June 27, 2008

Louisiana Law Urges 'Critical Thinking' About Evolution

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has signed into law a bill that would urge public schools in the state to foster “critical thinking” about evolution, global warming, and other topics, according to the Associated Press.

Opponents have called the bill a way to inject discussion of intelligent design into public-school science classes. As a college student, Mr. Jindal majored in biology at Brown University, and he was lobbied by one of his former professors to veto the bill. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. i would laugh @ this sham law if it were not so serious…ever since Dr. J.L. Cabell M.D. wrote “The Testimony of Modern Science to the Unity of Mankind: specific unity and common origin of all the varieties of man” way back in 1859 certain post-Reformation churches have been beating this issue to death…the three main Christian religions: Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, have allowed evolution to be accepted…science is in the realm of science, and religion is in the realm of religion…but these new laws are pretty scary…back to FlatEarth worship…and the religions pushing this “fundamentalist viewpoint” are the Protestant versions that usually are on the margins, and are looking for an issue…what are the issues??? actually two or three main points: Humanity cannot be a branch arising from Apes, science bad, and their religion should be allowed not only in the schools, but in the workplace…what is causing all this trouble…by granting 501-3C status to all these hardcore groups we are germinating and blooming this sort of thing…take away their tax free status and most will crumble overnight along with their hatred of science…remember this is the same sort of religious fundamentalists that just a few years ago screamed to the world that “USA never went to the Moon.” That it was all staged in Hollywood…my point is the Government Schools (Public) are bad enough as is…a little reason is needed here folks…

   — straighttalk    Jun 30, 06:29 AM    #

2. Just wondering – does this law allow for critical thinking about creationism in the classroom?

   — Robert Entenmann    Jun 30, 07:01 AM    #

3. It sure does, Robert! I take laws like this, written to try to avoid the appearance of benightedness, to produce the opposite of their intended effects. “Critical Thinking” about evolution should mean a patient examination of its premises and analysis of the arguments against it. Which is, of course, what we do anyway. But for good measure, I will henceforth include in my courses (in philosophy, not biology) at least a week’s worth of discussion of the “design argument.” It really only takes a few days—hours, even—to unmask it in its silliness.

   I would love to see the legislative record for its discussion of the meaning of the word “critical.”

   — bp    Jun 30, 08:25 AM    #

4. That’s a good point. Like everything else in life, this goofy law will have unintended consequences. Among these will be that, once students are compelled to think critically about evolution and all that, a certain percentage of them will see that, despite what they’ve been told by the ignorant and superstitious, evolution by natural selection in fact makes sense, fits the evidence, and conforms far better to real-world experience than does the collection of myths and magic they’ve been told to take on faith.

   After all, like the man said, “truth cannot be the enemy of truth.”

   — dan    Jun 30, 08:39 AM    #

5. I wonder why everyone is always so afraid of evolution being looked at in any way except “gospel truth”? Is there a fear that it will be exposed with all of its flaws as well? If you are true scientists, then there is no fear (as I hear in your comments) of a little light being shed on your theory. Let the truth win out without your bigoted hate speech against religion.

   — pd    Jun 30, 08:40 AM    #

6. The main effects of such laws is to make Americans the laughing-stock of the world. #2 has a very good point that the ID & Creationists will squeal bloody murder if a “critical analysis” is attempted of their crazy ideas in a classroom – particularly their sinister motives and agenda. What will probably happen is that a demand for a “critical” approach to teaching organic evolution will mean that it will not be taught at all. Teachers usually want a quiet life and ID/creationists are vicious.
   The ID & Creationist brigade really want to get rid of compulsory teaching of science in public schools. Getting rid of highschool science altogether would please them even more.
   Private fundamentalist religious schools in Australia usually opt to not teach science at all. They like it that way.
   Many forget that although Biology gets most of the flak, it is not really possible to teach modern Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry or Geology within an ID/Creationist framework.

