LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  April 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE April 2005

Subject:

Re: Intelligent Design, Unintelligent Me

From:

John Landon <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:00:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (184 lines)

I was one of those four hundred and actually got a nice reply from Mathews.

The issue of letting open discussion into the classroom is beyond
reproach, but the problem is that evolution/ID was never about opening
minds, on any side of the aisle.
Education is a means to kidnap the minds of small children and fix
them Jesuit style as young as possible. The current 'debate' is
between the two candidates with large enough market share to be in the
Ad Wars at all. None other need apply.
If open discussion is wanted, why not introduce Buddhist thought as an
introduction to the evolutionary psychologies of the ancient yogas
(hopefully without_ their_ propaganda.
Why not introduce the history of Higher Criticism, on the one hand,
and the _secular_ history of Darwin criticism (which the ID people
mostly ripped off, starting with Denton's Evolution: A theory in
Crisis).
They could even introduce Spinoza, as a way to mediate current
confused ideas about divinity, and bring a materialist touch to God
talk.
Top that off with Hegel's version of what he ripped off from Spinoza.
Hegel by the way resembles Dembski. How? Threatened by the austere
strictures of Kant against rational theology, a way had to be found to
counterattack and put Protestantism back in the picture with an
Absolute Science that would do to Newton what Dembski wants to do with
Darwin.
But then again, fairness would at this point require bringing that
dreadful anti-hegelian, Karl Marx. He should go over well in Ann
Coulter territory.

So let's be fair.
You know, if biologists were actually open they would have brought
some secular Darwin critiques into biology quite a while ago. A book
like Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection, or the Wistar institute
symposium, or Koestler, or Lovtrup, or Robert Reid. Failure to present
a self-critique has handed the football to the religious right wing,
who most certainly don't have any intention of granting anyone else
any objectivity.

In fact Darwinian biology is unique in making intelligent students
completely stupid about evolution. Parrots with high IQ.
There is still time and plenty of opportunity to remedy this situation
and fight off the ID assault, but that would require intelligent
self-critique, and the paradigm is now too woefully hegemonic for
that.

