ID in the Classroom
Not sure if this person is a secret ID enthusiast, or just a bit wrong.
I see where he's coming from with this. Saying "I will not have such talk in my classroom" is not a good solution. However, there is no scientific merit whatsoever in ID, and putting it in the science classroom is wrong for that reason. If ID was going to be taught in science, it would have to be a half hour thorough debunking. And not only that, it would have to come at the very end of the course, and even that might not be good enough. Some of the claims of ID are relatively easy to prove wrong in very simple, layman's terms. However, some of the claims require a good grasp of what are actually quite complex ideas. I suppose each lesson could conclude with "what today's lesson disproves about ID," but in the end it should not be necessary for teachers to have to waste time on debunking claims that are put out by religiously- and politically-motivated individuals and organisations, without a shred of evidence or research.
Even if this was put into the classroom, I doubt that it would satisfy the ID crowd. They would merely be enraged that kids were being "indoctrinated" against their "science". Or told why it's not a science and is utterly wrong, in other words. Also, the ID crowd want equal time dedicated to their claims, which would be disastrous, as there is not enough time to cover more than a tiny scratching at the surface of the mounds of empirical and scientific evidence for evolution in schools as it is. Maybe schools could put on an extra, optional lesson after school to explain why the ID bunch are a load of charlatains and ignorami. Don't think that would go down too well with the parents in the fundie American neighbourhoods where teaching ID is actually considered a plausible course of action. Or teachers could just give out the addresses of Pharyngula, The Panda's Thumb and Talk.Origins.
one of the best ways to explain any theory and its historical significance is usually through contrast and comparison. We must explain what other beliefs exist to explain an observation, and why one is better than another, or why certain beliefs should not be considered scientific by the students. If you don’t tell them what “Intelligent Design” means, they won’t ever know why they should not believe it.
I see where he's coming from with this. Saying "I will not have such talk in my classroom" is not a good solution. However, there is no scientific merit whatsoever in ID, and putting it in the science classroom is wrong for that reason. If ID was going to be taught in science, it would have to be a half hour thorough debunking. And not only that, it would have to come at the very end of the course, and even that might not be good enough. Some of the claims of ID are relatively easy to prove wrong in very simple, layman's terms. However, some of the claims require a good grasp of what are actually quite complex ideas. I suppose each lesson could conclude with "what today's lesson disproves about ID," but in the end it should not be necessary for teachers to have to waste time on debunking claims that are put out by religiously- and politically-motivated individuals and organisations, without a shred of evidence or research.
Even if this was put into the classroom, I doubt that it would satisfy the ID crowd. They would merely be enraged that kids were being "indoctrinated" against their "science". Or told why it's not a science and is utterly wrong, in other words. Also, the ID crowd want equal time dedicated to their claims, which would be disastrous, as there is not enough time to cover more than a tiny scratching at the surface of the mounds of empirical and scientific evidence for evolution in schools as it is. Maybe schools could put on an extra, optional lesson after school to explain why the ID bunch are a load of charlatains and ignorami. Don't think that would go down too well with the parents in the fundie American neighbourhoods where teaching ID is actually considered a plausible course of action. Or teachers could just give out the addresses of Pharyngula, The Panda's Thumb and Talk.Origins.
posted by hotrockhopper at 7:29 PM
3 Comments:
In any debate, ID loses big. It might be interesting to totally shut down ID in a science class, as it was done over one hundred years ago by Huxley.
Ian, I appreciate your comments on my article. I assure you I am not a closet ID supporter. When you say " there is no scientific merit whatsoever in ID," I agree with you completely. But the fact that there is any controversy at all is because so many people fail to understand that, including some of my students and their parents. And if they are ignorant, I must labor to enlighten them.
Each year I discuss with my students on one of the first days of class the differences between science, pseudo-science, and faith. I try very hard to emphasize to them that what I teach in physics class is not going to support or contradict their religious faith - unless they are a super-orthodox-literal-interpretationist minority, I suppose. Many of them honestly don't realize that science and religion coexist peacefully for most scientists, and the furor that has erupted from the science educators over Bush's remarks has not likely clared it up for them. The students quickly learn that I am agnostic to atheist, but our religious differences will not matter in a science class. That's not what all of them have heard at church, on TV, or on the internet.
You say, "If ID was going to be taught in science, it would have to be a half hour thorough debunking." I don't do that, but I do explain to them why it is beyond the scope of physics (or evolutionary biology)... and why it therefore is not necessary to the science itself. It amazes and frightens me that so many of them have not learned that before high school.
I do explain to them why it is beyond the scope of physics (or evolutionary biology)... and why it therefore is not necessary to the science itself.
This does seem like a good approach. When I was at school, my biology teacher began the evolution section with the disclaimer "This is a science class and we're going to learn the scientific explaination. If you want to learn that God created the Earth in six days, go to church." Concise and to the point, I think. I suppose that you might not get away with that in the US, though (it still amazes me how many people over there are creationists!)
Jim:
That was what I meant by the half hour thorough debunking. It is a sad state of affairs that anyone should feel the need to address the claims of the ID crowd, though. It could be a good idea to have ID taken apart in an optional extra science lesson, but in the school districts where people actually want ID taught in schools, this would probably insense the parents and the ID crowd even more than not mentioning at all.
One of the big problems with mentioning ID at all is that the teachers who are sympathetic towards ID would be likely to use the lessons to push it, rather than debunk it.
Post a Comment
<< Home