Good points, AC, though the question of the "science-ness" of a subject is a matter of the approach -- the methodology used to analyze the evidence -- rather than an arbitrary standard made simply because one position finds its roots in religious thought while the other presupposes that no non-natural causes can ever lead to observed effects. I do, however, believe that in the realm of scientific study, we must be careful not to simply leap to the conclusion of divine intervention. But we must also not invent constructs and call them factual if they are not supported by the evidence. What is called for here is a standard of intellectual honesty to which all sides in this discussion must adhere.
What I think we should see in schools, personally, is a class (or course unit) devoted to teaching the basics of logic and scientific reasoning. After these skills are mastered, then follow with an open and honest evaluation of the extant evidence related to origins (fossil evidence, geology, anthropology, basic genetics, the basics of microbiology and biochemistry, etc.). The presentation should highlight what is solid about the evidence, what isn't, and how this relates to the theory of evolution and the here-termed "creation hypothesis" (and other mediating positions), either positively or negatively. Giving students the tools to think in clear terms about the matter rather than being spoon-fed one idea or the other would both put the discussion back squarely on the data and how to interpret it and help kids learn to apply good logic to other areas in their lives.
After all, shouldn't our public schools focus on teaching how to think instead of what to think?
Slashdot Mirror
Good points, AC, though the question of the "science-ness" of a subject is a matter of the approach -- the methodology used to analyze the evidence -- rather than an arbitrary standard made simply because one position finds its roots in religious thought while the other presupposes that no non-natural causes can ever lead to observed effects. I do, however, believe that in the realm of scientific study, we must be careful not to simply leap to the conclusion of divine intervention. But we must also not invent constructs and call them factual if they are not supported by the evidence. What is called for here is a standard of intellectual honesty to which all sides in this discussion must adhere.
What I think we should see in schools, personally, is a class (or course unit) devoted to teaching the basics of logic and scientific reasoning. After these skills are mastered, then follow with an open and honest evaluation of the extant evidence related to origins (fossil evidence, geology, anthropology, basic genetics, the basics of microbiology and biochemistry, etc.). The presentation should highlight what is solid about the evidence, what isn't, and how this relates to the theory of evolution and the here-termed "creation hypothesis" (and other mediating positions), either positively or negatively. Giving students the tools to think in clear terms about the matter rather than being spoon-fed one idea or the other would both put the discussion back squarely on the data and how to interpret it and help kids learn to apply good logic to other areas in their lives.
After all, shouldn't our public schools focus on teaching how to think instead of what to think?