weird science?
February 24, 2005 4:41 PM Subscribe
[Resolved, the Kansas Dept. of Education is hereby directed to collect comments from the public regarding the various proposed changes to the Science Curriculum Standards, either contained within the Science Curriculum Standards Draft or contained within the minority report.]
Kansas Citizens for Science are arguing that the intelligent design folks are just trying to put religion in the schools. But are the proposed changes in the minority report really pro-religion, or are they just pro-"raise kids to be inquisitive"? I, for one, am honesty not sure.
Are the kids being asked to be inquisitive about the theory of gravity and that of the double-helix structure of DNA, or just the theory of evolution?
There's more to the scientific method than just "inquisitiveness", and more to a scientific theory than just "explanation."
posted by DaShiv at 4:53 PM on February 24, 2005
There's more to the scientific method than just "inquisitiveness", and more to a scientific theory than just "explanation."
posted by DaShiv at 4:53 PM on February 24, 2005
Science and reason by mob rule! Never fails...
posted by AlexReynolds at 4:53 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by AlexReynolds at 4:53 PM on February 24, 2005
I wonder what the schoolchildren think?
I'm guessing that a lot of them don't really care, or prefer the 'easier' material. The smart/inquisitive kids will figure things out, but it's the not-so-scholastically-inclined who are losing out.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:54 PM on February 24, 2005
I'm guessing that a lot of them don't really care, or prefer the 'easier' material. The smart/inquisitive kids will figure things out, but it's the not-so-scholastically-inclined who are losing out.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:54 PM on February 24, 2005
isn't it Kansanians?
posted by the theory of revolution at 4:57 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by the theory of revolution at 4:57 PM on February 24, 2005
There are better ways to foster inquisitiveness. What if I want to foster inquisitiveness by having students ask themselves all sorts of leading questions about Scientology, and have them "question" the "biases" of those who don't believe in scientology, etc. Teach people to be critical thinkers, fine, but do it in general, not in regards to this one issue only.
As for what is taught, intelligent design is a fringe theory which should get no more than a brief amount of time in the classroom.
posted by kevinsp8 at 5:01 PM on February 24, 2005
As for what is taught, intelligent design is a fringe theory which should get no more than a brief amount of time in the classroom.
posted by kevinsp8 at 5:01 PM on February 24, 2005
I wish more people were inquisitive about the theory of gravity...
Scientists still haven't figured out that whole force yet...
Guess it'll just be "Because God made it that way" in the new textbooks..
posted by Balisong at 5:02 PM on February 24, 2005
Scientists still haven't figured out that whole force yet...
Guess it'll just be "Because God made it that way" in the new textbooks..
posted by Balisong at 5:02 PM on February 24, 2005
I mean it has to do with mass, and it is predictable to several decimal places, but is it a particle, or a wave..
We've learned to use it, but we don't understand the nature of it..
posted by Balisong at 5:06 PM on February 24, 2005
We've learned to use it, but we don't understand the nature of it..
posted by Balisong at 5:06 PM on February 24, 2005
The objective issue is that there is overwhelming support for descent with modification (evolution), and very little support for design.
I fully agree that we should be using inquiry-based instruction in science. The problem for ID people is that ID tends to either fall apart, or reduce to the argument from ignorance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:11 PM on February 24, 2005
I fully agree that we should be using inquiry-based instruction in science. The problem for ID people is that ID tends to either fall apart, or reduce to the argument from ignorance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:11 PM on February 24, 2005
All's I know is I'm darn sure my grandaddy ain't no angel.
posted by gurple at 5:18 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by gurple at 5:18 PM on February 24, 2005
The creationists train their soldiers, led by this man.
posted by underer at 5:24 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by underer at 5:24 PM on February 24, 2005
I don't really understand your confusion, bingo. How can they be anything but pro-religion and anti-science?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:30 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:30 PM on February 24, 2005
Hmm, I dunno, underer. According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, James Dobson (think Focus on the Family) is the 800-pound gorrilla of ID.
posted by gurple at 5:43 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by gurple at 5:43 PM on February 24, 2005
I don't really understand your confusion, bingo. How can they be anything but pro-religion and anti-science?
Did you read the propose revisions (pdf)? I admit I haven't read every single one yet, but the ones I read seem to be about imparting to the kids that it's healthy to question institutionalized knowledge. And I think that it is.
For example, asking for the insertion of the idea that 'the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law' into the curriculum doesn't seem harmful.
Sure, the people behind the proposed changes have an agenda, but I don't think that doesn't de facto mean that the specific changes they're asking for are unreasonable.
posted by bingo at 6:01 PM on February 24, 2005
Did you read the propose revisions (pdf)? I admit I haven't read every single one yet, but the ones I read seem to be about imparting to the kids that it's healthy to question institutionalized knowledge. And I think that it is.
For example, asking for the insertion of the idea that 'the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law' into the curriculum doesn't seem harmful.
