Dog bites man

[mmcirvin]

You know, I don't even have much to say about President Bush taking the "teach the controversy" position on Intelligent Design creationism, because it's such an unsurprising item. I doubt Bush actually gives a crap about this issue, and if he'd said anything different, his base would be enraged; the fact is that the position he's endorsing has broad support from a completely hoodwinked public. After all, it sounds completely reasonable as long as you believe that there is a genuine scientific controversy here instead of a trumped-up political controversy.

As many others have said, you could probably use "teaching the controversy" in the classroom as a jumping-off point for making lots of interesting points about evolution, as talkorigins.org does so well. Were I a high-school biology teacher, I'd be strongly tempted to do it. But of course that's not what ID proponents actually want, or what they're really asking for, since it would amount to trashing their arguments; if they can't control the debate entirely, they want equal advocacy.

Comments

[pompe.livejournal.com]

It is a bit hard, in my experience, to teach about ID stuff in biology. Admittedly, I'm not living in a country where it is considered remotely necessary - most controversies are about religious-affiliated schools not teaching about evolution (and sex) enough.

The problem is that the ID/creationist stuff I've seen is so stupid/faulty/muddled a good 17-year old student picks holes in it without much aid. And if I as a biology teacher spend time letting them do that it feels slightly like I'm actually ridiculing on or encouraging picking on religion, which really isn't my job. I mean, of course I teach evolution from a historical standpoint as well as current issues and encourage debate, but it is hard to mix science and faith in class without risking students laughing at "those stupid American fundamentalists".

I wonder if the ID proponents consider those risks.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

The experience in countries with different public attitudes is probably very different. Here in the US, a large minority of the population outright believes in not just "ID" but six-day, young-earth creationism; in many parts of the country, the majority of students will come in actively predisposed to advocate "creation science" and it's likely the teacher will too. In many cases we're not even talking about what happens in a class with a good, competent biology teacher, but what the state can force onto the curriculum in a class with a teacher as ignorant as the students. Which is probably a lost cause anyway.

That said, I'm less despairing that many people who have reacted to Bush's comments. I think the "Intelligent Design" movement is basically a rear-guard action; this wave of creationist advocacy started in the 1970s and 1980s with school boards trying to get the hardcore young-earth stuff into official curricula, and they had the support of President Reagan among other people. That hasn't succeeded so now they're falling back on the notion of miraculous intervention into evolution.

[pompe.livejournal.com]

It must be large differences in curriculum. I mean, I'm know American biology textbooks as quite good (definitely better than those in this country - if I could I would use a British or American book instead in class).

But teaching about evolution is a core thing here, at least for 16-18 year olds. I mean, it underlies so much of the course, from population ecology to the history of life on Earth (that said, the Plan does not specifically say "evolution", it says "scientific theories about the origins and development of life" or something like that). And it is virtually impossible to become a biology teacher without a serious amount of evolution-related points taken. Not to mention becoming a geography teacher - my other subject - and make sense of half the studies if one believes the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

I agree with ID being some sort of emergency measure. Most of what I've seen of ID is just good old creationism where the word "God" is removed. Still, I think it is a bit worrisome if the US today still has this controversy. One would have expected the proponents had died long ago, but I guess in some ways the United States is more conservative and it might be yet another example of The Great Division of Western Civilization, sort of.

[manfire.livejournal.com]

The transcript actually makes it seem like less of a big deal than the newspapers have been making it out to be:

Q I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

Q Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.

Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Q So we've got to give these groups --

THE PRESIDENT: Very interesting question, Hutch. (Laughter.)

It kind of seems like the reporter was trying to drag something controversial out of him on an issue that's not really that big a deal to him.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

You know, i suspected it would be something like that.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

He's also said stuff basically equivalent to this on multiple previous occasions (and Reagan said far worse), so I'm not sure why it's suddenly a bigger deal now, though I do appreciate seeing people going to bat for teaching evolution.