Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists

Reed wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Reed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would appreciate comments on the following proposal. As background
>>>you should know that I am credentialed philosopher, an evolutionist,
>>>and an atheist.
>>>
>>>I would like to suggest the following practical strategy to counter the
>>>anti-evolutionists' call for equal time in the science classroom:
>>>
>>>When a school board presses for equal time, the evolutionists should
>>>agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the
>>>curriculum specifically devoted to the creationism-evolution issue.
>>>This kind of course is well within the power of school boards to
>>>implement. Moreover the Europeans routinely give philosophy courses in
>>>high school. IMHO, a philosophy of science course of this sort will be
>>>far more interesting and educationally relevant for students than the
>>>typical long dead white male course. Ideally the course will be jointly
>>>taught by both a proponent of ID and of evolution. As you know, we have
>>>lots of good, accessible material already developed on our side. In
>>>fact, this might be an excellent opportunity for NCSE (National Center
>>>for Science Education) to market it's own textbook on the subject. (Or
>>>jointly market it with the Discovery Institute.) Imagine if this course
>>>became standard nationwide! NCSE should start a national campaign for
>>>"equal time" on this basis.
>>>
>>>This approach has many advantages:
>>>
>>>1. It puts NCSE and evolutionists on the offensive - in the politically
>>>advantageous position of being in favor of "equal time", which as you
>>>know is popular with the public . It is potentially economically and
>>>politically advantageous for NCSE and other pro-evolution
>>>organizations.
>>>
>>>2. It keeps ID and creationism out of the science classroom, and
>>>defuses that issue.
>>>
>>>3. It avoids the First Amendment issues. The course has an obvious
>>>secular purpose. It hopefully would bypass the need for endless
>>>litigation before an increasingly conservative court system.
>>>
>>>4. It allows us to frame the issues in broad historical context: we
>>>start with young earth creationism as a scientific theory, and end with
>>>ID.
>>>
>>>5. It allows us to present Darwin's argument in its original form: as
>>>an extended comparison of how the theory of evolution via natural
>>>selection matches against the Biblical theory of special creation in
>>>light of detailed empirical observation.
>>>
>>>6. There is a good chance that in most cases students will be properly
>>>taught, and the cause of science education and evolution theory will be
>>>advanced. Moreover I think that, in general, students will find this
>>>course among the most interesting in their curriculum.
>>>
>>>7. It is also a much needed opportunity to introduce philosophy into
>>>the high school curriculum. In the course of public policy, we all do
>>>philosophy - most of the debate between evolutionists and
>>>anti-evolutionists is philosophy of science rather than science itself.
>>>So we all do philosophy, the only question is, do we do it
>>>self-consciously and well, or do we do it poorly, typically lapsing
>>>into semantic confusion, talking past one another.
>>
>>Disadvantages:
>>
>>1. It probably still is unconstitutional, as long as it includes
>>advocacy of a particular religious position. And I really don't see how
>>you can teach ID (particularly when done by an ID advocate) without
>>doing this.
>
>
> Thanks for your feedback. Teaching philosophy of religion (which I
> have done at an (American) state university) is not considered advocacy
> of religion: you discuss the various arguments for the existence of
> God and the problem of evil, etc., as well as the strengths and
> weaknesses of these arguments. In France, where I am currently living,
> the public schools routinely teach a course on the Bible in primary
> school - including learning the main Bible stories. This is done
> because any well-educated Westerner must have a basic understanding of
> the Bible in order to understand much of Western art, literature, and
> culture. Note that France is far more radically secular in government
> than the US: students and teachers can not wear crosses, headscarves,
> or any other obvious religious symbols. I have taught a philosophy of
> science course in which I invited another professor, an ID proponent,
> to present his arguments. It was all very polite, professional, and
> interesting for the students. While it is no doubt pretty clear to
> students where I stand, I never announce my stance - I just concentrate
> on the arguments for and against, as objectively and persuasively as
> possible. In general, I assume that the positions and people I
> disagree with have rational reasons and motivations, and I strive to
> present their positions accordingly. If my proposed high school
> philosophy course is tied to an approved curriculum and textbook, the
> discourse will be structured to avoid the avocacy issue. Discussing
> ID along side of evolution will be no more of an advocacy for either
> side than discussing marxism along side of free market capitalism.

Since you have suggested that the class be taught partly by ID
advocates, I can't see what you say above as a model for what you were
talking about previously.