Sure, the people behind the proposed changes have an agenda, but I don't think that doesn't de facto mean that the specific changes they're asking for are unreasonable.
posted by bingo at 6:01 PM on February 24, 2005
isn't it Kansanians?
In case by some chance this wasn't a joke: No.
posted by bingo at 6:06 PM on February 24, 2005
In case by some chance this wasn't a joke: No.
posted by bingo at 6:06 PM on February 24, 2005
Gravity- That antiquated notion has been weighing me down for far too long.
posted by Balisong at 6:07 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by Balisong at 6:07 PM on February 24, 2005
I know I'm bringing up logical fallacies, but I'm going to say it anyway. First, the people who I have met "in the trenches" fighting to revise science textbooks are completely nuts [ad hominem #1]. Dr. Kent Hovind came to my small Christian school outside of Albany, Georgia when I was 12 to talk to us about the rubbish that was evolution. That's what he did his first three days of the week-long lecture series in our cafetaria. The last two days were about the New World Order via the UN and how they were building concentration camps at Eglin AFB for evanglelicals. I believed every word this charismatic said until the brittleness of my faith in his absolute convictions shattered, ushering almost a decade of atheism.
We cannot cede space in science textbooks to these guys. As firmly convinced as they are in evolution, conviction does not hollow-earth or geocentric system make. It's slippery slope [fallacy #2] and they won't stop with "intelligent design." It's a foot in the door against everything this country was built on.
posted by trinarian at 6:09 PM on February 24, 2005
We cannot cede space in science textbooks to these guys. As firmly convinced as they are in evolution, conviction does not hollow-earth or geocentric system make. It's slippery slope [fallacy #2] and they won't stop with "intelligent design." It's a foot in the door against everything this country was built on.
posted by trinarian at 6:09 PM on February 24, 2005
Sad truth is, bingo, that it's a war. And contested ground has symbolic meaning, whether it's land or ideological turf. We can't concede power to these creationists behind intelligent design. Let philosophers without a religious bias develop lessons on questioning institutionalized knowledge for our schools.
On preview: what trinarian said.
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:11 PM on February 24, 2005
On preview: what trinarian said.
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:11 PM on February 24, 2005
So, I'm looking over the proposed changes, and this is number 2:
Revisions to 8 th Grade Standard 3, BM 5 (dealing with evolution) and Standard 4, BM 2, dealing with earth sciences (page 7). A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory, and not a fact. An additional indicator should help students understand how the historical nature of many aspects of paleontology and earth science affects investigation, testing and explanation. (emphasis added)
This is a misuse of the word "theory" as it applies to science and evolution. A theory is an ordering of facts supported by tested (and testable) hypothesis. The theory of evolution organizes and explains observable facts and natural "laws" into a system with testable parts.
To claim that the fact that evolution is a "theory" means it is not a "fact" distorts the meaning and process of scientific inquiry and consequently distorts the teaching and development of critical thinking skills and scientific literacy.
posted by carmen at 6:19 PM on February 24, 2005
Revisions to 8 th Grade Standard 3, BM 5 (dealing with evolution) and Standard 4, BM 2, dealing with earth sciences (page 7). A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory, and not a fact. An additional indicator should help students understand how the historical nature of many aspects of paleontology and earth science affects investigation, testing and explanation. (emphasis added)
This is a misuse of the word "theory" as it applies to science and evolution. A theory is an ordering of facts supported by tested (and testable) hypothesis. The theory of evolution organizes and explains observable facts and natural "laws" into a system with testable parts.
To claim that the fact that evolution is a "theory" means it is not a "fact" distorts the meaning and process of scientific inquiry and consequently distorts the teaching and development of critical thinking skills and scientific literacy.
posted by carmen at 6:19 PM on February 24, 2005
I think giving the ID people an inch is a mistake. I don't think they can be pacified, nor should they be. I don't charge into their churches telling THEM what to teach. They've decided that scientific thought is a threat to their dogma. I hope it is.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:21 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:21 PM on February 24, 2005
bingo
The statement "the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law" is meaningless. It is pseudoscientific babble to fool the ignorant (those with a little knowledge, but no understanding) into thinking that some flaw has been found in the theory. The ordering of nucleotides is dictated in the same way every other chemical sequence is dictated, by the laws of physics and chemistry, driven by interactions with other sequences of atoms. Those that espouse this ID theory are corrupt, in that they use their intellects to make it seem like the theory of evolution is unsupported by spouting this kind of babble, rather than dealing with the theory straight on.
posted by Mental Wimp at 6:24 PM on February 24, 2005
The statement "the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law" is meaningless. It is pseudoscientific babble to fool the ignorant (those with a little knowledge, but no understanding) into thinking that some flaw has been found in the theory. The ordering of nucleotides is dictated in the same way every other chemical sequence is dictated, by the laws of physics and chemistry, driven by interactions with other sequences of atoms. Those that espouse this ID theory are corrupt, in that they use their intellects to make it seem like the theory of evolution is unsupported by spouting this kind of babble, rather than dealing with the theory straight on.
posted by Mental Wimp at 6:24 PM on February 24, 2005
bingo, right up front I see: "A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory, and not a fact."