   — Raymond J. RITCHIE    Jun 30, 08:41 AM    #

7. Critical thinking should be done about any subject: Relativity, Thermodynamics, any science. But when you use “Critical Thinking” to introduce bogus topics, like intelligent design, why stop there? Why not introduce junk nonsense like the Zodiac, Wicca, and Horoscopes? But really, junk science should not be introduced at all since it takes away from the importance of studying real science.

   — George    Jun 30, 08:43 AM    #

8. To #5: the point is that nobody is afraid of critical thinking about evolution; there’s been a lot of it for the past century and a half, and it’s as well-established a theory as the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravitation. It’s not “gospel truth” because no one dares question it; it’s accepted by scientists precisely because it stands up to the strictest criticism. And despite the organic fertilizer being spread by the ID crowd, the “controversy” regarding evolution exists not among scientists but in the desperate minds of those trying to defend the indefensible.

   Presenting ID in the biology classroom makes as much sense as presenting the humor theory of disease in med school or the phlogiston theory in chemistry or Ptolemy in astronomy or circle squaring in geometry: “Well, folks, here’s how not to do it.”

   I don’t mind if these people insist on having their mumbo jumbo for themselves and, heaven help them, their children. But they insist on trying to force the rest of us to accept it as well.

   An analogy: the Amish, whose views on theology and a number of other topics probably don’t gibe with those of mainstream society, prefer to live separate from most people. Okay. You’ll notice that they don’t try to force the rest of us to live their way.

   — dan    Jun 30, 09:43 AM    #

9. I think George (7) answered pd’s (5) query quite well. This law effectively mandates a distraction from the job at hand – teaching science. However, because of the public furor, and because some college freshmen were coming into my intro course actually buying the fundamentalist hype, aping things like “well, it’s only a theory, it isn’t proven”, I have introduced the ID discussion into my intro psychology classroom. We spend about 10 minutes discovering how, when exposed to actual critical thought, it’s worth no more than the 10 minutes it had been given to that point. This law is dangerous in several ways, not just because it wastes our time in the classroom, but also because it adds an air of legitimacy to a fraud of an argument and because I don’t trust state education leaders to actually engage in reasoned thought in the classroom. It’s a set up for the delivery of a creationist sermon in the guise of scientific thought.

   — Steve Forssell    Jun 30, 09:52 AM    #

10. Why are so many of you so afraid? Is it because of your loss of control? I thought the development of critical thinking was a primary goal of our educational system. I guess not. You remind me of the 17th century church authorities who put Galileo under house arrest for promoting the idea of heliocentrism. Quit being hypocritical, and allow the free exchange of ideas to take place. The truth will rise to the surface.

    — FB    Jun 30, 10:04 AM    #

11. I happened to have attended a Louisiana high school during a window of time when both evolution and creationism were required. The bible was never part of the lesson plan. While I don’t doubt evolution, I’m grateful to have had the discussion of multiple scientific theory because there was more of an emphasis on learning the scientific process rather than just memorizing accepted facts. Granted, I had a most excellent teacher.

    — Susan    Jun 30, 10:10 AM    #

12. FB (10): Have you not read any of the above? There are myriad reasons why this law is a bad thing. We’re not afraid of critical thought. We’re concerned that (a)critical thinking won’t actually happen, and (b) we have work to do: teaching science. This legislation impedes that goal. I discuss ID in my class in a way that helps students understand the rigor of science, perhaps in a way that Susan (11) experienced. But that is my decision to make, and frankly I’d rather have that 10 minutes back to better explain a neuron. That, and I’m doubtful that every student in Lousiana will have a teacher as excellent as Susan’s.

    — Steve Forssell    Jun 30, 10:18 AM    #

13. Let’s be careful to differentiate between intelligent design and creationism. . very easily lumped together in order to oversimplify, confuse, and lambast. One is a belief; the other does have some scientific research backing it. The bigger questions are how one really defines academic freedom and how one’s worldview determines approaches. The scientific method gets us to finding good information and has truly been revolutionary, but it and subsequently evolution has not proved complete answers as of yet.

    to get at the concern about critical thinking not happening, if the same methodology that has been used with evolution is used with any other option or hypothesis, then the process itself should deem what is complimentary, significant, insignificant, etc. Dare we say theories evolve because of reserach, let the chips fall where they may and trust the system that has been set up.

