Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate

[cliff parker <cparker@CHARTER.NET>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: possibly OT: NYT article on GA creationism/evolution debate


> cliff parker wrote:
> > ...  On the other hand when texts say, as my son's
> > biology book does, that life is believed to have spontaneously developed
> > from inorganic substances some 3.5 billion years ago while giving little
to
> > no evidence to support such a statement students are not really given
the
> > opportunity to think critically about the subject are they?  How honest
is
> > that?  Sounds more like indoctrination to me.
>
> There are valid grounds for concern, but let's not
> over-react.  Alleging dishonest indoctrination is going
> too far.

Remember that this discussion began with an accusation that those who would
place a sticker in a Bio book that said ("evolution "is a theory, not a
fact," and should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and
critically considered.") were being dishonest, because they were trying to
place doubt in students heads by improperly using the scientific term
"theory".  If we through our texts and those who teach do not clearly convey
the message that, as you said in another post, in science everything is seen
with a certain degree of uncertainty, but in fact convey the opposite
message, science has all the answers.  I think we are being dishonest and
what we are doing is more like indoctrination and less like education.

> We need to distinguish between
>  -- asserting a scientific fact, versus
>  -- trying to _prove_ a fact using PbBA.
>
> There's nothing wrong with an assertion, as long as
> you don't pretend that the assertion is a proof.

I like your point here, but I know my students come to me proving almost
everything they know by reference to the pronouncement of some authority.
This past week I began the new year by asking my students to think about
what a contrail was and how they were produced.  As I talked with several
groups the thought that the cold temperatures at high altitude was part of
the story inevitably came up.  When I asked what made them think it was cold
at 30,000 feet they refereed to all kinds of authorities from Discovery
Channel to an uncle in the Air Force.  It took several minutes of discussion
before a few began to think about snow capped mountains and hail falling
from the sky and things like that.  Without a good deal of prodding they
never would have thought beyond reference to authority.

Cliff Parker

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think.  Niels Bohr