Teaching creationism - what does it look like?

[C_Felix]

Being an ex-teacher, in the Bible belt, I had my fair share of hearing, "Well, you should teach both sides."

This is the way the conversation usually goes...

"Okay...Both sides," I begin.

"There is a belief, some people have looked at a few different animals and connected the dots. Some believe that animals have changed slowly over thousands of year, or millions of year, so they have a better chance at surviving. Penguins. Their wings have changed slowly over time from a traditional bird wing to more of a flipper, since that helps them in their envrionment. Do we know for sure this is happening? No. Do we have good idea that this is happening? Yes."
"So far so good?" I ask.
"Yes."
"There is a belief, that a God or Gods* or some type of creator, some type of higher being, made everything in a few days. The penguin flipper? It was designed that way by this God or Gods, or some type of creator since penguins would do more swimming than flying. Our evidence of this? A few thousand year old book."
"Good?" I ask.
"Sure."
"So, what is it that I have to teach again to expose students to both sides?"

They usually fall silent at this point.

Usually..."Well, evolution can't explain "this or that", or what about irreducible complexity?!"
"Just because a theory, which is a work in progress, just because a theory that is being changed over time can't explain a few somethings, doesn't mean
the whole thing should be thrown out and replaced with something else. Just because air conditioner usage can't explain my $450 electric bill, doesn't mean I should look to divine intervention to explain it."

They usually fall silent, again, at this point.

*I love saying God or Gods, since it is usually a Bible Thumper on the other side of this converation. Saying "Gods" annoys them. I have to point out that no religion has yet to prove their theory as how everything came to be as the correct one. After all, Odin could be responsible for everything.

[steve s]

"Well, you should teach both sides."


Both? There are hundreds of creation stories out there. But we don't teach them because we recognize them for what they are--religious myths. There is only one explanation that is based on scientific evidence and only one that should be taught in science classrooms.


Steve S

[C_Felix]

True.

I'm with you.

I'd be up for teaching creationism if there was something to teach. If it was exposed to and run through the scientific method, and it was revised and run through the scientific method again...etc...Then, sure, I'd teach it.

I just give that little "speech" to get under their skin and show them what teaching the "other side" (read that as creationism) could possibly look like.

When I say what I say, they never really have anything else to add to my idea of what teaching creationism looks like.

[Ferguson]

It looks something like this:

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10

Which is to say, not very good.

[Raze]

I wouldn't mind creationism being taught in a Comparative Religions class, or something like it. I just cringe at having it taught in a science class.

[geni]

I've actualy given a presentation on creationism in a science class.

The presentation also covered lamarckism which was a lot easier to cover since there is a cohernt core theory. It's wrong but the core theory is straightforward and coherent.

[lightfire22000]

Concerning "creationism", I'm always reminded by an anecdote I heard about Galileo. Galileo was told to show the merits of both sides of the argument concerning whether the Universe was geocentric or heliocentric. Of course, it's acentric, but that's not the point. The point is that oftentimes an irrational side in an argument will attempt to establish itself as a viable alternative to rational fact. Often, the irrational side excludes all other irrational arguments.

[Robster, FCD]

I teach the evidence for both sides in my college bio class. That is to say, I don't talk about creationism or intelligent design except to point out why they aren't scientific.

[dikkedeur]

Usually..."Well, evolution can't explain "this or that", or what about irreducible complexity?!"
"Just because a theory, which is a work in progress, just because a theory that is being changed over time can't explain a few somethings, doesn't mean
the whole thing should be thrown out and replaced with something else. Just because air conditioner usage can't explain my $450 electric bill, doesn't mean I should look to divine intervention to explain it."

I think it wouldn't be so bad to talk about the subject of "irreducible complexity", or any of the other objections that have been made. Of course, the scientific explanations to these objections should also be provided.

Really, ID is mainly a collection of objections that evolution supposedly can't explain. Once you get beyond this, there's nothing left to teach. "God did it" takes about 1.2 seconds, and would only count as one trivial question on the exam.