>>2. It costs money to develop a new course, and to pay the new teachers.
>
> The point of my proposal is to shift the focus of the debate from the
> evidential detail, e.g. whether or not the fossil record supports the
> theory of evolution, etc. to the fact that the heart of the issue is
> philosophical, and not empirical at all: slides about the complexity of
> the blood clotting cascade are really a side issue. Deliberately frame
> the main issue as philosophical: the IDers are claiming that
> evolutionary science is biased and bad; whereas evolutionary scientists
> are making the same charge against the IDers. The issue of what counts
> as good science or pseudoscience is a philosophical issue beyond the
> competence of this schoolboard to decide. The proposal is to compromise
> and allow inschool discussion of the issue on these terms. If we can
> then shift the discussion of the board meeting to the issues of finding
> a space in the curriculum, finance, and who will teach such a course -
> our side has won a great victory. Yes these are difficult questions -
> but our side can always come up with serious proposals. Keep in mind
> that philosophy and theory of knowledge courses are standards of the
> curriculum in most European programs and all International
> Baccalaureate programs. The proposal is intended to put the other side
> on the defensive and defuse the charge that our side is against
> fairness.

All that work to defuse the "fairness" issue? I don't see the point.
Better any increased funds should be spent on improving the teaching of
science. The fairness issue is bogus, and it doesn't take an entire
course to demonstrate that. Further, the reasons it's bogus, and the
reasons ID is pseudoscience, rely entirely on the empirical facts. You
can't divorce the discussion from them. In fact to do so is to
surrender. The fairness issue relies on a perception that the facts
support ID creationism just as well as they support evolution.
Substitute "flat earth" for "ID" in any fairness-related sentence and
see how people like it, if you doubt that perception of empirical
support is the important question.

>>3. It takes time away from legitimate classes. What are you going to
>>cancel in order to make room in the curriculum?
>
> As mentioned above, this can all be discussed, including the option of
> making the course an elective. A big part of the problem here is that
> you obviously don't see a philosophy of science course as "legitimate",
> whereas I have the view that it is as legitimate as any higher math or
> advanced science course. And, as I have already mentioned, school
> systems think that philosophy should be a required subject.

I actually don't see a philosophy of science course as useful at the
high school level. But if there were such a course, basing it around ID
vs. evolution would be perverse.

>>4. If this really were a fair examination of the subject, the
>>creationists would never let it get off the ground. You think they want
>>their kids actually thinking about their beliefs?
>
> In my experience, which is considerable, IDers sincerely believe that
> they have reason and Truth on their side. They are eager for public
> debate, and, in terms of who they do or do not persuade, generally do
> pretty well. They are publicly committed to the position that reason
> and fairness favor their side - they will have to publicly act
> accordingly or risk public hypocrisy. They are wrong, however. I'm
> willing to bet that reason and fairness favors our side in the forum I
> am proposing.

In my experience, which is also considerable, IDers are capable of the
most amazing doublethink. They can be egregiously dishonest while all
the while knowing that Truth is on their side. But we aren't talking
about the professional or prominent IDers. We're talking about the
typical fundamentalist parent, who would howl if any class started
critically examining creationist beliefs. Unless that "critical
examination" were a creationist whitewash, of course.
>
>>>I want to return to point 3 above. It's true that most of the main
>>>movers and shakers of ID have a religious motivation and are
>>>creationists in disguise. And it's even more true that school boards
>>>are primarily motivated by a religious agenda. And perhaps those facts
>>>are sufficient on First Amendment grounds to find that sticker and
>>>equal treatment laws serve no reasonable "secular" purpose - which is a
>>>basic Constitutional test.
>>>
>>>But I think that sooner or later evolution proponents will have the
>>>face the fact that the secular purpose test is a rather flimsy basis to
>>>ban ID from the classroom. First of all, there are many cases in the US
>>>where a law was passed for primarily religious reasons, but later
>>>upheld because some secular purpose was concocted to support the law,
>>>e.g. the many blue-laws in the US banning the sale of goods on Sunday -
>>>see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law for a good history of these
>>>laws. Even though these laws were clearly primarily motivated by
>>>religious belief, courts ultimately upheld their legality.
>
>
>>>There are in fact a solid core of ID proponents who are not religious
>>>but who genuinely think that evolution is bad or questionable science -
>>>the number of such proponents is not inconsequential.
>>
>>I would like to see some evidence for this assertion.
>
> Unfortunately I can't cite stats here. I can only say that over years
> of engaging this issue, I've encountered a number of bright, reasonable
> people who are atheists, but they simply can't buy the claim that
> genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection alone accounts for the
> diversity and complexity they observe. It's not that they conclude,
> therefore God or aliens did it, they just think there is a missing
> mechanism or piece of the puzzle that will make more sense of all. I
> have one friend who is a highly sophisticated programmer that has spend
> a great deal of time on trying to get genetic algorithms to do anything
> very interesting. He says it was that experience more than anything
> else that convinced him something was missing.