    — ja    Jun 30, 10:22 AM    #

14. I think you’re scared.

    — D3    Jun 30, 11:06 AM    #

15. JA states that “ID” has research support (I think). Oh? I have yet to see any studies or research that supports ID. Most of the “support” ID proposed has recently withered, such as the “irreducible complexity” of the bacterial flagellum; it turns out there are intermediate forms.

    — Charles Morgan    Jun 30, 11:18 AM    #

16. Susan hit the nail squarely on the head and she probably isn’t a scientist! When (some) scientists and (many) science teachers stop teaching science and evolution in particularly as if it were religion (complete with a catachism that students are regularly tested on and little else) then a lot of these difficulties and nonsense will go away. Teaching the nature and process of science and scientific thinking is as important as any of its current and is meta-knowledge that has the longest half-life as Bruner pointed out. Susan learned what science and scientific knowledge was and how it comes about, is tested, survives or is expanded or changes (Kuhn’s paeagigm cycle). It is sad that more scientists and scientce teachers have not learned this lesson and how to teach it and see that some things are a golden opportunity to do so like the philosophy prof rather than screaming and carping at the ‘sacrilige’ of it all (i.e., responding religiously) as if that is really going to impact or change students belief and understanding systems. My Dog having to teach two opposing views of something and ressolve them; what incredibly hard work and certainly not the kind of work scientists do.

    — vinnie    Jun 30, 11:25 AM    #

17. I think the oppoortunity to devote dritical thinking and discussion to both evolution and intelligent design is great! Given that at a university, the scientific method should be used as a basis for that discussion, then intelligent design will be exposed and disposed of pretty quickly.

    — Al    Jun 30, 11:48 AM    #

18. I’m sure distinguishing between intelligent design and creationism would be rewarding, like examining the distinction between predestination and foreordination.

    — dan    Jun 30, 12:03 PM    #

19. Can we also have a law mandating critical thinking about such doctrines as transubstantiation, virgin births, and the practice of reading the entrails of chickens? And given the practices of this state’s governor, is it right to expect students to think critically about exorcisms?

    — Ba'al    Jun 30, 12:54 PM    #

20. There is some valid criticism here of teachers who simply expect students to memorize “scientific facts” as if they were a catechism. However, that has nothing to do with the subject matter. It has everything to do with the fact that some people are lousy teachers — and it was ever thus. Passing a law that mandates critical thinking only for biology reveals another agenda — it is in conflict with a cosmological world view based in late antiquity that still lives on in this country.

    — Ba'al    Jun 30, 01:02 PM    #

21. What is wrong with critical thinking? If there were more critical thinkers, there would be fewer evolutionists. There is, in fact, no evidence that proves evolution. While there are ideas, many leading evolutionists contradict each others by what they believe the mechanisms are for this evolution. From the comments, it sounds like many just follow the so-called scientists and accept what they spoon out with out asking for proofs.

    The common comment from scientists is that they know evolution is a fact, they are just not sure how it happened. Does that sound scientific? What lunacy?

    By having a safeguard in place (a law mandating critical thinking) Lousiana is merely desiring scholastic honesty and not just indoctrination. Students should be taught how to think critically and not just taught what to believe.

    Most who believe in evolution believe it because they want to and they don’t want the alternative. They don’t believe because of the evidence becaise there is none. A great book to read is Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. It was written by Michael Denton. He is a world known microbiologist and evolutionist from Australia. At least he is honest when he says that there is no evidence that proves evolution. He still choses to believe it even though he admits it’s inadequacies. There are also brillant scientists who are not evolutionists and they are top people in their fields.