[ponderingturtle]

I think it wouldn't be so bad to talk about the subject of "irreducible complexity", or any of the other objections that have been made. Of course, the scientific explanations to these objections should also be provided.

Really, ID is mainly a collection of objections that evolution supposedly can't explain. Once you get beyond this, there's nothing left to teach. "God did it" takes about 1.2 seconds, and would only count as one trivial question on the exam.

You could of course add in questions about on what day did god do what. And maybe throw in something about bats really being birds for good measure.

[volatile]

In the United Kingdom, it looks like this:

"One of the textbooks tells pupils: "Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jul/31/creationist-exams-comparable-to-a-levels

Most shockingly of all, the UK's qualifications body (as it happens, a private enterprise contracted by government, and not a government arm at all) have just granted this mess a qualificatory status equal to an A-Level.

[Pink Booties]

It would be terrible if teachers were made to "teach both sides" somehow, as if such a thing could be logically and easily presented to students who have a hard enough time grasping the actual science.

But it would be a bad thing for the Creationists in the end. Good teachers would use it as a means of demonstrating to their classes what science is and what it is not... and why the scientific method is the dividing line between fantasy and reality.

[geni]

Concerning "creationism", I'm always reminded by an anecdote I heard about Galileo. Galileo was told to show the merits of both sides of the argument concerning whether the Universe was geocentric or heliocentric. Of course, it's acentric, but that's not the point. The point is that oftentimes an irrational side in an argument will attempt to establish itself as a viable alternative to rational fact. Often, the irrational side excludes all other irrational arguments.

Within the evidence that Galileo had the Tychonic system was equaly valid.

And at least one of his arguments for heliocentric system required makeing a rather significant asumption (that Venus was opaque)

[Almo]

The point is that oftentimes an irrational side in an argument will attempt to establish itself as a viable alternative to rational fact. Often, the irrational side excludes all other irrational arguments.

Holocaust denial works this way. Establishing yourself as "the other side" is the wedge to get your voice heard at the table. Something that is patently false (Holocaust did not happen, Earth was made 6,000 years ago) is NOT a "side." It is a lie.

[drkitten]

I think it wouldn't be so bad to talk about the subject of "irreducible complexity", or any of the other objections that have been made. Of course, the scientific explanations to these objections should also be provided.

The problem with that :

Why should one particular failed theory get singled out to be presented and dissected like that?

Science is built on the bones of dead theories. And the foundation is centuries deep. We don't expect geography class to spend time looking at how the ancients thought the world use to look and to present a detailed refutation of how the world does not look like a T with Jerusalem in the center. We don't go through Pliny in biology class and explain how there are not really Cyclopes who battle with gryphons to the north of the Alps. We don't discuss in detail how Heraclitus was wrong in his theory of fire and flux.

So why do we single out Behe's particular stupid idea? -- which is/was actually vastly more stupid than Pliny's or Heraclitus. Heraclitus wasn't presenting an idea that was already contradicted by the literature when he published it.

[Ausmerican]

I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad. Here is how I would approach it:
"Class I have been told that I have to teach both sides of this Evolution/ID debate. We will begin the semester by looking intensely at the ID/creationism side of the debate. Godidit. There you go. For the rest of the year we can focus on evolution."

[C_Felix]

I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad. Here is how I would approach it:
"Class I have been told that I have to teach both sides of this Evolution/ID debate. We will begin the semester by looking intensely at the ID/creationism side of the debate. Godidit. There you go. For the rest of the year we can focus on evolution."

This is the essence of my OP.

What else apart from that is there to teach?

There's no evidence for ID.

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...

[themusicteacher]

As a music teacher, something of an equivalent would be:

My position:

Music is a unique form of knowledge. Being knowledge and existing on a continuum of being able to learn and known within that domain, everyone can, at least to some degree, learn and know musically (just as one can learn and know numerically or literatelly). Therefore, we can all create and better understand our world through the study of and participation in musical activities.

