Skip to main content

View Diary: Let's Teach the Controversy of Evolution vs Intelligent Design **Updated with Poll question** (365 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't like the idea! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tim DeLaney, JerryNA

    Science isn't losing the argument, they are losing the PR war. The battlefield shouldn't be in the classroom it should be in advertizing. The creationist have beaten science so completely on this battlefield they have the nerve to now stick their silly argument in the classroom - Don't help them.

    •  I agree! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, Bubblehead580

      Good science is not achieved through debate. The diarist is urging—in effect—that we debate creationists in the classroom, which is exactly what they want, and for very good reason.

      Duane Gish routinely "won" debate after debate against the top biologists of his day. His technique was simple and effective, and was referred to as the "Gish gallop". He would unleash a torrent of plausible sound bite arguments, each of which took only a few seconds to spout, but each of which would take many minutes to refute.

      Example: "There are absolutely no transitional fossils between any land mammal and whales. None whatever." The audience, who have probably not seen evidence to the contrary, would nod in agreement. In order to disprove this, the evolutionary biologist would have to take at least two or three minutes. Meanwhile, Gish has made 10 other quick points in the same time, each of which would take several minutes to refute.

      We don't want to give creationists a forum, any more than we want to give a forum to flat earthers, geocentrists, or climate change deniers.  

      Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

        The best science IS achieved through debate.  You DO NOT get published by parroting what others have discovered before you

        •  If I am wrong, then can you explain (0+ / 0-)

          why the creationists are so anxious to engage in this debate? Anything that resembles debate concedes a measure of legitimacy to their cause. Why should scientists "debate" against pseudoscience? I don't see any upside to this.  

          "Teach the controversy" has been the slogan of creationists for as long as I can remember. If we accept that, we agree that there is a genuine controversy. That is, we implicitly accept their contention that they might be right.

          There is no genuine controversy. The creationists are dead wrong. To debate them is to put that obvious conclusion in doubt.

          Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

          by Tim DeLaney on Tue May 07, 2013 at 02:33:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I personally think (0+ / 0-)

            that creationists are so anxious because they are abject morons who do not appreciate how thorough scientific arguments really are.  

            I agree that there is no genuine controversy.  As such I also think that the argument would be relatively easy to dismiss and would provide an excellent learning opportunity for students.  Wouldn't it be cool to watch our young people dismantle ID/creationism for us (while they are learning about evolution).  I can't think of a better way to introduce them to science.

            But then again, I am not a science teacher or administrator or politician.  I really don't have a dog in this fight, except for my 6 yr old daughter who could probably dismantle most ID arguments by herself without breaking a sweat.

        •  No, science proves fact through experiment! (0+ / 0-)

          Science doesn't debate what temperature a liquid turns into a gas. Science proves what temperature it becomes a gas by putting the beaker over the Bunsen Burner and measuring what temperature. There's no need to debate the thermometer - you just need to read it.    

          •  for simple questions, yes (0+ / 0-)

            In my field, interesting questions are rarely so easily tested.  Thus each experimental result can be interpreted in many different ways, leading to debates that would make a schoolgirl blush.

            •  I think thats called theory. (0+ / 0-)

              You can debate theory but "Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact" Darwin and other Scientists proved the theory. In Science you have a theory and then you set out to prove your theory. Once you prove your theory other Scientists repeat your experiments to also prove or disprove what you now claim as fact. We don't debate facts. I say I'm 5 foot 11, after me and several other people measure my length and see I am 5 foot 11 we don't need to debate the theory of my height.  

    •  you are right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau

      The science classroom should be the place where we bore our children to tears teaching uncontroversial topics in uncontroversial ways.  Then we can wonder why none of our students choose STEM fields.  

      I'm only in a scientific field because I had passionate teachers who taught how to use scientific principles to attack questions.

       got a C in biology but it was my favorite class in high school because my bio teacher was so passionate about evolution.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site