    Unfortunately, judging from the comments, many of you have no intention of looking at the issue critically. You, like Richard Dawkins and others, would rather make smart comments and bad mouth those who don’t believe in evolution rather than look at the glaring inadequacies of evolution that are staring you in the face.

    — Mike    Jun 30, 01:15 PM    #

22. Steve (#12),

    Yes, I absolutely have read all of the above.

    I am concerend that critical thinking in the class room is not now being taught, that rote memorization of what you and others believe is true IS being taught. What are you afraid of?

    You sound like the 17th century pope and bishops who “had work to do” teaching their version of Catholocism to the world.

    — FB    Jun 30, 01:35 PM    #

23. As an evolutionary biologist, I welcome critical thinking into the classroom. If real discussion of the merits of the theory and data is undertaken, reason will win out. My concern however is hinted at by #11. In my experience, most high school biology teachers don’t have the background and/or confidence to critically evaluate evolution theory. They tend to fall back heavily on the state approved textbooks. Therein lies the problem – politicians have a huge influence over which textbooks are chosen by a state/district.

    In an ideal world, instructors would be well qualified to critically explore the evidence for evolution. In reality, most high school teachers have had one class (if they are lucky) in evolutionary biology. That puts a greater burden on those of us that teach college biology to ensure that our students are equiped with a strong background in evolution, and that they have the confidence to impart their knowledge to others.

    — Ken    Jun 30, 01:36 PM    #

24. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned what I think is the real agenda here. Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has regularly been suggested as a running mate with Senator McCain. Isn’t his non-veto in this instance a way of adding to his appeal to the right wing which McCain is trying so hard to cultivate?

    — S.    Jun 30, 02:22 PM    #

25. I never understand the animosity toward intelligent design. My understanding of intelligent design is that it accepts the evolutionary process but sees it as the tool by which the good Lord created the living things here on earth. Essentially, that God was behind evolution, it was his method of getting the world to where it is. What is so crazy about that view, or what is it about that view that so offends some people? The odd part is that I am sure that most of the people opposed to intelligent design as a theory, are bascially good people who are also basically religious, at least in the general sense of accepting that there is a God who created all of this. Yet they feel such a need to deny any involvement of God in the evolution process. Personally, I was educated through gradeschool and high school in Catholic schools, and we were taught evolution, and that evolution is how living things evolved to where they are today. Yet we were also taught that God made the world and all living things. How come we never saw a discrepency there? We did not, and I still don’t see any discrepency. I don’t understand the burning desire to deny any hand of God in making living things what they are today.

    — Bruce    Jun 30, 02:42 PM    #

26. Steve (#12) I’m not afraid of critical thinking or honest intellectual inquiry. Scientists who are creationists are never afraid of critcal thinking. Many times that is what brought them to the position they are at today.
    I also know that critical thinking is not a part of the educational process many times. Students come out of school parroting what they have been told is fact or what is happening without ever being able to or asked to critcally considerthe facts or what is honestly known.

    In a subject such as science, the observable facts can be taught along with varying explanations for these facts. Critcal research and discussion can then ensue and students can be allowed to decide what best fits the facts and the evidence available.

    What now exists is just rote memorization of supposed truths and if students don’t give the right answers they are penalized for it. I know this because I have seen it happen. There really isn’t much room for intellectual or scientific enquiry or discussion.

    When evolutionists say that they know something is a fact but they don’t know how it happend, is that critcal thinking or scientific honesty? I don’t think so. When a student asks for evidence or proof, they are often shot down or given some response that makes no sense at all. Is this being fair to the students? No.

    A level playing field is all that is asked for.

    — Mike    Jun 30, 02:45 PM    #

27. Re: Bruce #25
    I’m not qualified to weigh in on evolution or intelligent design but recently I was listening to a Biologist on Ted Talks who taught at one of the top schools (Harvard or MIT I believe) and what struck me as a layman to all of this was he kept saying things like “but eovolution thought of this in advance” and “evolution did a really neat thing here.” He was speaking of evolution as if it were a disembodied, intelligent being of some kind. Perhaps there has to bit a bit of religion mixed in with the science in order for it to make sense.

