediction" for the "design hypothesis", and fails completely, especially in the matter of entailment).
I don't know if this would work, given the politics of America at this time, but I suspect that it's the closest we could come to Balter's vision. And I really do think that Balter's claims have merit in the ideal sense. Compare Paley, Darwin, and Newton (say), and point out how Darwin followed the Newtonian methods of fitting the evidence to an explanatory model, while Paley fit the data to his own model (he had some excuse in that we didn't have the Darwin/Wallace model in his time).
Then let the students bring in modern ID claims, if they must. You could demonstrate how the "model" doesn't really differ from Paley's, just adds a lot of obscuring philosophical objections, while avoiding the judgment of the evidence (which Paley did not, or at least not entirely). Focus on what "real design" predictions would be (unrestricted borrowing of good ideas, novelty, plus rational and mathematical clues in most of human designs).
I have mentioned on PT that bringing up ID could result in a challenge to the rubbishing of bad religious ideas that differ from science. I think that dealing with Paley rather than Dembski and Behe might avoid such a challenge, and show a good-faith effort on our part not to turn science class into an anti-religion class. If they still wanted to sue on the grounds that ID is religious in nature, I'd relish the irony and the end to their science pretensions.
Those are my suggestions off the top of my head. This seems to me the best way to implement Balter's wishes, if they are worth turning into policy. Take them or don't, it doesn't matter much to me at this point.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 1, 2007 12:29 PM
I don't think that inculcating the core knowledge about our world should be sidetracked by a desire to answer one group. Should we also teach the controversy about the value of pi in math class?
There may be a place to teach the history of ideas to high schoolers, it's an excellent subject for young and questioning minds. But that place is not a distraction in the core subject. It is in a separate track of life skills and critical thinking.
Posted by: David vun Kannon | February 1, 2007 12:46 PM
"And you're sounding like we should teach evolution in a way that should get us more 'converts'. But that isn't what science is about..."
Until I read that I was in total support of Balter, but I suppose your right, the science speaks for itself, we shouldn't have proselytize.
But, I'm still going to point out that since our education system is locally governed rather than broadly, it should make it easier not harder. You don't need to worry about what some far off school system is doing without your guidance. And I think the odds of schools using DI teaching material are a little bit overblown given the recent court cases. If the controversy is taught at all, there are plenty of parents who want to make sure that their schools science programs lean towards real science.
So, my suggestion. If you have the interest, an impressive sounding title, an engaging speaking style, and enough of a grasp of the arguments that you can explain why they're silly to a fourteen year old, go ahead and volunteer, I'm sure plenty of science teachers would welcome a guest lecturer for a day. If it seems to have done more good than harm, do it some more.
Also, every time time I see Xian, I read Zion, which I'm pretty sure is very different, but thats my problem...
Posted by: Drekab | February 1, 2007 12:48 PM
Also, every time time I see Xian, I read Zion, which I'm pretty sure is very different, but thats my problem...
"Xian" uses "X" for the Greek letter "chi" (they look the same, but are pronounced differently--"chi" as hard "ch"), much as Xmas does. The "chi" has often been used as a symbol for "Christ", hence there is no inherent disrespect in replacing the word "Christ" in words incorporating "Christ" with the "chi", the "X".
So just as "Xmas" is pronounced like "Christmas", "Xian" is pronounced like "Christian". It's only a written abbreviation, really, even if some people do say "X-mas".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 1, 2007 1:32 PM
Thanks Glen,
That was really helpful. I understood it to mean Christian, but I never got the Greek reference before. I won't describe the silly way I justified Xmas before, let's just say "tmas" would've made more sense to me.
Posted by: Drekab | February 1, 2007 1:48 PM
Okay, everyone, I have to go prepare for the global warming event in Paris tomorrow, so that's it for me. Many thanks for your interest in my article, whether you agreed with it or not.
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 2:14 PM
Glen D. makes a reasonable point:
I, for one, learned about evolution in a historical way: James Burke's documentaries, Isaac Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery and so forth. (Off the top of my head, the only book I read early on which didn't take a historical tack was, ironically, Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe. Instead of saying who discovered what and for which reasons, Gonick portrayed the development of life itself. Complementary approaches are good.) The best way to "teach the controversy" is to explain how the "controversy" was settled over a century ago.
The people then had just the same foibles that we have now. Darwin didn't put anything in the drinking water to make people understand what he was saying. Somehow, the facts themselves persuaded him and his contemporaries. That's all we have to rely on today, as well: facts.
Show the students how the science happened. We understand people better than we understand population genetics or punctuated equilibrium, so if we wish to speak and be understood, we present science in human terms.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 1, 2007 2:20 PM
Drekab wrote:
This is exactly why we have so many creationists, because scientists think that the science speaks for itself. This belief, which is strongly disconfirmed by the evidence, is as irrational as anything that creationists believe.
Scientists seem completely clueless on how to deal with the non-scientific public, in spite of the fine example set by such organizations as the Discovery Institute.
In spite of the legal victories, the war is still being lost in the minds of the general population and there's really no effective action currently being contemplated.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | February 1, 2007 2:28 PM
The science can't speak for itself. It has to be given a voice. It must be presented engagingly and tuned to the audience — because it's all we really have to offer!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 1, 2007 3:15 PM
"The science can't speak for itself. It has to be given a voice. It must be presented engagingly and tuned to the audience — because it's all we really have to offer!"
Right, that's why we have science writers! (and why scientists who also write well, like Dawkins, are so effective and so widely read.)
Posted by: Michael Balter | February 1, 2007 3:52 PM
I love this idea. I would certainly have enjoyed this as a student, and I agree that it is probably the best way to confront creationism.
There's just one problem--I think that it would end up giving evolution too much time. As fundamental as evolution is to biology, there is a lot more to cover, and limited time. I remember being annoyed as a high school student that my chemistry teacher refused to go into the details of why the electron orbitals have those funny shapes, and essentially told me that I had to take his (and the textbook's) word for it. This was, after all, absolutely fundamental to chemistry--how could he gloss over it like that? Of course, now that I know a bit more about quantum mechanics, and have a more realistic idea of how long it would take to teach it at a fundamental level, his choice makes a lot more sense.
Posted by: tgibbs | February 1, 2007 4:10 PM
See, I think a competent textbook writer and a competent teacher can address every major creationist "argument" in the course of presenting the historical development of our modern understanding of evolution. Irreducible complexity, gaps in the fossil record, etc., etc. You're not taking time out from other important things if you organize your presentation historically: Smith found this, Lyell discovered thus-and-so, Hutton said the following, Malthus pointed out. . . .
Naturally, like I said, this presumes competence on the part of many people involved. I'd like to think that presumption is not completely invalid.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 1, 2007 4:30 PM
Well, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Why all the hysteria? My idea has not exactly been shot down. It has been published in the Los Angeles Times, with hundreds of thousands of readers, and now in the International Herald Tribune, which is read all over the world. So the debate goes on. As for my agenda, it is very simple: Find a way to increase acceptance of the theory of evolution.
it's that very attitude that feeds your bloated ego and blinds you to the facts.
Ann Coulter has made millions selling a book of fabrications and ignorance as well.
does that justify her position?
hardly.
newspapers publish controversy to sell papers.
duh.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 1, 2007 4:57 PM
I love the idea of teaching the Paley-Darwin controversy. It shows why evolution is not just accepted on faith, as the creationists claim. Two other historical controversies would be useful in showing what a trial-by-fire evolutionary theory has gone through. The first is Lord Kelvin's claim that the earth could only be a few hundred thousand years old, because the sun would burn out, unless it had some "undiscovered" source of energy. Of course, the undiscovered source was atomic energy. Lord Kelvin lived long enough to find his theory refuted and Darwin's confirmed.
The second controversy was over the continuous nature of inherited differences. Darwin could see the objection that small, advantageous differences would be swamped in later generations, and was deeply troubled by that. In that case, Darwin was proved wrong about the actual mechanism of inheritance. (He never knew what a gene was.) But the actual mechanism of inheritance as we understand it today confirmed Darwin's theory of evolution far more solidly than he ever dreamed.
I don't know where, if anywhere, the history of scientific ideas would fit in a high school curriculum, but they should certainly be taught in college and more widely known by the public at large. One of the creationists' most dishonest claims is that modern scientists are simply protecting the "Darwinian orthodoxy" as if nothing had changed in the 148 years since the Origin of Species. I think we should ignore the bogus creationist "controversy" (largely between their position and what they claim are outmoded ideas-- presumably, from their actions, the outmoded ideas include decency, fairness and honesty.)But letting people know what the real controversies are, and how much hard work had to go into our present understanding would give people far more insight into why scientists get so impatient with the fly-weight creationist "challenges" to evolution.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | February 1, 2007 5:00 PM
... the only thing that needs be done to increase acceptance of evolutionary theory is to have it taught better at the secondary school level to begin with.
right now, it's patchy at best, though NSF has been funding programs to try and remedy the situation.
todays kids are tommorrow's parents; teach them right the first time, and they will carry that on.
fail to teach them, or reinforce their ignorance by giving credence to creationism, and you continue the cycle.
as was discussed before, religion is not science, and that is the only thing that need be mentioned in a science class when the issue arises.
again, michael, this is why every major scientific organization in the country disagrees with addressing creationism in a science class at the secondary level.
the fact that your editorials get published has nothing to do with their validity.
or would you think that every editorial that gets published has equal validity?
really, you're insane to think such.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 1, 2007 5:03 PM
Where are the ideas from the pro-evolution side? I haven't heard them.
oh, that's such a lie.
you've heard them, that's for sure, you just don't choose to listen, because you correctly think you can generate more controversy with your current approach.
you border on being a pure charlatan. remarkable for someone who has been a science writer for far more important publications than the LA times.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 1, 2007 6:21 PM
This might help, but even subjects well-taught are not retained by the students if they don't incorporate them into their worldview. Many students take physics but still are typically unable to apply such fundamentals Newton's Laws in the real world. Students learn these in school, but leave them behind when they walk out the door of the classroom because they don't care about the subject.
Until you can make them care, you can teach them anything you want, but it won't much affect the way they look at the world.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | February 1, 2007 6:57 PM
Until you can make them care, you can teach them anything you want, but it won't much affect the way they look at the world.
...nothing changed my way of viewing the world more than learning about the fantastic success the scientific method has had in explaining and predicting actual observations of that world.
had nothing to do with addressing religio-socio preconceptions.
if those who are taught the value of the scientific method, still cannot see it for themselves, how is that any issue for a teacher to address?
answer: it's simply not.
no amount of of psuedo-instruction in philosophy or religion would change that either.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 1, 2007 8:13 PM
What worked for you isn't relevant. You were fertile soil or you wouldn't be here. What is relevant is the large number of people who really aren't that interested in science.
Agreed. The smart strategy is to circumvent the intellect for those people. Get them to accept science via mass marketing techniques, just like the creationists do so effectively. Although they will never be scientists, they at least might cease to be obstacles.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | February 1, 2007 10:12 PM
Michael:
Approaching the issue as if it was a matter of selling an idea could help to obtain less depressing figures but it sends the wrong message. Mainly that the aim of science is to promote a particular position instead of to find accurate explanations of reality.
Bringing creationism into the classroom, as you suggests wouldn't really be an issue if the debate were clearly set between religion and science. The problem is that creationists want to set the debate as if it were between two competing scientific models. Asking science teachers to accept this false premise, even if it is just to expose the impostor, is not just unfair but also wrong.
Posted by: Paula | February 1, 2007 10:25 PM
Get them to accept science via mass marketing techniques, just like the creationists do so effectively.
but now we're on to a totally different topic than the value of exploring creationism in a secondary science classroom.
so are we done with that now?
if so, yes, i couldn't possibly agree with you more, as distasteful as it seems on the surface.
have you looked to see if NSF is funding research into ways of "marketing" science?
I know PBS has been doing some online promotion; check out some of their websites on evolution, for example, that go along with the series on it they produced a while back.
it would be nice if our own government could provide a better public example on good science than Chimpy McGrin does (counter to his own damned science advisor, btw); that would go a long way towards helping the "media" end of things.
billboards featuring pictures of tiktalik, along with a link to a government funded website talking about the evidences for evolution would be a good thing.
heck, just very public government support for ANY good science would be hella welcome these days.
still does not negate my point of the value of good teaching of theory to begin with.
more "bill nye" type shows would be welcome, too.
science IS cool.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 1, 2007 10:44 PM
You know, the concept of 'teaching the controversy' can be addressed with respect to the wisdom of teaching previous controversies. Why don't we just teach 'flat earth theory' alongside the standard earth science curriculum? How about the controversy of 'young earth theory' versus accurate geologic dating. Every culture has it's own set of creation myths, each as invalid as the next. Giving credence to the myths of a particular Middle Eastern tribe that happened to be adopted by a culture that by geologic happenstance has managed to gain worldwide influence has as much cognitive integrity as believing that card tricks are miraculous. If a particular western african tribe that posits the creation of the universe from the excrement of a certain type of ant had been more successful than western europeans our debates would revolve around, well ant poop. The debate about creationism belongs in a class alongside other creation myths.
Posted by: Kent Northcote | February 1, 2007 10:51 PM
I gather (from another blog) that being concerned about how people are treated makes one a "concern troll".
Very well, I'm a concern troll. Record me as a proud concern troll.
I don't like the way Michael Balter has been treated here. I can see why his suggestion might not work in the context of science classes in American secondary schools, even though it works fine (in my experience) when something at least faintly like it happens in philosophy of religion classes in Australian universities: we discuss Hume, Paley, Darwin, Dawkins, the alleged problem of "fine-tuning" of the physical constants, etc.
Just where and when it might work, and how purely it can be done, seems like a reasonable topic for discussion. I'm a bit sceptical myself, but Michael is essentially on our side. Whether we agree with him or not, can't we show him some respect?
Posted by: Russell Blackford | February 1, 2007 11:03 PM
one, being genuinely concerned about conduct is not concern trolling; that term specifically refers to false concern specifically in order to garner a set response from the rest of the posters.
so, you need not concern yourself that you are a concern troll.
as to balter's treatment, you need to understand the history of his proposal, and his total ignorance of anything contrary to his opinion on the subject before you can really grasp why there is a highly negative reaction when it gets brought up yet again, because some media outlet decided to publish an editorial.
really, it's not a kneejerk reaction on the part of those criticizing him here; it's based on a long history of him refusing to acknowledge why his reasoning is faulty on this issue, and HIS kneejerk rejection of any evidence contrary to his position.
given his history as a science writer of some ability, one has to question his motives for his