On Apr 9, 2005 1:44 PM, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27793-2005Apr5.html?nav=hcmodule
>
> Intelligent Design, Unintelligent Me
>
> By Jay Mathews
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, April 5, 2005; 12:15 PM
>
> I was one of those blissfully nerdy kids who fell in love with dinosaurs in
> the fourth grade and never outgrew it. In adulthood, people like me go to
> natural history museums, see Steven Spielberg movies and read the essays of
> the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. That is usually enough to keep us
> happy.
>
> But a couple of weeks ago I saw a chance to take my amateurish grasp of the
> history of life a bit further. I persuaded the editor of The Post's
> editorial pages to publish an op-ed piece of mine called "Who's Afraid of
> Intelligent Design?"
> [<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58465-2005Mar22.html>]
>
> My inspiration was a front-page story by The Post's Chicago bureau chief,
> Peter Slevin.
> [<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html>]
> He described the Intelligent Design movement, a group of apparently serious
> scientists who are doing research on what they see as flaws in standard
> evolutionary theory. They appear to think that some organisms are too
> complex to have been the result of random chance and natural selection, and
> they think they can prove it. I was surprised to learn that unlike the
> Creationists, the Bible fundamentalists who accept Genesis literally, the
> Intelligent Design (ID) folks agree with Darwin that the story of life is
> hundreds of millions of years long, and that chimpanzees and humans share an
> ancestor a few million years back. It is the earliest parts of the story,
> particularly the notion that life could emerge from non-living chemicals on
> an early, sterile earth, that the Intelligent Design folk think are on
> particularly shaky ground.
>
> As I read Slevin's story I thought: what an exciting science lesson! The ID
> researchers seemed to be grasping at gaps in the fossil record, rather than
> seeing the irresistible Darwinist logic of what scientists have discovered.
> But comparing their arguments to Darwin's was, I thought, a wonderful way to
> teach Darwin. I could not understand why important educators and scientists
> were spending money on lawyers to keep ID out of the classroom. In my op-ed
> I said we ought to let ID be explained to students so that they could
> understand how it defied the scientific method, just as the flaws of
> perpetual motion theory, I said, should be a part of a physics course and
> the fallacies of the Steady-State theory should be part of an astronomy
> course.
>
> For me and many other students, biology as it is usually taught, one
> complicated fact or term after another, is deadly dull. Introducing a little
> debate would excite teenagers, just as the attacks on conventional wisdom
> launched by my favorite high school history teacher, Al Ladendorff, always
> got me walking fast to that class so I wouldn't miss anything.
>
> Well, the minute the op-ed appeared the e-mails started popping up on my
> computer, right under the coconut ape with a ball and bat that sits atop my
> IBM. At last count there were about 400 of them. Most said they had the
> unfortunate duty to tell me that I was an idiot.
>
> Daniel Kohn of Mountain View, Calif., said he was "extremely disheartened by
> the ignorance you displayed in your commentary on Intelligent Design."
> Christian Iffrig of Arlington said, "Like most imbecilic do-gooders, you
> think it's about creating a forum for intellectual discussion -- give and
> take. You think they'd accord the same respect for diverse opinions? They
> have no such intentions."
>
> Some readers were kinder, but equally convinced that I did not see the
> ramifications of what I was saying. Anthony Joern, professor of biology at
> Kansas State University, asked about "that poor high school teacher who must
> deal with the religious parents of the students who were subjected to such a
> debate. What happens if you do present a fair debate and religion loses?
> What does the teacher do in Kansas when the parents clamor for revenge?"
>
> Elizabeth Lutwak said, "I would like to agree with your approach. I think
> many science teachers and their students could handle, and would benefit,
> from such a debate. Yet the ulterior motives of these groups scare me. They
> are already scaring a fair number of science teachers into not teaching
> evolution at all, making the material a mere reading assignment."
>
> Jim Wilson of Louisville, Ky., said, "If I'm reading correctly then in order
> to make classrooms more 'fun' we should consider junk science or introduce
> false information. No we shouldn't. Would you encourage denying the
> Holocaust and giving that argument any credence just because it would get
> the students more involved? Just because you personally were bored by
> biology, I don't think we should 'jazz' it up to make it fun."
>
> "Your central point is cute and democratic," said Scott Hayes, "but not
> particularly useful to a science teacher who is struggling to help overcome
> amazing data which suggests that more than half the people in this country
> believe that human beings walked the planet when dinosaurs were alive."
>
> I anticipated those reactions. I surveyed many of the best biology teachers
> I knew before I wrote the piece. Not one of them thought my idea would work.
> I mentioned two of them in the op-ed. Based on that very negative reaction,
> I assumed that if the idea had any merit at all, it would only be in some
> future age, when our big-brained, metal-bodied descendants would celebrate
> my meager effort as an interesting example of early 21st century off-color
> humor. Or something like that.
>
> But instead, I was stunned to discover that many e-mailers (a generous
> estimate would be about 30 percent) agreed with me, and they had had the
> same idea long before I did. "I, like you, am a strong believer in Darwinism
> and, also like you, think that critical debate should be injected into the
> classroom whenever possible," said Jennifer Skulte-Ouaiss, a Washington,
> D.C., senior research analyst who just earned a doctorate in political
> science.
>
> Brian Arneson, who works in the Chemical Education Group at the University
> of Texas, said, "Our entire school curriculum is devoid of intelligent
> debate, especially in science. Our students lack the basic ideas of what
> makes a credible claim and how to defend their position with experimentally
> derived evidence."
>
> "You are right," said Norman Ravitch of Savannah, Ga. "Nothing is taught in
> a more boring fashion than science. All is memorization. What you suggest,
> reading different theories, I did in college on my own in a biology class
> and it was wonderful."
>
> So I felt better. There were so many e-mails that I was forced to respond to
> each with very terse comments, but I was grateful for each one. I don't
> think I will be making any more attempts to offer my ill-informed views on
> evolution, but there is something I am curious about.
>
> I have received very few e-mails from actual high school biology teachers
> who have ever tried introducing the debate to their classes. I suspect some
> are doing this quietly to avoid the kind of religious eruption that readers
> told me was inevitable.
> Is there anyone out there trusting their high school students to handle
> these contradictions and using them to better explain how science works?
> Tell me about it. I still have a lot to learn.


--
John Landon
http://eonix.8m.com
Darwiniana: evolution blog
eonix.8m.com/darwiniana.htm

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager