catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> averred

Ok, I was just doing what Tedd Jacobs wanted when he asked "to know the
argument, not the doctrine". I made an argument based on past experience
with IDology and an assessment of how a better political case could be made
for teaching some form of creationism in public schools. Little did I know
how close the IDiots were on my heels. A post this morning in t.o. points
to this new article on the Discovery Institute's web site that rehearses
much of what I said here.

All I can say is, if the responses I got in this thread are representative
of the rhetoric from the pro-science side in the next round of political
battles with the IDiots, we are in deep kimchee.

Agreed, but you would not expect the ill-mannered physics undergraduates
who abound in these newsgroups to have any grasp of the kinds of issues
you are raising. Fortunately there are many older and better informed
people around.

[And no one yet found the fatal flaw in my original proposal.]

I admit I haven't seen an *obviously* fatal flaw. I see many
difficulties - for example, that if biology teachers must treat
creationism and evolution as equivalent, then it is going to be very
difficult to talk about structure and function in adaptive terms, which
would make teaching biology very tricky indeed.

But that is merely a practical problem, not a "fatal flaw".

Below are some excerpts (citations removed):

<http://www.jis3.org/samplearticle.htm>
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies
THE EDUCATIONAL DEBATE OVER DARWINISM
John Angus Campbell
University of Memphis

"Rhetoric is central to public life, at least in a democracy, because the
rationale of public policy must be intelligible to all who are to be
governed by it, and whose tax dollars support it."

That's absolutely true. But it doesn't imply that the rhetoric must be
replayed in science classes. There are better places for it.

"When science teachers insist that neither creation science nor ID is
science, and Darwin's theory is, they are met with the proposal that both
Darwin's theory and challenges to it be taught and students be left to make
up their own minds. Science teachers understandably respond that science is
not democratic,

Actually science *is* democratic, in the sense that an electoral college
of scientific Big Shots decide which scientific propositions are to be
regarded by society as true.

That's not to say that these Big Shots decide arbitrarily - of course
they don't, and their methods of making their decisions are often pretty
reasonable - but that doesn't mean the system isn't what it is.

and the curriculum of a science class cannot be settled by
citizens dictating what will qualify as science."

Probably this means "should not be settled". If so, I don't agree. ISTM
that each society has the moral right to teach its children whatever it
sees fit (provided those teachings are not plainly contrary to basic
human rights).

"The "Darwin only" approach, while motivated by a laudable desire to
preserve the integrity of science, violates that integrity by
overprotectiveness. Eugenie Scott and others are correct in insisting that
science is not democratic. But this is far from saying that only confusion
would result if teachers used discussion and debate to teach why creation
science and ID are rejected by most scientists. Nor can the want of time,
coupled with proliferating examples of controversial topics that would
allegedly overwhelm the curriculum, be accepted as a basis for dismissing
the idea of critical inquiry into scientific first principles as
educationally legitimate . . . But the question, why do some ideas count as
science and others not, is as pertinent a question as one can ask in a
science class."

Ummm. That's a matter of debate. Many would argue that the aim of the
school science curriculum is to prepare students for a career in
science-based subjects, and therefore it should teach the body of facts
and theories that are currently accepted by the scientific
establishment.

The philosophical basis of science is a quite different subject, and
there are strong arguments for teaching it in a separate stream.

"Though science educators target creation science and ID as enemies of
science, their real opponent would seem to be the late philosopher of
science, Thomas Kuhn. So strongly is what Kuhn called "normal science"
identified with science in the contemporary classroom that to most students
Kuhn's idea of "scientific revolution" would seem like an oxymoron."

Of course.

" . . . Martin Eger (1989) contrasts today's dogmatic Darwinism with values
clarification, which requires critical questioning of even the most
"unquestionable" values. The assumption of values clarification is that
students' moral beliefs should be backed by good reasons; otherwise, they
rest on mere prejudice . . . [D]ogmatism and the unquestioning acceptance
of authority in science, versus skepticism and critical questioning in the
humanities, is flatly incoherent."

Absolutely. That is a very laudable aim. Whether it should be the aim of
the science curriculum specifically, is another matter.

"Particularly in a time when science affects so many aspects of life . . .
the public is ill-served by any approach to science education that
discourages critical thinking and rewards deference to authority."

Agreed again.

"In a fast-changing intellectual landscape, in which today's conventional
wisdom is tomorrow's nonsense, learning how to demarcate science from
non-science is an important, and open, dialectical/rhetorical question to
be taught as part of science, and not to be relegated to the humanities or
social sciences.

Disagree for the reasons stated above. I also disagree that moving a
topic to social science or humanities is "relegating" it. That seems to
me a tendentious choice of words.

If some students end up rejecting Darwinism because they
are not persuaded of its truth, or reject or accept creation science or ID,
having had an opportunity to examine the facts, and hear and read the
arguments on all sides, these outcomes must be counted as successes of an
open, liberal system of education.

Agreed.

The point, after all, of science
education in a democracy is not to convince students of the truth of
current scientific theories, but to teach them what they are, and why they
are current, and by sharpening student minds through argument, qualify
students, as citizens and future scientists, to judge and see possible
alternatives."

Disagree. Science education *is* intended to teach the student that
current scientific theories are in some sense true. Only in that way
can they become useful electronic engineers, organic chemists,
agronomists and doctors.

By all means sharpen students' minds through debate and help them to see
possible alternatives. But that is not necessarily the most efficient
way to teach people to make their living in a technology-based society.

Jason Spaceman wrote:

Read it at http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/7266557.htm

From the article:

Gaudian wrote that if members were willing to include only evolution
in the science standards, "then I must reiterate to you all once again
Scripture's stern warning of grave peril for your offense: 'But whoso
shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were
better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that
he were drowned in the depth of the sea; woe to that man by whom the
offence cometh! (Matthew 18:6-7).'"

Sign me up. It beats burning.

Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by