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.