    — AP    Jun 30, 03:12 PM    #

28. Imagine if a law was passed requiring critical thinking about religion. Almost every church would be howling. Yet there is absolutely no proof ofGod or the divinity of Jesus. None.

    On the other hand, evolution has been subjected to scientific and ciritical inquiring for almost 150 years. Every time sediments are exposed, every time a core is drilled, every time bacterium are studied, evolution is put on trial, and every time it is shown to be valid.

    I am always amazed that the same folks who doubt geological and biological science run to the doctor when they feel ill. Hey folks, it’s the same science. If you don’t believe in evolution, how can you possibly believe in medical science? The Bible is quite clear that God both causes and cures disease. No MDs in the New Testiment.

    — ed    Jun 30, 03:58 PM    #

29. I have no problem with critical thinking. I have a big problem with trying to pass off ID (and yes it IS repackaged creationism) as science.

    I would refer those who are curious to the 2005 decision of Judge John Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, which at its core examined the question of whether intelligent design (ID) is science.

    In his decision, Judge Jones (appointed by George W. Bush in 2002) wrote that “After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: 1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; 2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and 3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (Page 64 of http://www. pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/ kitzmiller_342.pdf)

    Read the entire thing – it tells quite a tale. Most importantly for some of you how it clearly exposes the direct connection between ID and creationism.

    — jrb@msu    Jun 30, 04:13 PM    #

30. As an instructor in a gen-ed critical thinking course (“Problem Solving Approaches in Science and Technology”) I would welcome suggestions/collaboration on applying critical thinking skills to claims and counterclaims about biological evolution. The material might also be useful in an introductory “Science Processes” course that I teach as the first in a gen ed science sequence for pre-service teachers. Please contact me at daughtht(at)jmu.edu

    — Taz    Jun 30, 06:45 PM    #

31. The thing I fear is the old canard, teach all sides and let the students decide for themselves.

    Do all sides include flat earth, the earth on the back of a turtle, atlas, etc?

    To teach all beliefs is not to teach science. Science strives for objectivity and must rely on mechanisms and not on flighty, hand waving saying that complexity proves design.

    That says nothing about fabrication.

    Design is fine (I am a Christian and a UW professor), but knowing that there was an architect does not tell you HOW the body was fabricated. That is what science does.

    Let’s teach science in science classes.

    Steven Clark
    http://stevensclark.typepad.com/bioscience_biz/

    — Steven Clark, PhD    Jun 30, 07:26 PM    #

32. Steve and Ed,
    This is perhaps not the right point for a discussion of the Bible but I will say this. The Bible has been found to be historically, scientifically and prophetically accurate. Yes, scientifically accurate. Scientists have actually began successful research based upon Bible verses.
    Yes, there are many very intelligent scientists who are creationists, like the gentleman who invented the MRI. I guess he was no slouch, right?

    Let’s stop the nonsense. Evolution is mistakenly called science. The true scientific method cannot validate evolution.
    It can’t be repeated. Scientists can’t even eliminate the random assortment of right and left-handed amino acids in a controlled setting let alone imagine how this would have occured by accident in nature that life would have begun. You know and I know it.

    Evolution is based sole on an assumption that there is no God and that there is nothing beyond what we can see in nature and thus begins the justifcation of that assumption.
    Even the Humanist Manifesto admits that secular humanism is a religion and that evolution is a tenet of that religion so evolution is just as religious a tenet as creation science.

    No, the sediments do not validate evolution. No intermediates have ever been found and validated. Even Lucy has been reevaluated by numerous experts and they admit that it is only a type of ape and not a precursor to humans. Yet it is still paraded around as an intermediate form. That’s dishonest. Why don’t these scientists admit this type of problem on the nightly news and not just sweep in under the laboratory carpet.

    Go to Mt. St. Helen or to the Grand Canyon and take a serious look at what was formed. These do not validate evolution nor uniformitarianism. They validate rapid depositon.