That isn't "minor" and that isn't true. As SJ Gould and many others have made clear evolution is a fact and a theory.
Evolution is as factual as gravity and as theoretical as well.
On preview: carmen, you and Gould, great minds think alike...
posted by Cassford at 6:25 PM on February 24, 2005
That isn't "minor" and that isn't true. As SJ Gould and many others have made clear evolution is a fact and a theory.
Evolution is as factual as gravity and as theoretical as well.
On preview: carmen, you and Gould, great minds think alike...
posted by Cassford at 6:25 PM on February 24, 2005
Here's another proposed revision I like:
Members of the public are the patrons and beneficiaries of science and their support for scientific research may be influenced by the responsiveness of science to the needs of that constituency.
By and large, what appeals to me about a lot of these revisions is that they are calling into question the validity of the rest of the text. And I wish that I had had a textbook when I was a kid that did that. The signal sent to the reader about his/her own ability (and right) to judge the validity of the lesson might be a valuable and healthy one. And not just in science. School is so...well, pedagogical. And as someone who learns better on his own, that was boring and irritating for me. To come across a passage in an assigned reading that effectively said 'there are a lot of arguments to be made against what you're reading here' would have been refreshing and motivating.
On preview: I didn't mean to become the defender of creationism here...I'm an agnositc and I believe in evolution. Part of the FPP links to a poll that the Kansas legislature is taking on what the public thinks of these proposals, and that was really my motivation for this post to begin with. But once I started reading the proposed revisions, a lot of them didn't seem as bad as I had expected.
posted by bingo at 6:32 PM on February 24, 2005
Members of the public are the patrons and beneficiaries of science and their support for scientific research may be influenced by the responsiveness of science to the needs of that constituency.
By and large, what appeals to me about a lot of these revisions is that they are calling into question the validity of the rest of the text. And I wish that I had had a textbook when I was a kid that did that. The signal sent to the reader about his/her own ability (and right) to judge the validity of the lesson might be a valuable and healthy one. And not just in science. School is so...well, pedagogical. And as someone who learns better on his own, that was boring and irritating for me. To come across a passage in an assigned reading that effectively said 'there are a lot of arguments to be made against what you're reading here' would have been refreshing and motivating.
On preview: I didn't mean to become the defender of creationism here...I'm an agnositc and I believe in evolution. Part of the FPP links to a poll that the Kansas legislature is taking on what the public thinks of these proposals, and that was really my motivation for this post to begin with. But once I started reading the proposed revisions, a lot of them didn't seem as bad as I had expected.
posted by bingo at 6:32 PM on February 24, 2005
An additional indicator should help students understand how the historical nature of many aspects of paleontology and earth science affects investigation, testing and explanation.
That smells like more than ID to me: looks like the young earth people are trying to sneak in too.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:39 PM on February 24, 2005
That smells like more than ID to me: looks like the young earth people are trying to sneak in too.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:39 PM on February 24, 2005
To come across a passage in an assigned reading that effectively said 'there are a lot of arguments to be made against what you're reading here' would have been refreshing and motivating.
Actually, this should be required in history books..
posted by Balisong at 6:40 PM on February 24, 2005
Actually, this should be required in history books..
posted by Balisong at 6:40 PM on February 24, 2005
I was thinking of literature. There's no accounting for taste.
posted by DaShiv at 6:56 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by DaShiv at 6:56 PM on February 24, 2005
The 'arguing' link, with the refutations from scientists (including scientists the ID folks quoted) is scary/fun reading. Thanks for the link.
posted by Sparx at 6:59 PM on February 24, 2005
posted by Sparx at 6:59 PM on February 24, 2005
Did you read the propose revisions (pdf)?
Yeah, I did. And just it case it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to snark at you -- I just don't see a ton of room for alternative interpretations here. As other people have pointed out, the "inquisitive" angle would be a lot more convincing if they also applied it to anything else.
ID isn't science, and it has no place in a public school science classroom. Teaching kids to ignore all available evidence in favor of "a wizard did it" is not teaching independent thinking -- it's encouraging ignorance.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 9:44 PM on February 24, 2005
Yeah, I did. And just it case it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to snark at you -- I just don't see a ton of room for alternative interpretations here. As other people have pointed out, the "inquisitive" angle would be a lot more convincing if they also applied it to anything else.
