RE: "Teach the Controversy!" Facepalm*
December 4, 2016 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2016 at 7:07 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(December 4, 2016 at 2:07 pm)Tonus Wrote:(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Do you think that if there is scientific information, which weakens the case for evolution, that it should not be taught along with the evidence for it?
But that's not how science is done. If there is "information" that challenges all or part of the theory of evolution, then it should be tested scientifically. Presumably, this information comes in the form of an observation around which a hypothesis can be formed with outcomes that can either verify or falsify it, then experiments and tests can be performed and the results outlined in articles that are submitted for peer review. Through this process, the theory might be amended, changed, or even completely replaced.
We should not just grab at pieces of "scientific information" and then "teach them along with the evidence" for evolution. If there are areas where evolution can be falsified or changed, then make observations and do the research and submit the findings for peer review. This is, IMO, the crux of the 'teach the controversy' argument-- that there is some piece of information that threatens to undermine the theory of evolution and scientists and teachers are refusing to give 'the other side' a proper place at the discussion. That's not how science is done. There are methods and mechanisms in place for changing or replacing scientific theories-- use them.
Actually, I want evolution to be taught better. I want more information provided, and the reasons for or against a particular piece of evidence to be provided.
Forgive me if I am incorrect, but it sounds like what you are saying, is that you would prefer that they are just indoctrinated with the current consensus, and not be taught how to think critically about the information. I think that this is sorely lacking in today's youth, and teach to the test is a ill-formed conception. I want them to teach more about the evidence, and give more information. I also don't think that just-so stories belong in science class.
I do think that it is lucky for evolution, that it didn't have to go through the standards you describe. And I don't think that there will be much to teach in regards to evolution, if you are consistent.
Also, I meant to post a note; before the thread got resurrected from the dead, but if your post consists of little more than attacking the person (intelligence), attacking the origin of an argument, appeal to motives, or other such fallacies they will be largely ignored.
(December 4, 2016 at 2:31 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Do you think that if there is scientific information, which weakens the case for evolution, that it should not be taught along with the evidence for it?
If there is "scientific information" which disproves evolutionary theory (evolution as a phenomenon has been observed in the wild and in the lab and is not indoubt), then the theory of evolution will be discarded and a newer more accurate theory formulated. That is how science works, though as we have no valid observations or predictions which contradict evolutionary theory currently it is a moot point.
I don't have any contentions about what has been observed in the field or in the lab, in regards to evolution. I don't think the predictions, models, and evidence (from which inferences are made) are as strong as is often made out however.
