| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
It is difficult to do because of our rigid training, but let's take an
objective look at this discussion. I'm not going to take sides on
intelligent design vs evolution, because I think the real issue runs much
deeper and this is just the particular example that got jumped on.
What is science, and what are the important issues for students to learn? I
would argue that science is a logical and systematic study of natural
phenomena. We then attempt to describe the mechanisms that lead to those
observations at deeper and deeper levels of understanding. There are still
significant parts of "science" that are faith-based, relying upon tenets
such as Occam's Razor rather than direct observational data (which may be
unobtainable). At this point, I think it is important to present the
available data, the models, and discuss how the data support those models.
It is not sufficient to present incomplete studies and declare them as
absolute truths. We must get the students to think for themselves. (Note
that I'm not criticizing the "science" arguments only here, both sides are
equally flawed. The idea that the "the natural world is
so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to
explain it" is also refutable opinion and should be presented as such.)
Now, onto the "supernatural". The supernatural tends to get invoked
whenever the data is inconclusive. Attempting to put a "natural"
explanation on such data is no more scientific than a "supernatural"
explanation. The truth is that we don't know and it is a best guess given
our background knowledge. For 2 different people, one with a deep religious
conviction and one with a deep belief that everything is explainable by
cause-and-effect natural order, the two "best guesses" may be quite
different, it does not make one any more valid than the other. The
inconclusive issue should be presented as such, with the appropriate data
given to support or refute the models in a logical and systematic manner.
With that in mind, let's consider the specific discussion. There is
obviously a significant fraction of the population that does not trust
evolution as an accurate description of the origin of multiple species.
Again, I don't want to discuss whether or not is is correct, I'm interested
in what the students should be learning.
Suppose evolution is correct (as I suspect most of the readers of this list
will). The teacher presents the theory. Mom and Dad say, "well that a load
of *&^*, this is how it is ...." The poor student has no way of
distinguishing between the two, we have failed as educators. Now suppose
the teacher presents the data and they investigate the different theories.
Now the student has the information that he/she can use to make his/her own
opinion. THAT is far more valuable than knowledge of any particular theory.
Gary Turner
On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:11:29 -0400, Robert B Zannelli <Spinoza321@AOL.COM>
wrote:
From Another list. Posted with permission.
Bob Zannelli
======================
"They want to rewrite the rules of science," cries Alan Leshner of AAAS.
Well Du-uh! Is he just realizing now what the culture war is about? War is
about seizing turf and holding it. In this case the turf is science itself. The
CounterEnlightenment is out to seize science and redefine it in
Aristotelian terms so that it becomes god-friendly again.
Anne
=======================
_http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_sc/kansas_evolutio
n_
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_sc/kansas_evolution)
Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself
By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 16, 6:33 PM ET
The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the
theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering
redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the
board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for
what's observed in the world.
Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing
investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The
definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science
standards.
The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated
that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural
phenomena in their science classes.
"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith
Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.
The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed
changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal
from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is
so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to
explain it