ID isn't science, and it has no place in a public school science classroom. Teaching kids to ignore all available evidence in favor of "a wizard did it" is not teaching independent thinking -- it's encouraging ignorance.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 9:44 PM on February 24, 2005
i am from kansas and i am not a friend of the aggressively regressive, often deeply malicious fundamental christian politics that often go on there.
however, just because we don't like their politics is not a reason to start getting all high and mighty about the messy ontological foundations of what we consider science.
there's no such thing as 'objective reason', ulotrichous. or at least i don't believe in it any more than i do in god.
posted by milkman at 10:00 PM on February 24, 2005
however, just because we don't like their politics is not a reason to start getting all high and mighty about the messy ontological foundations of what we consider science.
there's no such thing as 'objective reason', ulotrichous. or at least i don't believe in it any more than i do in god.
posted by milkman at 10:00 PM on February 24, 2005
Members of the public are the patrons and beneficiaries of science and their support for scientific research may be influenced by the responsiveness of science to the needs of that constituency.
This passage is terrible. Essentially it justifies holding science hostage to the whims of the current "needs" of the political climate. This is the same rationale that allowed the crackpot eugenic science to be taught under Hitler's reign (hail Godwin full of grace). Science should respond only to debate and concensus (or therefore lack of) within the scientific community. Else, should we have crucified Copernicus and Galileo centuries ago and continue to live instead in a geocentric universe simply because "members of the public" refused to lend "their support for scientific research" and thus science must "respond to [their] needs" by remaining quiet so that "the public" can remain ignorantly complacent about their cosmology?
There's plenty of room for challenging the current scientific understanding, but one must be both informed by received knowledge and equipped with an understanding of the scientific method's application before one is ready to do so. And given how much progress science has already made, nobody is prepared to challenge its frontiers until they've met the considerable educational prerequisites. You have to have learned the prevailing theory first before you can put forth an informed rejection of it.
IMO the type of critical thinking and questioning assumptions you'd like to see more of in schools, bingo, is better suited for the humanities. For instance, the teacher of my state-mandated civics class challenged us -- jocks, geeks, and all -- to defend the necessity of each and every right in the Bill of Rights. He did so by mock-oppressing us under hypothetical situations to force us to use the Bill as a tool to confront the his assumed "authority" as government. That was an appropriate exercise in questioning the validity (and necessity) of what was in our textbooks. On the other hand, some smartass standing up to challenge the teacher's assumption of gravity on Earth being 9.8 m/s^2 and forcing a demonstration or proof on the matter just means that nobody learns anything and nobody gets out in time for lunch. This sort of political grandstanding over evolution is similarly counterproductive, especially given the complete impotence of the proposed "theory" of intelligent design as a useful, predicative scientific theory, its paucity of supportive evidence (attacking evolution does not materially support any alternatives), and its utter lack of credibility within the scientific community.
On preview: skallas's comparative religious study example also shows how much better-suited for the humanities this "question the text" argument being put forth by ID-proponents would be. Kids might actually learn something about the subject matter in question within that context.
milkman: The time when science has become "high and mighty" will be when it has the hubris to believe that it actually has all the answers and stops observing and testing the physical world. Such as, say, if it believed that the answers were all already written down in a book, for instance.
posted by DaShiv at 10:53 PM on February 24, 2005
This passage is terrible. Essentially it justifies holding science hostage to the whims of the current "needs" of the political climate. This is the same rationale that allowed the crackpot eugenic science to be taught under Hitler's reign (hail Godwin full of grace). Science should respond only to debate and concensus (or therefore lack of) within the scientific community. Else, should we have crucified Copernicus and Galileo centuries ago and continue to live instead in a geocentric universe simply because "members of the public" refused to lend "their support for scientific research" and thus science must "respond to [their] needs" by remaining quiet so that "the public" can remain ignorantly complacent about their cosmology?
There's plenty of room for challenging the current scientific understanding, but one must be both informed by received knowledge and equipped with an understanding of the scientific method's application before one is ready to do so. And given how much progress science has already made, nobody is prepared to challenge its frontiers until they've met the considerable educational prerequisites. You have to have learned the prevailing theory first before you can put forth an informed rejection of it.
IMO the type of critical thinking and questioning assumptions you'd like to see more of in schools, bingo, is better suited for the humanities. For instance, the teacher of my state-mandated civics class challenged us -- jocks, geeks, and all -- to defend the necessity of each and every right in the Bill of Rights. He did so by mock-oppressing us under hypothetical situations to force us to use the Bill as a tool to confront the his assumed "authority" as government. That was an appropriate exercise in questioning the validity (and necessity) of what was in our textbooks. On the other hand, some smartass standing up to challenge the teacher's assumption of gravity on Earth being 9.8 m/s^2 and forcing a demonstration or proof on the matter just means that nobody learns anything and nobody gets out in time for lunch. This sort of political grandstanding over evolution is similarly counterproductive, especially given the complete impotence of the proposed "theory" of intelligent design as a useful, predicative scientific theory, its paucity of supportive evidence (attacking evolution does not materially support any alternatives), and its utter lack of credibility within the scientific community.
