Slashdot Mirror
Review of Discovery Institute's Evolution Textbook
Darwinned writes "Intelligent Design is still a hot topic, as evidenced by recent legislation mandating that it be taught in school. Pro-ID group Discovery Institute has released an evolution textbook for use in schools, but a review shows it to be chock full of bad science and questionable reasoning. 'The book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book, but its authors are expecting that legislators and the courts will be too stupid to notice that, or to remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion.'"
indubitably
Simple fact is, an extensive elaboration on, say, the Copenhagen Interpretation versus the Everett Interpretation, -even were one demonstrated false-, would not "promote stupidity", much less "demand" it. Simply having to follow the arguments to critically evaluate the question at hand, -even if 100% of the students thus rejected ID-, would do nothing but increase the students familiarity with the biological questions at hand, and challenge them to be able to analytically utilize them.
However, this last statement does strike me as fully representative of the overall politicalization of the question the reviewer engages in throughout (at least he explicitly states he's doing so, justifying it by saying it's "where ID started", even though that's false in ID's case, it started with Behe publishing a book on biochem and its implications on evolutionary theory), and the overall tinge of a kind of deep defensive bias the piece reeks of.
Particularly funny was the part where he chides the book for not anticipating evidence that he presumes of-course will be found, which is basically tantamount to concluding a particular sub-issue on the basis on -no present evidence-, something he'd never let ID get away with.
Standard straw-man of representing ID as simply the most easily-dismissed notion of "Creationism" of anyone on the planet, standard ignoring of the fact that "evolution happens" is not actually debated by anyone advocating ID, and his particular meaning equivocating it to "only evolution happens" is fully scientifically untestable, and will never change from being untestable, and that desire to conclude such causal exclusivity for the -actual- motivation at hand is simply a non-sequitur, even were it testable.
The main thing that bothers me is the cultural framework this creates of closing science into dogma. Since we currently can do genetic engineering, and there's some possibility that intelligent life will be discovered as having existed in the past nearby, maybe some civilization nearby visited Earth and, since we can already do it, went ahead and... oops. Can't propose that, and since I can't propose it, can't ever investigate it. Academic crimestop.
Anyway, I'm heading out for the weekend, so I doubt I'll be able to follow up to any replies right away. Since Natural Selection will inevitably take care of my response for me, though, I won't worry about it too much. Later.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I subscribe to the Creation theory. However, I don't think either theory should be taught in science classes. Science should be taught not unprovable theories. No one can prove Evolution nor can anyone prove Creation. If they're to be taught in school, put it under Literature like where I learned the Mayan's version of the creation of life.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
And there you reveal the fundamental weakness of modern education. I mean, think about it. We're demanding that students be taught evolution in science classes, even though evolution is still basically just a theory at this point ... er, just like intelligent design.
Science should be about teaching students SOLID, known facts, not "theories". They should learn about gravity and atomic interaction and optics and the kinds of rocks and plate techtonics. They should not be taught some bizarre dream that some guy hobbled together based on a few coincidental pieces of evidence. That's just not what science is.
Evolution is a theory. That's all it ever has been and all it ever will be. We'll never be able to actually go out and test evolution. All we really have is faith, and that's exactly why it's important to teach students about alternate belief systems. I still think evolution should be taught in science class because obviously you have to be on the up and up about what's going on. But the same reasoning applies to intelligent design, which has made great advances in understanding life at the biochemical level.
So really, let's keep science reality-based, and teach students ALL sides, not just the ones that are most politically popular. Don't be so insecure in your beliefs that you have to ban everything else.
I think a different approach is required.
"Natural Formation", which is the best current understanding in the many fields of science that we use to understand our existence.
"Creationism", for those who think magic is involved.
It's irrelevant which creation myth you believe, as they all involve magic.
This is NOT a signature.
The awesome thing about stories like this is it reveals who the religious kooks are, and so discredits any assertions they ever make about anything, past or present.
ChuckSchwab here, karma limits me from using my name again for some reason.
Just like gravity
Uh, sorry dude, gravity isn't a "theory". Gravity is a FACT, and I'm appalled that in this day an age there are still people like you who dismiss it as just another theory. Go do an experiment for me. Push your pen off your desk. See what happened? That's gravity. And that's a fact, not a "theory".
False
Um, those are experimental tests for stuff like, "does the Jizz whale have the same nucleotide sequence in location X as a goat". Remind me what that has to do with evolution? That's biochemistry.
Citation needed
Okay. Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box Look it up, smartass.
" remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion"
Teaching evolution promotes atheism which is a violation of church and state. Would you prefer a constitutional imposition of religion? That's not what evolution gives you. Atheism is a religion. If Jedi can be a religion on a census form then so can atheism.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
You just quoted Wikipedia to make your point.
Fail.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
That was a very insightful post. As a Christian myself, my experience is that American Christians feel attacked by atheists. The atheists use evolution in that attack, so Christians fight back by denying evolution. Thank you for a thoughtful and observant comment.
Darwinned is a fucking idiot. Go fuck yourself.
Actually Catholics are worse than Atheists. Atheists are clear in their attacks on his almighty holiness. Catholics are the devil's vehicle to decieve the masses into thinking they're saved.
The pope will be the Antichrist. If you rearrange his official title in latin and add up all the roman numerals it equals 666. Amongst other reasoning.
*Ex-Christian. I know all the secrets.*
Once the scientific aura of the muslim religion was lost, the religious authorities instituted a policy of eugenics on their subjects. After 800 years of being bred for obedience and subservience the muslim people devolved into the subhuman strain known as the 'wog'. Their ability to compete with un-eugenicized humans was lost and they are now headed for extinction. This is a common (almost obligatory) failing of religion and the inculcating of creationism in their subjects is needed to keep them from awakening to their being bred into zombies.