"Teach the Controversy!" Facepalm*

[bennyboy]

The idea of a jury is that a person's issues are decided by his peers. The peers of scientists are other scientists, and they are settling their issues constantly in the court of periodicals, journals and papers.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In the end, Scopes was found guilty of violating the official policy of not teaching evolution. Nothing was confirmed with regard to whether evolution was valid or creationism was the 'truth'.

[RoadRunner79]

[Tonus]

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.

[ApeNotKillApe]

If there was a valid case against evolution, then evolution would not be taught in the classroom.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

By this point we're in the refinement stage, where if something turns out to be incorrect we would adjust the theory to account for that. The whole theory of evolution is unlikely to be tossed out, it's too robust.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

---

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.

[Tonus]

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.

Students would be taught evolution as part of a biology course. If you are teaching science, you do not only inform students of the "what" of evolution. You explain the "how" so that they will understand the "why." A biology major should understand evolution on his own and know how to research and test it, or he's not doing science.

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.

Are you claiming that the theory of evolution is not the result of the application of the scientific method, or that it has been shielded from being tested? I think it's the opposite-- because it was such a controversial theory it has undergone constant testing and refining. It forms the basis for a lot of medical research and has been strongly supported by genetics, allowing for the development of the field of phylogenetics. Which is to say that now there are more ways in which to test the theory and it continues to remain relevant.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Well there's no accounting for your inability to understand fact. Here's a site which barely scratches the surface of what evolutionary theory has predicted, and has been subsequently been found to be right.