An "alternative":

Music comes to us from divinely inspired genius(es). We are but pawns and conduits through which these few super-talented geniuses messages flow. We should learn only the technical "nuts-and-bolts" necessary to perform these works as closely as possible to each notated character (preserving the composers intent). We will never be able to understand this music, for we are moronoc simps, incapable of comprehending such powerful works of art. Therefore, we should never dig too deep or engage in futile straw-grasping but simply stand in awe of this God-given talent that very, very few people will ever have. Under no circumstances should we attempt to stray from the masters heel.

It's not exactly the same thing but the dichotomy does exist in music education circles. The "alternative" is no alternative at all but a refutation of the facts regarding each persons ability to learn, know and understand music. Again, "Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out."

[BobG]

It should be taught; however, it should be taught in a Philosophy class because it is a testamony to the fertility of man's imagination and man's imagination only.

It is not science and only science should be taught in a science class.

When you said that "you should teach both sides", I presume that this means teaching both sides in a science class?

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

Do we know for sure this is happening? No.

Oh! I think we know.

We see it in real time in small and fast multiplying organisms.

And it makes perfect sense and is really not too difficult to understand. The problem is that people don't want to understand it for a couple of reasons, the main one being that it contradicts that which a holy roller has been brainwashed to believe.

Another reason is that some people find the concept of being related to apes "creepy". I find rejection of the obvious "creepy".

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

This is the essence of my OP.


There's no evidence for ID.



Intelligent design is a scam and the proponents of it do not believe it!

It is simply a trick for the holy rollers to get their foot in the door of a science classroom. If that were to happen, bit by bit full blown creationism would eventually be taught in sciece classrooms.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad.

Teaching it in a science classroom is very bad.

It demeans the scientific method.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

The problem with that :

Why should one particular failed theory get singled out to be presented and dissected like that?



It is not a failed theory! It is not science and it was never a theory according to the scientific method. It is religion, pure and simple.

In science, valid theories come and go and there is nothing wrong in teaching all of them. Valid or not valid today, it is still a theory and it is still science.

An example is the liquid drop model of the nucleus. It is is very simple but it is totally out of mode; yet it is perfectly acceptable to be taught in a science classroom since it is science.

However, creationism/Intelligent Design is simply not science and is not and never was a science theory.

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

You have gotten me started about a subject that I am very passionate about!

I'm sorry about monopolizing this thread; however, we in the United States are at war regarding the intelligence and dignity of our great nation.

This subject was supposed to have been settled at the Scopes trial in 1926. At that time, the United States was the laughing stock of the progressive world for seriously entertaining the teaching of creationism versus evolution. The outcome of that trial temporarily restored our dignity. Now here we are 100 years later and we are still discussing this issue. The world regards us as a bunch of ass***** because of this.

It is 2009. Let's get with the program already.

Bob

[quarky]

What i don't like about teaching both sides is the both-ness of it.
One side is science; the other side is Christo-facistic.
I should think this will end when various minorities insist on equal time in the class room to teach their side. Poly-theists should be as steamed about this crap as scientists are.

I demand that my grandchildren are also taught about the turtles, and how far down they go. The exasperating part about I.D. is that it is utterly specific to a certain brand of nonsense, and the other brands get no air-time.

[Mako]

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...

Exactly, the two central tenets of ID (irreducible complexity and complex specified information) both rely on negative reasoning and therefore commit a logical fallacy--false dichotomy. Proponents mistakenly think that by discrediting evolution they are simultaneously bolstering ID.

[BobG]

This is the essence of my OP.

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...

The model of evolution has not failed at all. It is incomplete and we should not complete it with anything other than science.

I may add that this incompleteness of evolution is used by the mindless to challenge evolution. In reality, the theory of evolution will never be complete so unfortunately we will always have the mindless challenging it. Our job is to marginalize the mindless to the fringes of society!

Bob Guercio

[BobG]

I'd like to ask a question that I've been wondering about.

I understand fully how mutations effect a species and cause it to change over time. However, I've never heard an explanation for speciation which is the evolution of one species into another.

I would expect that, if man and apes evolved from the same being, man and apes would have the same number of chromosomes which would be that of the common ancester. However, this is clearly not the case and man has 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas apes have 24 pairs and the common ancester may have a number different from either of these.

So how does speciation happen? How does the chromosome count change?

Bob Guercio

[SezMe]

This subject was supposed to have been settled at the Scopes trial in 1926. At that time, the United States was the laughing stock of the progressive world for seriously entertaining the teaching of creationism versus evolution. The outcome of that trial temporarily restored our dignity.

You are way, way overstating the value and importance of the Scopes trial. It orginally began as a publicity stunt for the city of Dayton. It evolved into much more but nobody ever claimed it would "settle" anything. The outcome was overturned on a technicality and it had very little legal or educational effect on the teaching of creationism. It was mostly a political phenomenon. The really important cases would only come much later in Louisana, Missouri and, of course, recently in Pennsylvania.

[SezMe]

So how does speciation happen? How does the chromosome count change?
See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg) by Ken Miller. It is absolutely fascinating and he puts a stake in the heart of ID by addressing that very question.

[PaulJ]

The demand to "teach both sides" is disingenuous. I've been to "Genesis Expo" - the creation museum in Portsmouth, UK. Though their exhibits are pathetic they have a well-stocked bookshop with DVDs and creationist books (many originating in the US), but I saw nothing by pro-evolution authors such as Richard Dawkins.

As for the practicality of "teaching both sides" in science classes, it can't be done. You can teach evolution; you can even teach that there are some minor aspects of evolution theory that remain subject to controversy in the scientific community. But the other side? The other side has nothing scientific to say.

You can teach "Goddidit" - but not in a science class. Comparative Religion is where such philosophical speculation belongs. Science teaching should include only those theories that are backed by evidence.

[BobG]

What i don't like about teaching both sides is the both-ness of it.
One side is science; the other side is Christo-facistic.


This is exactly why I can't discuss religion with a believer. I claim logic and he claims faith. Where do you go from there?

It's like two trains on two seperate tracks!

[BobG]

I've been to "Genesis Expo" - the creation museum in Portsmouth, UK.

You guys have **** like that in Great Britain?

I really didn't think so!

Bob

[BobG]

you can even teach that there are some minor aspects of evolution theory that remain subject to controversy in the scientific community.

You should teach this and also why it is not a problem! It helps to know because the other side uses this as a reason to debunk evolution.

[PaulJ]

You guys have **** like that in Great Britain?

I really didn't think so!

Bob

Unfortunately yes. For the low-down, Google "Evil Burnee Genesis Expo" :)

(Sorry, can't post links yet...)

[BobG]

Unfortunately yes. For the low-down, Google "Evil Burnee Genesis Expo" :)

(Sorry, can't post links yet...)

A few years ago, a British collegue told me that most of the holy roller organizations in Britain were actually American based.

I'm wondering if that is the case with this museum?

Bob

[PaulJ]

A few years ago, a British collegue told me that most of the holy roller organizations in Britain were actually American based.

I'm wondering if that is the case with this museum?

Bob

Not sure. Genesis Expo is run by the Creation Science Movement (whose HQ is in the offices above). The CSM was founded in 1932, and though it may be affiliated with US organisations I think it was originally home-grown. It's overtly Bible-based, as can be seen in how it describes itself in each of its pamphlets (one of these is illustrated in my blog post entitled "Creationism and the velocity of light").

[mike3]

True.

I'm with you.

I'd be up for teaching creationism if there was something to teach. If it was exposed to and run through the scientific method, and it was revised and run through the scientific method again...etc...Then, sure, I'd teach it.


The rub is that this makes it sound like that if that was done, maybe something good would come out. So why refuse to do it? Why not actually go and do that -- why not have real serious scientists go out there and try and transform it into a working theory?

Of course, the answer is that any attempt to try and do so results in there not being any Evidence to hold it up.

[Psi Baba]

I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad. Here is how I would approach it:
"Class I have been told that I have to teach both sides of this Evolution/ID debate. We will begin the semester by looking intensely at the ID/creationism side of the debate. Godidit. There you go. For the rest of the year we can focus on evolution."

This is the essence of my OP.

What else apart from that is there to teach?

There's no evidence for ID.

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...
That is exactly what IDers would have you do. That's the insidiousness of the movement. If teachers were required to "teach both sides" they would not be given the freedom to do it however they would like (ie, in the manner that Ausmerican suggested). They would be gradually forced to "teach ID" in the form of attempting to discredit evolution and point out any shortcomings in order to plant the seeds of doubt. It's been shown time and time again that ID is no more than a refutation of evolution and not a theory in and of itself.

[Psi Baba]

It is not a failed theory! It is not science and it was never a theory according to the scientific method. It is religion, pure and simple.
BobG, I think the "one particular failed theory" that drkitten was referring to was the idea of "irreducible complexity" ("Behe's particular stupid idea"), not ID as a whole. Although I'm not sure that irreducible complexity warrants the label of "theory" either. Even "hypothesis" would be generous.

[Mason]

I wouldn't introduce a grammar book into an algebra class and say "Of course, there are some people who think the first letter of a sentance should be capitalized, so the formula should read "X+y=z". Also, proper punctuation is a must, and these little symbols are just the lazy person's way of writing, sort of like shorthand, so the right way, to some people, would be "X plus y is equal to z."

No, that'd be stupid. My example is even stupid. There's just no way to justify teaching philosophy in a science class. The idea of doing it just boggles me so much I can't even come up with a reasonable counter-arguement. I mean, c'mon!

Would they examine the works of Shakespere to some how redefine "triangle" based on historic examples of love-triangles? Should a triangle be open at one angle because "some" books have a third member in a love-triangle who doesn't actually desire either of the two others? Then, shall we redefine "triangle" throughout our geometry books?

The whole idea is just freaking ridiculous! Every time I hear someone say "Teach the controversy" I just want to look at them and say "Are you for real? Stupid stipid stupid!! Go away and don't talk to children again or I'll get a restraining order!!"

Sorry. Some subjects are just... Well, you know. Stupid.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The demand to "teach both sides" is disingenuous. I've been to "Genesis Expo" - the creation museum in Portsmouth, UK. Though their exhibits are pathetic they have a well-stocked bookshop with DVDs and creationist books (many originating in the US), but I saw nothing by pro-evolution authors such as Richard Dawkins.

The problem with your example is that the C/IDers want "both sides" taught in the classroom. They realize they don't have a chance in museums or anywhere they can't appeal to scientifically illiterate board members. That's why they can only respond with intellectual abortions like Genesis Expo and AiG's faisco in Kentucky. You wouldn't expect to find Creationist lit in the British Museum (or any woo like Graham Hancock's alt-archeology) so it's not surprising that there's no science materials in the C/IDer stores.

[Stacy Head]

No, No and No. I do not want anything remotely close to creationidiocracy taught in schools. Stick with the facts, provable scientific studies, no baloney!

[Kahalachan]

It should be taught; however, it should be taught in a Philosophy class

I tell this to absolutely every single ID proponent there is and they can't refute it.

They just want their philosophy to be taught as a fact.

[horza66]

The weird thing for me is the way YEC/ID/Biblical Literalism has taken over as the only form of religion discussed. Back in secondary school we had our mandated Religious Education class, where the various religions were discussed along with creation myths. I was already an atheist by then, and not greatly interested, but it was a balanced view. The teacher was the school Rector, who clearly didn't take the Bible literally, and nor did any Anglicans I encountered subsequently. The Bible, along with other religious texts were intended as some form of moral guidance through parable. That, to me, was religion. A bit wishy washy and well meaning, but essentially harmless. Biblical literalists were weirdos who lived in isolated commmunities.

Nowadays (ahem - get off my lawn) it seems like the weirdos are the only ones shouting. Has there really been a big shift of belief to YEC literalism from moderate interpretive views of the Bible? Are there studies or viable statistics to indicate whether this is just weirdos making noise, or genuine radicalisation?

[LarianLeQuella]

I like this essay by Austin Cline:

There are a lot of Christians out there who object to the teaching of evolution in public schools. They want the subject removed from school science texts because they believe that the subject undermines True Christianity. Other believers argue that there is no conflict between religion and evolution, so it should be taught. Few if any secularists think that the presence or absence of conflict with religion is relevant — so long as it's science, it belongs in science classes.