    What about the Cambrian explosion? Scientists just scratch their heads and shrug their collective shoulders and say that it just happened. Do they really fully understand the billions and billions of minute mutations that would have had to occur for all of that “sudden” comlexity to have occured? Either they don’t or they are being dishonest with themselves and others.
    Look at the interdependent parts of the cell. Trillions of bits of information. Nothing in the unverse is as complex as that but supposedly it came from nothing. Information requires a source. Scales can’t become feathers without new information and new instructions. To assume that they did is not science.

    Evolutionists like to throw out red herrings and absurd comments to take the light off the issues. No, I am not asking to explore pagan myths about the earth on an elephant or a turtle. There really are only two sides to the issue. Either everything happened by accident or an intelligent creator was involved.
    Wouldn’t it be honest to share the complexities of the cell or the problems with the supposed geologic column, which only exist in the textbooks and not in the real world, and have an intellectual discussion.
    Stop this nonsense of equating evolution only with science and creation only with religion.
    Check out the Institute for Creation Research. Discuss with their scientists. Look at what they have found.
    Read Michael Denton’s book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. He is at least honest with what the evidence points to. He is still an evolutionist but at least he says there are serious problems with it.

    — Mike    Jul 1, 10:58 AM    #

33. Jrb #29.
    Obviously the judge in the Dover case had clearly already made up his mind and clearly did not look at the evidence.
    First off, the supposed centuries-old ground rule of science is not centuries old and there are many scientists in the past two or three centuries who would flatly disagree with that assumption. Secondly, ID is not simply a repackaged creationism since it many of its adherents would not call themselves strict “creationists” .
    Thirdly, science has never been able to refute the claims of creation. Oh, they produce television programs where they state the supposed “facts of evolution” but they have never successfully refuted the claims of creation in a public arena.

    They can refute or deny all they want in their own publications but how about trying it in a public arena where the facts are dealt with?

    — Mike    Jul 1, 11:21 AM    #

34. It’s 2008, and there are people reading the Chronicle who think the Bible is scientifically accurate. . . . Good Lord.

    More to the point, there are people who think the Bible is scientifically accurate (mainly because they cannot be bothered to read it, as I have, twice) and who will be appalled, outraged, shocked, and otherwise discombobulated by the thought that someone, somewhere, doesn’t agree with them about this.

    If you don’t believe in miracles, just watch this spot. If some ignorant yahoo doesn’t give me holy hell for this posting, including giving me holy hell for calling him or her an ignorant yahoo, it will be a bonafide miracle. I really don’t think they can help themselves.

    — dan    Jul 1, 11:55 AM    #

35. Dan, what would be the point in giving you holy hell. You obviously have some specific reason why you are so venomous. Any nasty remarks back at you would not change your mind, right? You would just use those to justify your hostility.
    Again, it goes back an earlier point when I mentioned that some would rather make smart or venomous attacks than deal with the real issues.
    By the way, you would be surprised by the number of brilliant scientists who believe the Bible.

    — Mike    Jul 1, 06:05 PM    #

36. If I were a better person, I wouldn’t say I told you so.

    As a matter of fact, Mike, that’s not venom, just medicine; you just don’t care for the taste. Just like most people, though, I find that nasty remarks do not change my mind, but a scintilla of logic, reason, or common sense might well—if it were forthcoming.

    And by the way, no, I wouldn’t. Stephen Jay Gould cited a survey years ago that showed that about half, I believe, of biologists said they were believers.

    There’s nothing about science that excludes religious belief. There is, however, a type of religious belief that tries to exclude science. When your theology starts dictating what you can believe about cosmology, geology, and the development of life, including human life, then you’ve got a problem. Perhaps it’s either “smart” or “venomous” to say that science is not and cannot be the problem so long as science is a matter of seeking the truth about the world. Most religion seems to me harmless more than anything. But when religion goes from being a matter of private belief to a pretext for political power, including the power to decide what other people may teach and learn, then you see the true nature of this so-called religion: just a shabby excuse for telling others what they may and may not do, read, think, etc.