On preview: skallas's comparative religious study example also shows how much better-suited for the humanities this "question the text" argument being put forth by ID-proponents would be. Kids might actually learn something about the subject matter in question within that context.
milkman: The time when science has become "high and mighty" will be when it has the hubris to believe that it actually has all the answers and stops observing and testing the physical world. Such as, say, if it believed that the answers were all already written down in a book, for instance.
posted by DaShiv at 10:53 PM on February 24, 2005
For example, asking for the insertion of the idea that 'the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is not dictated by any known chemical or physical law' into the curriculum doesn't seem harmful.
...
posted by bingo
That insidious little assertion is harmful. It's a specific bit of propaganda is obviously meant to imply that the hand of God must be at work. It's part of the doctrine of the "Intelligent Design" argument. It's written in bad faith by non-scientists who've made a choice to abandon reason. The abandonment of reason is a requirement of the cult that possesses their minds.
posted by VP_Admin at 12:31 AM on February 25, 2005
...
posted by bingo
That insidious little assertion is harmful. It's a specific bit of propaganda is obviously meant to imply that the hand of God must be at work. It's part of the doctrine of the "Intelligent Design" argument. It's written in bad faith by non-scientists who've made a choice to abandon reason. The abandonment of reason is a requirement of the cult that possesses their minds.
posted by VP_Admin at 12:31 AM on February 25, 2005
I have no problem with this, as long as we are allowed to have every single copy of the Bible prefaced with the words: "The garden of eden is a theory, not a fact. In fact, everything in this book is a theory, not a fact. Well, I say 'theory', it's actually just a load of made up, mistranslated nonsense. Please consider reading a science book instead - be inquisitive! Question everything! Thanks."
posted by ralphyk at 2:33 AM on February 25, 2005
posted by ralphyk at 2:33 AM on February 25, 2005
To come across a passage in an assigned reading that effectively said 'there are a lot of arguments to be made against what you're reading here' would have been refreshing and motivating.
The problem is, as has been pointed out, there is no argument. ID does not propose an adequate model of what occurred to start life or keep it moving. ID proponents find it impossible to get published in peer reviewed journals because they do not do science. They have a difference of opinion with a set of facts, and they want that difference of opinion to be recognized institutionally. That's just insane. The burden of proof is on them, and not on science, which has already proven evolution. The wikipedia article on ID is actually quite good as an overview, and has clearly been hashed out over some time.
So, when we see that there is no substance to the ID claims, what are we left with? Religion. It seems as clear as day that religious fundamentalism is the force behind ID, that it is dressed up creationism. I'm not sure why there is any debate on this point. You might want to debate whether or not that is ok, something that ID proponents are unwilling to do because they are disingenuous, but that ID=creationism seems perfectly clear to any reading.
There is an interesting parallel here (and I really am not going Godwin) with Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers like to call themselves 'revisionists' because they know that to call themselves deniers sounds awful, as it should. But when they get other people calling them revisionists it ends up granting them a legitimacy that they know they don't have in the first place, because if they did they would call themselves deniers and anti-semites. They also use the same kind of coded language, language that everyone knows means that they think the Holocaust did not happen, but which is carefully constructed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. ID is the same. They know they cannot call themselves creationists, they know we all know what they're talking about, they try to force us to give them legitimacy by using their language instead of ours.
Finally, here's a good little essay from last weeks NYT Magazine about why the designer would have had to have been less than intelligent.
posted by OmieWise at 5:57 AM on February 25, 2005
The problem is, as has been pointed out, there is no argument. ID does not propose an adequate model of what occurred to start life or keep it moving. ID proponents find it impossible to get published in peer reviewed journals because they do not do science. They have a difference of opinion with a set of facts, and they want that difference of opinion to be recognized institutionally. That's just insane. The burden of proof is on them, and not on science, which has already proven evolution. The wikipedia article on ID is actually quite good as an overview, and has clearly been hashed out over some time.
So, when we see that there is no substance to the ID claims, what are we left with? Religion. It seems as clear as day that religious fundamentalism is the force behind ID, that it is dressed up creationism. I'm not sure why there is any debate on this point. You might want to debate whether or not that is ok, something that ID proponents are unwilling to do because they are disingenuous, but that ID=creationism seems perfectly clear to any reading.
There is an interesting parallel here (and I really am not going Godwin) with Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers like to call themselves 'revisionists' because they know that to call themselves deniers sounds awful, as it should. But when they get other people calling them revisionists it ends up granting them a legitimacy that they know they don't have in the first place, because if they did they would call themselves deniers and anti-semites. They also use the same kind of coded language, language that everyone knows means that they think the Holocaust did not happen, but which is carefully constructed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. ID is the same. They know they cannot call themselves creationists, they know we all know what they're talking about, they try to force us to give them legitimacy by using their language instead of ours.