Quite a few people fall for the "teach both sides" argument because it has the superficial sound of fairness about it. If there is disagreement, why not tell kids about both positions and let them make their own minds up. This might make sense if the disagreement in question were a matter of legitimate scientific debate, but there are no scientific grounds for disputing evolution — there are only scientific disagreements about some of the details.

It is also questionable how many kids would really be in a position to seriously weigh both sides and come to a sober, objective conclusion. It's far more likely that creationist parents would use the situation to further impress upon their children an anti-science and anti-rationalist perspective which fits with traditional superstition, but which is incompatible with modernity. Even worse, encouraging such ignorance and anti-intellectualism is touted as a "family value" in some circles.

Which leads into this essay:An essay by Leah Ceccarelli. Leah Ceccarelli is an associate professor in the Communication Department at the University of Washington. She teaches rhetoric and is the author of the award-winning book Shaping Science with Rhetoric.
Manufactroversy (măn’yə-făk’-trə-vûr’sē)
N., pl. -sies.
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.

With all the sophisticated sophistry besieging mass audiences today, there is a need for the study of rhetoric now more than ever before. This is especially the case when it comes to the contemporary assault on science known as manufactured controversy: when significant disagreement doesn’t exist inside the scientific community, but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends.

Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement’s “teach the controversy” campaign. The first of these has been called an “epistemological filibuster” because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its “Unsettled Science” advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A more recent guest editorial by a reader made the same claim in the pages of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in January 2008. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry when scientists discovered that their products cause cancer; when a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare “there are always two sides to a case” and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.

South African President Thabo Mbeki’s support for AIDS dissent eight years ago is a similar case. Like global warming skepticism, this assault on the science of HIV/AIDS research ingeniously turned the scientific community’s values against it by drawing on the importance of rational open debate, a skeptical attitude, and the need for continued research. Mbeki alleged that the mainstream scientific community branded scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS as “‘dangerous and discredited’ with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact.” Claiming the successful dissident’s authority in post-apartheid South Africa, Mbeki condemned the mainstream scientific community for occupying “the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths.”

A parallel case is being made by the intelligent design movement in conjunction with its “teach the controversy” campaign against evolutionary biology. Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, portrays scientists as participating in a vast conspiracy to silence anyone who questions the Darwinian orthodoxy. This movie promises to be the most extreme application yet of the intelligent design movement’s “wedge” strategy to break the supremacy of evolutionary theory in contemporary science. Just as a wedge can be set into a c h i n k in a solid structure and, with the careful application of some concentrated force, will split that structure to pieces, so too do the producers of this movie hope that it can break the scientific community and allow for a change in how science is taught in America. Of course, any claim by biologists that there is no scientific controversy to teach merely feeds the conspiracy theory.

In light of this difficulty, some have suggested that the best response to manufactured controversy is no response at all. They say that countering such nonsense merely gives these modern-day sophists publicity and enables their continued efforts to reopen debate on settled science. I understand this impulse to remain silent in the face of foolishness, but as a professor of rhetoric, I think it’s shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them. Ever since the field of rhetoric was born, there have been those who misuse the power of persuasion to mislead public audiences, and it has been only through vigilant counter-persuasion that such deception has been overcome.

The ancient sophists, or “wise men” (wise guys?) who taught the new art of rhetoric to those who would pay their fee in the 5th century BCE, included Gorgias, who was said to have boasted that he could persuade the multitude to ignore the expert and listen to him instead, and Protagoras, who claimed that there are always two sides to a case and it’s the sophist’s job to make the worse case appear the stronger. It was to oppose this kind of deception that Aristotle codified the art of Rhetoric in his treatise by that title. He recognized that before lay audiences “not even the possession of the exactest knowledge” ensures that a speaker will be persuasive, so Aristotle promoted the study of rhetoric so that experts could confute those who try to mislead public audiences.

As a scholar of rhetoric, I have studied some modern cases of manufactured controversy to discover how to best confute these contemporary sophists, and I have come up with some preliminary hypotheses about what makes their arguments so persuasive to a public audience. First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American. Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in postmodern American life; highly specialized scientific experts can’t spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them. Third, today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data; any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there’s no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet. A more accurate portrayal of science sees it as a process of debate among a community of experts in which one side outweighs the other in the balance of the argument, and that side is declared the winner; a few skeptics might remain, but they’re vastly outnumbered by the rest, and the democratic process of science moves forward with the collective weight of the majority of expert opinion. Scientists buy into this democratic process when they enter the profession, so that a call for the winning side to share power in the science classroom with the losers, or to continue debating an issue that has already been settled for the vast majority of scientists so that policy makers can delay taking action on their findings, seems particularly undemocratic to most of them.

Aristotle believed that things that are true “have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites,” but that it takes a good rhetor to ensure that this happens when sophisticated sophistry is on the loose. I concur; only by exposing manufactured controversy for what it is, recognizing its rhetorical power and countering those who are skilled at getting the multitude to ignore the experts while imagining a scientific debate where none exists, can scientists and their allies use my field to achieve what Aristotle envisioned for it—a study that helps the argument that is in reality stronger also appear stronger before an audience of nonexperts.

[Jontg]

It is 2009. Let's get with the pogrom already.
Better idea.

[Alan]

It is 2009. Let's get with the program already.
I wonder what year it was that somebody first thought the equivalent of that (for that year).

It is 2009. Let's get with the pogrom already.Better idea.
I think what you changed that quote to is going too far.
I mean, http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+pogrom&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=. :(

[pnerd]

So how does speciation happen? How does the chromosome count change/
See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
.

[commandlinegamer]

Better idea.

Wait, you're blaming the Jews for this?! I thought it was Christian fundamentalists who were pushing this. You'll be having a go at the flowers next. [Note to mods: where's the Life of Brian smiley?]

[Eyeron]

I almost got into a fist fight in school one year because somebody was complaining that ID wasn't being given equal consideration in a science class and should be taught equally as a science.

So I asked him, so should a Church be forced to to teach about atheist every Sunday then? After all, all sides should be taught equally.

She stormed out and slammed the door shut really hard. Which taught me a valuable lesson about ID among other things. The obvious thing is of course ID was intended to get religion taught as fact in the door of science since religion is always at odds with science and always attempts to supplant science and rational thinking.

[Jontg]

"A form of riot directed against a particular group, whether ethnic, religious, or other, and characterized by killings and destruction of their homes, businesses, and religious centers." Yeah, that sounds about right.

[Eyeron]

Okay, I messed up, I said him and she when it should be she in both cases. Sorry.

[genesplicer]

I teach both things in my classes.

At the beginning of the school year, I use the Asimov model of games. Science is a game. Like all games it has an object to the game and rules to play the game by. The object of the game is to understand the nature of the universe, and the rules are the scientific method.

Science is not the only game. Law is a different game, with a different object and different rules. Religion is another game. Again, it has a different object and different rules. There is no conflict between any of these, any more than there is a conflict between baseball and football. Conflict arises when something like creationism is introduced. This is "science, played with the rules of religion". It's like trying to score touchdowns while playing basketball.

I point this out to my students at the beginning of the year. If any kid brings up creationism during class, I say "This is science class. We play by the rules of the game of science. Creationism is religion, it has different rules, we do not play that game in here."

If anybody presses the matter, I point out that evidence is a very important part of the game of science, then I state "I will now state all of the scientifically-based evidence that supports creationism over evolution". Then I stand there silently until it gets uncomfortable for the students. The I say "I hope you got the point" and we move on.

[skeptiform5]

I think that if creationism is taught in schools it won't be two sided because everyone who's studying this will choose the simpler option furthermore if it is allowed to be taught, all the teachers would teach the scientific method until new ,creationist, teachers get employed to work in the science department.

[dallasroofer]

Being an ex-teacher, in the Bible belt, I had my fair share of hearing, "Well, you should teach both sides."

This is the way the conversation usually goes...

"Okay...Both sides," I begin.

"There is a belief, some people have looked at a few different animals and connected the dots. Some believe that animals have changed slowly over thousands of year, or millions of year, so they have a better chance at surviving. Penguins. Their wings have changed slowly over time from a traditional bird wing to more of a flipper, since that helps them in their envrionment. Do we know for sure this is happening? No. Do we have good idea that this is happening? Yes."
"So far so good?" I ask.
"Yes."
"There is a belief, that a God or Gods* or some type of creator, some type of higher being, made everything in a few days. The penguin flipper? It was designed that way by this God or Gods, or some type of creator since penguins would do more swimming than flying. Our evidence of this? A few thousand year old book."
"Good?" I ask.
"Sure."
"So, what is it that I have to teach again to expose students to both sides?"

They usually fall silent at this point.

Usually..."Well, evolution can't explain "this or that", or what about irreducible complexity?!"
"Just because a theory, which is a work in progress, just because a theory that is being changed over time can't explain a few somethings, doesn't mean
the whole thing should be thrown out and replaced with something else. Just because air conditioner usage can't explain my $450 electric bill, doesn't mean I should look to divine intervention to explain it."

They usually fall silent, again, at this point.

*I love saying God or Gods, since it is usually a Bible Thumper on the other side of this converation. Saying "Gods" annoys them. I have to point out that no religion has yet to prove their theory as how everything came to be as the correct one. After all, Odin could be responsible for everything.
Well, I'm not opposed to teaching about theology. Some believe the divine is the next emergent phase of human development (right after the Arts & Sciences).

[lightfire22000]

Let's put a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Jew, conservative Christian, Pantheist, European Pagan, and any other people in a debate with scientific experimentation and see which creation story is right. I think religion and science appear completely separate after seeing religions argue.

Only when people realize the importance of exegesis can religion make any sense at all.

[Niggle]

Well, I'm not opposed to teaching about theology. Some believe the divine is the next emergent phase of human development (right after the Arts & Sciences).

You can teach all the theology you want. In a class on theology. Philosophy. Comparative Religions.

But NOT science.

Apples. Oranges.

[Niggle]

The rub is that this makes it sound like that if that was done, maybe something good would come out. So why refuse to do it? Why not actually go and do that -- why not have real serious scientists go out there and try and transform it into a working theory?

Of course, the answer is that any attempt to try and do so results in there not being any Evidence to hold it up.

Nah, the point being that trying to do so makes it look like a legitimate hypothesis. That's all they need to keep screaming that it belongs there.

[shadron]

See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
.

Ken Miller explains how the human chromosome count went from 48 to 46 in this video, but that is only one way in which speciation occurs. A comparison of the champ and human chromosomes shows not only the fused chromosome 2, but also nine other locations where inversions on DNA within chromosomes has occurred. From wiki:

Figures published in Nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29) on September 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_1), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), in an article produced by the Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Sequencing_and_Analysis_Consortium), show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and homo sapien genomes.

Note that this does not conflict with the oft-stated 96% congruence between chimps and humans, which refers to functionality, rather than structural positioning. However, when gene recombination occurs in the mating of DNA from sperm and egg, it greatly increases the possibility of broken genes in the zygote, resulting in missing or non-functional proteins and/or gene control, resulting in death of most all such offspring.

[skeptiform5]

I would teach both sides if necessary but I would tell the students which one is the most accepted and which one isn't. I would start of the term by explaining in basic terms that 'god did it' and leave it at that. Is that incorrect or unfair? I don't believe I need to go in to deeper detail, for example I won't say 'the universe had to be created by a creator' because when I get to the scientific explanation I would explain that. The rest of th time I would concentrate on the actual science.
But I did say 'if necessary' which it never should be. I also mentioned the words ‘actual science’, science should be able to be disproved with certain evidence. For example if you find a prehistoric bunny, evolution is down the drain but I doubt any evidence would destroy creationism. It also has to be supported or can be proved by experiments, which it isn’t. Every theory must be able to allow change with new discoveries but creationism is meant to never change.