All very nice, but that doesn't seem to have anything with ID, per se.
Unless that missing element is identified with god, or at least with an
intelligent power of some kind.

> Science fiction writer
> James Hogan is another of these. See
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743488288/ref%3Dnosim/rds-20/103-1942552-8266209
> There are I think also a considerable number of intelligent people who
> are theists, but not terribly religious, but who find a similar
> weakness to evolutionary science. Don't get me wrong: I disagree with
> these people - but their reservations are not stupid or irrational.

Hogan, unfortunately, is a severe nut case. I'm not claiming that he's
stupid. But I do think that "irrational" fits him to a tee. He's willing
to accept the most bizarre speculations as fact if they are attractive
to him, yet his standards of proof for mainstream science are absurdly high.

At any rate, one SF writer and one guy you know do not constitute a
"solid core of ID proponents". All the major figures in ID are committed
conservative Christians, and that's not coincidental. *That's* your
solid core.

>>>Also IDers are
>>>well-organized, well-funded, and have increasing political clout.
>>>Moreover, they are working very hard to present ID as a purely secular
>>>hypothesis. We simply cannot count on courts continuing to rule against
>>>ID on purely First Amendment grounds. Whether its blue laws or "In God
>>>we Trust" on our bills - I simply have no great confidence that the
>>>courts won't eventually find some semblance of a secular purpose to
>>>justify anti-evolution laws. In the end we must justify banning ID from
>>>the science classroom for the same reasons that we ban giving equal
>>>time to the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS, the holocaust denial,
>>>or the moon landing hoax. All of these views have people with PhDs or
>>>some other degree supporting them, yet none have anything to do with
>>>religion or First Amendment issues.
>>
>>That reason has also been used as an argument. But using it would
>>invalidate your course, wouldn't it? Or do you want another course
>>featuring equal treatment of HIV denial, holocaust denial, and moon
>>landing denial, team taught by believers?
>
> That's a good point, but I think as a practical matter, these other
> groups simply don't have the clout or votes to get their material
> considered in a school board meeting - they are welcome to try.
> Besides, I think it's a good idea to consider such material in a theory
> of knowledge course anyway.

Now you're getting into quite another course. If the course is merely
using ID as one of many examples in an investigation of how we know what
we know, or of the difference between science and pseudoscience, you
might have something (though not something that's politically feasible).
But we wouldn't expect all the believers in this stuff to be summoned
into the classroom to teach their ideas, which is what you were
proposing originally.

Anyway, it doesn't address the main problem, which is that evolution is
poorly taught. It might help to have a course in critical thinking,
though I suspect that too might be poorly taught. Any course in critical
thinking taught by a creationist would be a disaster. It appears that
Michael Behe himself taught a course something like that, and from
reading his brief account it does indeed seem to have been a disaster.
Improvement in science education should be the goal. Your course, if
taught properly, would not defuse public unrest; it would increase the
pressure, and the like response would be to be sure that the course was
not properly taught. What you are proposing would turn out to be a
victory for "teach the controversy".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... > agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the ... philosophy class or religious studies would be appropriate. ... teaching ID and evolution away from the science class. ... host of other issues to do with religion including where we might all ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... Teaching philosophy of religion (which I ... the ID proponents are proposing to introduce in US schools, in the science ... you cannot present it alongside evolution as ID in a comparitive fashion as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... > philosophy in the US, ... > evolution and rejecting ID as good science. ... > evolution simply because it is overwhelmingly the stronger position. ... And it's even more true that school boards ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... >> agree and then press for adding a philosophy of science course to the ... a philosophy of science course of this sort will be ... >> taught by both a proponent of ID and of evolution. ... but our side can always come up with serious proposals. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
    ... > proposing an intelligence behind the origins and development of life ... science: any proposal that is to be considered scientific must be ... > which evolution scientists find themselves today: ... > destroyed by the counter evidence. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)