Finally, here's a good little essay from last weeks NYT Magazine about why the designer would have had to have been less than intelligent.
posted by OmieWise at 5:57 AM on February 25, 2005
Oh, and bingo, don't confuse willful ignorance with some kind of stick it to the man attitude. They don't want inquiring minds, they want more and more docile ones.
posted by OmieWise at 5:58 AM on February 25, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 5:58 AM on February 25, 2005
I don't know beans about nucleotide sequences, but isn't the following sentence just logically wrong?
posted by Bugbread at 7:01 AM on February 25, 2005
the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is not dictated by any known chemical or physical lawWouldn't you have to know what dictated the order in order to state it wasn't any known chemical or physical law? Even as a non-scientist, it seems that the underlying concept, if phrased correctly, would be more like:
Whether any known chemical or physical laws, and if so which laws, determine the order of the nucleotide sequences within the gene is unknownPersonally, of course, I'm absolutely convinced that it is defined by chemical or physical laws. But I'm not talking about my beliefs here. Even from a purely objective standpoint, isn't the original sentence just plain incorrect?
posted by Bugbread at 7:01 AM on February 25, 2005
bugbread, I'm frankly confused about what that statement even means. It seems like they're saying that it's not known why the gene for, say, blue eyes is AACCTTGG (or whatever it actually is). But if that's what they're getting at, it's patently false. The sequence determines the order of amino acids in a protein, which will then in turn influence the folding and function of that protein, which will down the line give you blue eyes. All of that is pretty thoroughly elucidated, so I can't imagine that the statement is anything other than disingenuous. I imagine it's just a nonsensical statement calculated to intimidate people and lend a "scientific" air to what is essentially a religious belief.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:15 AM on February 25, 2005
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:15 AM on February 25, 2005
Knowing little about genetics (and, therefore, being in the shoes of the kids who would be reading this), I just interpreted it to be "we don't know why a given gene is arranged AACCTTGG instead of ACTGACTG". Which is silly. That's like saying "we don't know why a certain coin flip turns up heads instead of tails", or "there is no known physical or chemical law that explains the order of the cards in a randomly shuffled deck".
Again, I may be misreading it, but I suspect if I am misreading it, then I'm misreading it the way a bunch of kids would.
posted by Bugbread at 7:24 AM on February 25, 2005
Again, I may be misreading it, but I suspect if I am misreading it, then I'm misreading it the way a bunch of kids would.
posted by Bugbread at 7:24 AM on February 25, 2005
I guess I'd prefer that science teaching be based on the work of SCIENTISTS, who use this thing we call EVIDENCE and base their conclusions on deductive REASONING.
OK, I'll stop yelling. It just pains me to keep having to insist that if you want to teach science, there is a little thing called OBJECTIVITY that needs to be included in the process.
Of course scientists have biases. People do. But science also has mechanisms for allowing contradictions to be examined, thrive, and sometimes overcome the prevailing paradigm.
Religion does as well. However, religion doesn't base those changing paradigms on reason. The foundation of all religion is power and control.
posted by mooncrow at 7:32 AM on February 25, 2005
OK, I'll stop yelling. It just pains me to keep having to insist that if you want to teach science, there is a little thing called OBJECTIVITY that needs to be included in the process.
Of course scientists have biases. People do. But science also has mechanisms for allowing contradictions to be examined, thrive, and sometimes overcome the prevailing paradigm.
Religion does as well. However, religion doesn't base those changing paradigms on reason. The foundation of all religion is power and control.
posted by mooncrow at 7:32 AM on February 25, 2005
The foundation of all religion is power and control.
Either you don't know about that many religions, or you don't know what the word "all" means
posted by Bugbread at 7:46 AM on February 25, 2005
Either you don't know about that many religions, or you don't know what the word "all" means
posted by Bugbread at 7:46 AM on February 25, 2005
bingo, if I may, I'd like to break your question into two parts. It seems to me that you are on the one hand suggesting that it would be a good idea to teach kids something about how to question science and about where the current debates are. The second part of your question is whether these proposed changes in fact achieve that goal.
I'm in agreement with you on the first part. However, these proposed changes are an attempt to teach kids that there is disagreement where none exists, and that will not in any way help kids develop critical thinking skills.
What I found most disturbing was the attempt to discredit science as a whole. By suggesting that science is "just another belief system" one distorts the type of belief system that science is. It is a fundamentally disprovable one, and therefore different from Christianity and other religions that I am aware of. (although not better than: they serve different purposes and needs)
From page 4
The current definition of science is intended to reflect a concept called methodological naturalism, which irrefutably assumes that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid. ... In effect, this “method” is actually a doctrine because its key tenets or “assumptions” are not refutable and are not generally disclosed.
In fact, the cause-and-effect law is refutable. All one has to do to refute it is show a cause that precedes an effect. Obviously this would be difficult in the natural world, but what is important here is that we know what would disprove the assumption, even if we think that it would never happen. If it did happen, we would be able to recognize it.
