Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"

From: Dave P. (davep_at_home.com)
Date: 03/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:22:22 -0500

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:59:03 -0500, Cygnus X-1 <cygnusx1@mac.com>
wrote:

[snip] for clarity

I like your approach, and I think it is a meritable idea. However,
there are many places in your draft where the way in which you refer
to Creation Scientist and Intelligent design advocates is subtly
antagonistic... particularly when you generalize them with "They".
This could serve to polarize the emotional aspect of the debate, and
work against your core idea.

I think it would be better if you edited your draft to retain as
objective a position as possible. I'll give you some examples:

These are just suggestions... hope you don't mind.

>
>In recent years, the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" and
>it's precursor "Scientific Creationism" have redoubled their efforts to
>impose their pseudo-science in the classrooms of our public schools.

In recent years, the proponents of Scientific Creationism, and related
ideas, have redoubled their efforts to introduce such subjects to the
curriculum of our public schools.

[snip]
 
>"Scientific Creationism" provides many examples of a pseudo-science
>that can be analyzed in detail to teach students why it just doesn't
>work.

..."Scientific Creationism" contains many flaws that can be analyzed
in detail to teach students how to test the validity of an hypothesis.

>Creationist "theories" such as claims that
>the speed of light was significantly higher in the recent past (to
>solve the light-travel time of seeing galaxies billions of light-years
>away in a less than ten-thousand year old universe) have errors so
>obvious that they can be addressed by students with a high school (or
>advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics.

Creationist "theories" such as claims that the speed of light was
significantly higher in the recent past - a claim used to explain how
galaxies that appear billions of light years away can exist in a
universe that is only ten thousand years old - have errors so
fundamental that they can be addressed by students with a high school
(or advanced middle school) understanding of physics or mathematics.

>YEC claims using general relativity might have to be dealt with in
>undergraduate to graduate-level physics classes, but nonetheless will
>better prepare future physicists for dealing with these issues. Many
>amateur and professional scientists have analyzed creationist claims
>and the results are available through a number of resources such as
>Talk.Origins.

* This paragraph is a bit confusing. YEC claims that using GR? Or YEC
claims that use GR?*

* "But nonetheless....". What is the object of that sentence? It reads
like - YEC claims that use GR will better prepare future physicists. -
Is that what you mean to say?*

[snip]

>Advocates of "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" fear such an
>approach. While it's not received much attention, some have publicly
>admitted that their 'theory' (actually a hypothesis) has had no success
>in the laboratory. That's why they fall back to "teaching the
>controversy" as it is an easy way to avoid this problem while they try
>to maneuver other components of their agenda into the classroom (this
>is why the Discovery Institute describes it as the "Wedge Strategy").

Advocates of "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" may oppose
such an approach.

*The thematic connection between this sentence and the rest of the
paragraph is not clear.*

The theories (actually hypotheses) have had no success in the
laboratory, and to deflect attention away from this failure, advocates
sometimes fall back on the strategy of "teaching the controversy" as a
means of introducing Creation studies into the classroom. The
Discovery Institute describes this approach as the "Wedge Strategy".

[snip]

> We've sent spacecraft to distant
>regions of our own Solar System, but I've yet to see a Biblical
>geocentrist compute the trajectory to send a spacecraft to the Moon or
>Mars. This might be an important issue for human crews in the
>not-to-distant future.

Again... an sentence object problem. What is it that "might be an
important issue for human crews in the not-to-distant future"? - the
computations of Biblical geocentrists?

>Creationists like to claim that we can't "know" what's happening or
>what happened in distant regions of the cosmos or far back in time,

Overly aggressive. Try:

"Creation Sciences assert that we cannot "know" what is happening or
what has happened in distant regions of the cosmos, or far back in
time,..."
 
[snip]

Avoid labeling people:

>When astrophysicists discovered a
>deficit in the number of neutrinos emitted from the Sun in the late
>1960s, called the Solar Neutrino Problem, Creationists touted this as
>evidence that the Sun was not powered by nuclear reactions and the 4.5
>billion year age of the Sun was not possible.

...called the Solar Neutrino Problem, Creation Science claimed this as
evidence that the Sun was not powered by nuclear reactions and the 4.5
billion year age of the Sun was not possible.

On both sides:) :

>Real scientists checked
>their calculations and concluded that a neutrino mass....

Astrophysicists ( or something like "Mainstream scientists") checked
their calculations and concluded that a neutrino mass....

[snip]

> There have been no similar successes or utility from Creation "science" or
>"Intelligent Design". Cosmology has real implications for our technology and life on Earth.

Putting quotes around the word "science" in this context is a veiled
insult, and should avoided. You should accept that their subject is
called Creation Science, without fear that the label somehow lends
credence to the ideas.

[snip]

>In spite of all this advancement, the American scientific community has
>left behind an intellectual vacuum in the education system that
>crackpots and con-artists have been all too willing to fill.

In spite of all this advancement, the American scientific community
has left behind an intellectual vacuum in the education system that is
at risk of being filled by socially and politically motivated ideas of
questionable scientific merit.

*I'd rethink "Intellectual vacuum" as well... as it is insulting to
everyone involved in education. How about "...the American scientific
community has left behind a void in the education system..."

>The
>scientific community has ignored this growing problem and now it
>threatens to infect our society.

* "Infect" is pretty aggressive... how about "mislead"

>Our nation would not be the first to
>take this self-destructive path. Stalin dismissed Darwinian selection
>in favor of Lysenko's theories on adaptation, allowing the political
>process, instead of the scientific process, define the science.

A little clumsy. Try: "...theories on adaptation, allowing the science
to be defined by political ideologies, instead of the scientific
process."

[snip]

The concept of teaching legitimate science by scrutinizing
questionable theories need not be limited to Creation Science
>And we don't need to limit the debunking to creationism. There are a
>plethora of pseudo-science claims with their adherents, many who post
>their ramblings on the World Wide Web. A perusal of Crank dot Net
>yields a cornucopia of pseudoscientific claims from free-energy scams
>to "proofs" that relativity is wrong, with a broad range of
>sophistication.

This has a bit of an "out to get the crack pots" feel to it that
carries a negative connotation. I suggest:

The concept of teaching legitimate science by scrutinizing
questionable theories need not be limited to Creation Science. There
are a plethora of pseudosciences, of varying sophistication, that are
regularly promulgated on Internet science forums.

>Teaching students how to analyze these claims with
>real science gives them a valuable tool not only for their professional
>future but also for their role as citizens in a
>technologically-advanced society.
>
>I've raised this issue with scientists and teachers who express
>reluctance to address debunking pseudo-science in the classroom.
>However, the scientific community can no longer afford the luxury of
>letting this battle play out in the courts and hoping for the best.
>Over the past five years, this problem as grown from a single state to
>challenges all over the United States. The approach I propose gives
>the scientific community the chance to take control of the issue rather
>than continuing in this guerilla war strategy of the Creationists.

The best way to escalate a war is to admit that one is happening... If
it were me, I'd finish off with something like:

The approach I propose gives the scientific community the chance to
diffuse the controversy, and redirect the issue away from
sociopolitical ideologies, by demonstrating how the objective elegance
of legitimate science can dispel the contentious scientific assertions
of Creation Science and return creationism to the more appropriate
arena of religion.

Or something like that : You get the idea... just my opinion though.

>
>The scientific community holds all the cards in this debate, it's time
>we play them.

Given that Creationism is as much a social and political debate as a
scientific one, the claim that the scientific community is holding all
the cards might be overly optimistic.

Good luck with your project.

Dave P.

Relevant Pages

  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... scientists are not in doubt - the ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... evolution of man. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Question of Faith: the Root of the Problem?
    ... The basic problem that occurs when debating creation is that ... scientists are convinced that the scientific method leads to truth, ... There are no absolutes in science, ... is that what's being debated here is faith. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speciation question
    ... FALSE - scientists investigate the world using the tools of science. ... "This fact severely erodes evolutionists' ... FALSE - it's a fact that the biblical creation accout is unsupported by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... Perhaps you could point me to *any* science from the ID ... there are no longer any "Darwinianists." ... scientists tend to hedge their claims. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast