Creationists devote most of their energy towards undermining science education. Whatever their flavor, they are not scientists and they don't do science. Creationists evolved into intelligent designers after Edwards v. Aguillard. Kitzmiller v. Dover was a huge blow to the intelligent design movement, showing that the "teach the controversy" mantra was a load of shit. There is no controversy. Evolutionary theory is solid, with both empirical observations and excellent models to back it up. The data supporting evolution come from disparate fields such as geology, genetics, developmental biology, anatomy, and cell biology.
But science does not deal with absolutes. Science is all about uncertainties, and top notch researchers are always looking to overturn accepted paradigms. Science education should focus on the scientific process, not the memorization of random facts. If we want students to understand science as a process, however, we need them to understand that scientific knowledge is dynamic. There are, in fact, valid controversies, but intelligent design is not one of those controversies. How can we walk the fine line of explaining what science really is without suggesting that scientists have no fucking clue what they're talking about?
The creationists have hijacked the uncertainties of science in their campaigns for including intelligent design in the science curriculum. Advocates for science education may come across as hypocrites if we want students to understand science, but don't want creationism included. It's imperative to make it clear which controversies are valid and which are bullshit. Students should learn how to recognize the legitimate debates so that they will have their Baloney Detection Kits tuned properly.
Hypotheses that have been rejected time and time again are not valid controversies. As are hypotheses that are not testable using the conventional methods available to scientists. On the other hand, inconclusive results, conflicting data, and untested hypotheses all lead to legitimate controversies. If we properly teach how we test hypotheses, students will be able to make these important distinctions. The "teach the controversy" method of science education is actually quite appropriate when not driven by ulterior motives (ie, destroying science education).
- Log in to post comments
I can see where your going with this... and even agree to a certain extent (esp at the HS and college level).
IMHO however, it would probably be better to "teach the controversey" in an area not as charged as evolution -- such as gravitational theory vs. relativity.
My theorhetical "teach the controversy" sylabus would likely be poorly recieved by the creationist types -- because there isn't any real controversy. Thus it would be taking a salient point from Behe, Debenski, et all and showing why it fails.
I agree that the scientific method should really be emphasized in classes, but discussing controversies really seems like something that should be done at a higher level of schooling.
That being said, too many students today treat science theories as undeniable facts, even when discussing things like String Theory.
Being too confident is almost as bad as having no confidence at all, IMHO
Would it be a useful tool to compile a list of current and accessible questions that are being raised in the sciences which might inspire students to want to explore these areas? It would be an excellent answer to the "Teach the Controversy" mantra. It could be called, "Teach the Curiosities", or something.
[...]But science does not deal with absolutes[...]
AH! Suddenly I see where the fundamental (no pun intended) disconnect is...
Religion vs. Science is an excellent real-world example of the difference between "Precise" and "Accurate". Religious "Truths" are usually very Precise, but not necessarily Accurate at all ("The existence of the Earth happened PRECISELY as described by the Creation stories in my English translation of Genesis! I believe it! That settles it!") while Science, having some amount of necessary uncertainty but empirical observation and testing of hypotheses, tends to be very Accurate but not as Precise ("We can't say for certain what the sequence was, especially near the beginning, but evidence shows that microorganisms probably arose approximately 3 to 4 billion years ago.")
Understand the minds of people who are incapable of dealing with the inherent uncertainties of living in the natural world, and you understand the rather narrow minds of science-deniers of all stripes. Put simply, they can't abide being uncertain but mostly right when they can be Absolutely Certain even if they are wrong. Or so I would suggest, anyway.