Should We Teach the Controversy?

Now, the creationist/ID people say we should teach the "controversy" about evolution vs. intelligent design and let the students decide for themselves. It sounds very reasonable, but is it, really?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• teach
• controversy
• expelled
• kitzmiller
• dover
• religion
• science

[GermanChocolateCake]

Here's what teaching the controversy is like in practical application:

"Class, we are here to educate you in the science of biology, which includes the theory of evolution. There are people who disagree with the theory of evolution and believe that a supernatural agency of some sort is responsible for the mechanisms of biological life. That is their prerogative. However, since this is a science class, we'll be discussing the science of biology and the theory of evolution."

Controversy covered.

[shanedk]

@GermanChocolateCake Cool, but personally I like this one better: /watch?v=TONWyYK8F1k

[shanedk]

@GermanChocolateCake My personal take on it is:

"All right, class, due to the new mandates that we 'Teach the Controversy' I am required to give you the evidence for Biblical creation as well. So we'll do that right now. Get your pencils out. Is everybody ready? All right: here is the evidence for Biblical creation: [cricket cricket cricket] Are there any questions?"

[ninjacatmagic]

You forgot "Do not teach evolution!"...That theory is just as whacky as the rest you listed.....

[shanedk]

@ninjacatmagic You can call it "whacky" all you want (whatever that means), but it's still the best-supported theory in all of science, better even than gravity. Deal with it.

[shanedk]

@Surhotchaperchlorome Well, yeah, but that's not "teaching the controversy." That's teaching why there is NO controversy in scientific circles.

I do think science teachers should be equipped to refute these arguments when students bring them up.

[AkasakaS2000]

Education is a different story than scientific researches. For a class to be taught (esp. in high school), the material MUST be well supported by scientific researches (i.e. publications in well-edited scientific journals). In research, I really do NOT care if someone is so dedicated to be researching on ID, but our next generation deserves the best science education!

[Lennon4ever1]

@shanedk They are theocrats exactly...trying to discredit science and misinform OTHER people's children with their ignorance! It infuriates me to no end. Can you imagine if this were reversed? If the teaching of evolution was forced into the churches and taught to kids in Sunday school?

[redwolf602]

@chuyaventuras Not a fact. Take fruit bearing tree's for example. A limb from an apple tree falls off as well as a limb from an orange tree. They fall closely together and you cannot discern which is which and replace them on the tree you feel it belongs to. Come harvest season you see that each tree sprouted fruit normally EXCEPT, you would have a branch on each, for a while anyway, sprouting their original fruit. You will eventually get hybrids, NOT the same as the parent

[redwolf602]

@chuyaventuras Chordata. The first vertebrates, or creatures with vertebrae or backbones, appear. They came about during the Cambrian explosion and thus the COMMON ANCESTOR of ALL creatures with vertibrae, and yes it was a marine creature. Then over 500 million years evolution created vertebrata, mammalia, etc... all the way to homo sapien, us. Along the way other branches split off on the way to us but to us it did go along the path

[redwolf602]

@chuyaventuras Oh sweet baby Jesus... We don't observe one creature turning into something completely different huh? you mention frogs a lot but obviously don't know shit about them. They start off as purely aquatic tiny little creatures with gills. They change in a very short time to aquatic creatures with lungs and limbs. They change FURTHER to become terrestrial FROGS that require oxygen to live. Your entire argument destroyed by frogs

[redwolf602]

@chuyaventuras We'll classify 'basic type' into mammal, bird, reptile, etc... for this one ok? Archosaur were creatures that roamed the land in the days of old (that's code for millions of years ago) and were not just ONE 'type' of creature but TWO! They had traits for being both avian (bird) and crocodillia (reptiles, more specifically crocodiles). Kirk Cameron was right that if evolution were true we should have seen some crocoducks, and we have evidence they existed.

[redwolf602]

@chuyaventuras Hey there religitard troll. Mind pointing to some sources that PROVE or even give reasonable credibility to Evolution being a myth? And nothing 'decides' to change what it is, it's called mutation and even now humans show signs of mutation AND the activation of certain dormant genes. Babies born with tails are clear evidence for common ancestry with monkeys and other apes (yes we ARE ape's).