Critical thinking is an important skill that should be taught in school. The distortions and logical fallacies in the proposed changes do not support, and are in fact opposed to, the nuturing of critical thinking skills.
posted by carmen at 8:14 AM on February 25, 2005
I'm in agreement with you on the first part. However, these proposed changes are an attempt to teach kids that there is disagreement where none exists, and that will not in any way help kids develop critical thinking skills.
What I found most disturbing was the attempt to discredit science as a whole. By suggesting that science is "just another belief system" one distorts the type of belief system that science is. It is a fundamentally disprovable one, and therefore different from Christianity and other religions that I am aware of. (although not better than: they serve different purposes and needs)
From page 4
The current definition of science is intended to reflect a concept called methodological naturalism, which irrefutably assumes that cause-and-effect laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid. ... In effect, this “method” is actually a doctrine because its key tenets or “assumptions” are not refutable and are not generally disclosed.
In fact, the cause-and-effect law is refutable. All one has to do to refute it is show a cause that precedes an effect. Obviously this would be difficult in the natural world, but what is important here is that we know what would disprove the assumption, even if we think that it would never happen. If it did happen, we would be able to recognize it.
Critical thinking is an important skill that should be taught in school. The distortions and logical fallacies in the proposed changes do not support, and are in fact opposed to, the nuturing of critical thinking skills.
posted by carmen at 8:14 AM on February 25, 2005
I cringe when I hear someone say they believe in evolution. Just try to picture anyone saying they believe in gravity, and you might understand why. It's not about belief or support or acceptance, it's about understanding.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:27 AM on February 25, 2005
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:27 AM on February 25, 2005
Everything should be questioned. And that's exactly what the scientific process is for. Simply accepting whatever scientists say as truth isn't scientific at all, it's another kind of faith. Listening to their theories and seeing if they hold up to scrutiny, however, will give you the "reasoned and informed" worldview these people are going on about.
They're not trying to promote the scientific process. They're selectively applying it to further their agenda. Combining good arguments with bad ones so as to fool you into swallowing both. Y'know, like Satan does.
posted by squidlarkin at 8:59 AM on February 25, 2005
They're not trying to promote the scientific process. They're selectively applying it to further their agenda. Combining good arguments with bad ones so as to fool you into swallowing both. Y'know, like Satan does.
posted by squidlarkin at 8:59 AM on February 25, 2005
The Bible and modern positivism-- that is, the sort of thing people are subscribing to when they believe that science is the only foundation of rational certainty about anything-- have fundamentally different positions on the basis of knowledge.
Perhaps, instead of wrangling about what to tell kids about the beginning of the world in schools, we could tell them the truth: we really don't know. Some people over here believe that the creator of the universe told them about it; some people over there believe that they can extend small-scale experiments broadly until they apply to the whole of eternity by assuming the uniformity of processes. Frankly, I have more problems with the latter, but this isn't a question for public school students.
Shouldn't we be teaching them, oh, say, history? Or maybe English? Or (heaven forbid!) maybe a foreign language? This strikes me as an easy debate to resolve. Everybody, put down your weapons and go home. Stop talking about the beginning of the world in schools.
posted by koeselitz at 9:14 AM on February 25, 2005
Perhaps, instead of wrangling about what to tell kids about the beginning of the world in schools, we could tell them the truth: we really don't know. Some people over here believe that the creator of the universe told them about it; some people over there believe that they can extend small-scale experiments broadly until they apply to the whole of eternity by assuming the uniformity of processes. Frankly, I have more problems with the latter, but this isn't a question for public school students.
Shouldn't we be teaching them, oh, say, history? Or maybe English? Or (heaven forbid!) maybe a foreign language? This strikes me as an easy debate to resolve. Everybody, put down your weapons and go home. Stop talking about the beginning of the world in schools.
posted by koeselitz at 9:14 AM on February 25, 2005
Shouldn't we be teaching them, oh, say, history?
Some people over here believe that France had a revolution in 1789 during which they killed their king. Some people over there believe, because the creator of the universe told them so, that France has been a republic ever since its founding in 238 BC by Rufus T. Firefly, and that it has insisted on this fiction only to make its long, boring history (which focused primarily on the development of advanced accounting techniques) seem more interesting in an attempt to attract more tourists.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:38 AM on February 25, 2005
Some people over here believe that France had a revolution in 1789 during which they killed their king. Some people over there believe, because the creator of the universe told them so, that France has been a republic ever since its founding in 238 BC by Rufus T. Firefly, and that it has insisted on this fiction only to make its long, boring history (which focused primarily on the development of advanced accounting techniques) seem more interesting in an attempt to attract more tourists.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:38 AM on February 25, 2005
Stop talking about the beginning of the world in schools.
Or what people are and how they came into existence. Sure.
Or, hey, we could flip the coin. What about if we just stop teaching what people do, and what they've brought into existence? We could study geology, botany, zoology, physics, mathematics, and the like, and skip languages, history, psychology, music, art, and the like.
I mean, if we're abandoning one entire side of humanity, might as well make it "what we do" instead of "what we are".
posted by Bugbread at 10:05 AM on February 25, 2005
Or what people are and how they came into existence. Sure.
Or, hey, we could flip the coin. What about if we just stop teaching what people do, and what they've brought into existence? We could study geology, botany, zoology, physics, mathematics, and the like, and skip languages, history, psychology, music, art, and the like.
I mean, if we're abandoning one entire side of humanity, might as well make it "what we do" instead of "what we are".
posted by Bugbread at 10:05 AM on February 25, 2005
Kansas, striding boldy into the 19th century.
Why is the USA so regressive these days? Here we have a global community where even jungle revolutionaries are, f'rinstance, recognizing that gay people fall in love and want to get married, while the USA focuses on getting rid of such freedoms.
It's an ugly thing, watching a country self-disintegrate.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:51 AM on February 25, 2005
Why is the USA so regressive these days? Here we have a global community where even jungle revolutionaries are, f'rinstance, recognizing that gay people fall in love and want to get married, while the USA focuses on getting rid of such freedoms.
It's an ugly thing, watching a country self-disintegrate.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:51 AM on February 25, 2005
koeslitz: Perhaps, instead of wrangling about what to tell kids about the beginning of the world in schools, we could tell them the truth: we really don't know. Some people over here believe that the creator of the universe told them about it; some people over there believe that they can extend small-scale experiments broadly until they apply to the whole of eternity by assuming the uniformity of processes. Frankly, I have more problems with the latter, but this isn't a question for public school students.
The problem is evolution seems to be given a special case of doubt in education. There is more evidence supporting evolution than to support the "fact" that Hitler killed himself in a bunker. There is more evidence supporting evolution than to support the "fact" of "13 colonies" (it's a matter of semantics). There is more evidence supporting evolution than there is to support large chunks of the history of the Roman Empire. There is more evidence supporting evolution than the existence of Pluto. There is as much evidence to support Evolution as there is to support the current model of atomic structure.
And yet, we teach as a fact: Hitler killed himself, there were 13 American Colonies, Anthony and Cleopatra, Pluto, and electrons dancing around protons.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:22 PM on February 25, 2005
The problem is evolution seems to be given a special case of doubt in education. There is more evidence supporting evolution than to support the "fact" that Hitler killed himself in a bunker. There is more evidence supporting evolution than to support the "fact" of "13 colonies" (it's a matter of semantics). There is more evidence supporting evolution than there is to support large chunks of the history of the Roman Empire. There is more evidence supporting evolution than the existence of Pluto. There is as much evidence to support Evolution as there is to support the current model of atomic structure.
And yet, we teach as a fact: Hitler killed himself, there were 13 American Colonies, Anthony and Cleopatra, Pluto, and electrons dancing around protons.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:22 PM on February 25, 2005
Right on, KirkJobSluder. All there is in science is theory. And all models are wrong (both the scientific and religious kinds), but some are useful. Science proposes models, and when they fail to be useful, they are upgraded or discarded for better ones. Religion postulates models and attempts to make them stick regardless of any evidence. Take your pick, but I want my kids to learn the scientific kind and let the zealots teach their kids the religious kind.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:33 PM on February 25, 2005
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:33 PM on February 25, 2005
Shouldn't we be teaching them, oh, say, history? Or maybe English? Or (heaven forbid!) maybe a foreign language?
Evolution by natural selection is the central coherent guiding principle in the modern biological sciences. To teach biology without evolution would be akin to teaching chemistry without describing the nature of the chemical bond. Do you think that the natural sciences should not be taught?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:38 PM on February 25, 2005
Evolution by natural selection is the central coherent guiding principle in the modern biological sciences. To teach biology without evolution would be akin to teaching chemistry without describing the nature of the chemical bond. Do you think that the natural sciences should not be taught?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:38 PM on February 25, 2005
""We have kids killing kids because they think they're just a bunch of people descended from monkeys, with no one to answer to," he said. "If I took a bunch of guns to the zoo and handed them out to the monkeys, we'd have a bunch of dead monkeys. My problem is not with guns. My problem is with calling my kids monkeys."
"
Sigh...
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:22 PM on February 25, 2005
"
Sigh...
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:22 PM on February 25, 2005
Well, hey, that's simple, then. We can win this guy over by simply promising, "The theory of evolution does not state that humans are monkeys, so teachers promise not to call your children monkeys."
posted by Bugbread at 3:44 AM on February 26, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 3:44 AM on February 26, 2005
I like your posting style, bingo, but I feel compelled to say... ah forget it.
posted by dfowler at 6:56 AM on March 23, 2005
posted by dfowler at 6:56 AM on March 23, 2005
« Older Metafilterfilterfilter | Evil's in the EYES ... The EYES Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bingo at 4:42 PM on February 24, 2005