    — dan    Jul 2, 08:39 AM    #

37. Dan,
    I don’t thinking stooping to calling childish names like ignorant yahoo is medicine. It’s just childish and very unintelligent.
    By the way, Christianity does not exclude science. Scientists who are Christians are excited by studying the world and everything they do is available for all to see. They keep nothing hidden in a closet nor do they take an unscientific approach to their research.
    Also, look in the mirror. What you described in the last paragraph describes secular humanism/atheistic beliefs.
    That’s what evolution is;the study of the world from a secular or atheistic theological standpoint.
    Interesting that you use the words you did in the last paragraph. People like Karl Marx and Lenin, etc have used evolution and atheistic beliefs to do the same thing.
    Here’s a quote by an evolutionary physicist by the name of H. Lipson.
    “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”
    The paper was A Physicist Looks at Evolution.
    Even the Canadian scientist W.R. Thompson, an evolutionist, said that “the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity” so I would be careful about invoking some sort of scientific integrity with evolutionary research.

    — Mike    Jul 2, 12:03 PM    #

38. I told you so, again. Evolution is as well-confirmed a scientific theory as the theory of gravitation or the germ theory of disease. Evolution is “controversial” only among its opponents, not among scientists. To claim otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. To refuse to look at the evidence, unfiltered by the “authorities” with an axe to grind, is cowardly.

    It’s a little hard to avoid unpleasant terminology when someone is taking such a reprehensible position. I don’t wish to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I do think the many ID and creationist writers need to check out Exodus 20:16. It applies to everyone.

    I should probably add that I’m obviously an idiot to be wasting my time like this.

    — dan    Jul 2, 12:27 PM    #

39. pd (#5)
    Evlolution is not the “gospel truth”, the creation theory is. Evolution is “scientific truth” —debated, questioned, critiqued, verified by multiple and variety of evidences, and then accepted by scientists. What do the minsters and politicains know about science?

    — Sam    Jul 2, 01:14 PM    #

40. no more of an idiot than those who continue to say that evolution is a proven fact. It is not and it cannot be proven. How can something be a proven or confirmed fact or even a well-confirmed theory when scientists can even agree on how it happened. Stupid is as stupid does. Many agree with evolution either because they don’t want the alternative or they value their positions and those positions can be at risk if they disent from the norm.

    — Mike    Jul 3, 06:33 PM    #

41. What a curious discussion for the Chronicle of Higher Ed!

    Mike, I don’t know your background, but by your posts, you appear to be neither a scientist nor a philosopher. I’ve seen these same sorts of arguments all over the web: simply insisting over and over that scientists are just biased and won’t look at the evidence (they’re not and they do). Your language betrays a rather naive understanding of concepts such as “fact,” “theory,” and “proof.” And you provide little more than a grossly-superficial straw-man version of evolution by saying that “scientists can’t even agree on how it happened” (for the most part, they absolutely do agree).

    As someone who teaches biology to high school students, I would have no “fear” were my own state to pass one of these ridiculous “critical thinking” laws. I might even relish the opportunity (better yet, the state sanction!) to bring up creationism and ID in my classroom, and then give it the thorough thrashing that it deserves.

    But then again my own background is in both biology and philosophy. I’ve seen the various arguments and the purported evidence, and I probably feel more comfortable with these issues than most high school teachers. In my experience, these arguments eventually come down to a weakly-attempted philosophical critique of science itself. But this is really beyond the scope of most middle/high school science classes.

    Obviously “critical thinking” should be encouraged in every classroom, even more than is usually the case, but laws such as this one have only one agenda: to scientifically legitimate the supernatural.

    — James    Jul 4, 04:13 PM    #

Previous: Most Americans Satisfied With College Prep Offered by Local Public Schools, Poll Finds
Next: Gallaudet U. Has Its Accreditation Reaffirmed