![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dog bites man
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject