Comments on: Drs Myers and Decker: Advice on Teaching Evolution

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:35:05 +0000

Adolfo: I agree with what you say regarding high schools in this country at this time. But in first year college it works.However, if I was in charge of the world (or one private high school even) I’d like to see it tried in a high school. With lawyers standing by.

By: Adolfo Hall

Adolfo Hall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:52:16 +0000

I'm interested in PZ's techniques, but the correct place to "teach the controversy" is in civics class, because it's a political controversy. It's beyond the scope of a science class for the same reason that it's beyond the scope of music class.

By: Adolfo Hall

Adolfo Hall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:46:38 +0000

By: Doctor Spurt

Doctor Spurt — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:52:38 +0000

Me again. One further thought. I think we need to be careful here. The injunction to “teach THE controversy” is, as we know, a political attempt to create the impression that there is a genuine debate *internal to science* over whether Natural Selection is correct or not. I agree that it can sometimes be useful to teach NS vs ‘My Imaginary Friend Did It All’ debates, in the history of science or of ideas, in critical reasoning course, etc., and that in some sense this involves teaching a controversy, but this isn’t teaching “the” controversy that the spook-fiends are into promotiong. Bottom line: doing what is being suggested here doesn’t amount to running up a white flag over ID, and using the very term favoured by the IDiots seems like a very avoidable own goal.

By: Doctor Spurt

Doctor Spurt — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:04:34 +0000

By: Doctor Spurt

Doctor Spurt — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:13:07 +0000

I teach Natural Selection in a Philosophy class, so I get to say “this class is about arguments, and how to evaluate them. You get to claim whatever you want as long as you defend it with with valid arguments using premises that are true or have decent independent warrant, and are less controversial than the conclusions they’re being used to defend. If you personally want to carry on believing something that doesn’t meet those standards that’s fine, just don’t bug me with it in assignments and exams.”

By: Charlie

Charlie — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:47:54 +0000

Rocky, no problem. 😀 It’s just One of Those Things really. I think Samuel Pepes made a similar comment to yours 300 years ago, so really, it’s nothing new.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:40:22 +0000

Rocky, no problem. 😀 It’s just One of Those Things really. I think Samuel Pepes made a similar comment to yours 300 years ago, so really, it’s nothing new.

By: Shirakawasuna

Shirakawasuna — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:01:12 +0000

Aww, c’mon. You have at least 13 readers!I’d love to see not just these questions addressed by people with significant teaching experience, as is the case with Dr. Myers and others, but some actual fun data to see if these things can be quantified and therefore get some verifiable results. Many of the topics addressed might be hard to quantify, but hey, this is sociology/education we’re talking about ;).If say the “PZ method” (or whatever) happens to work wonders, it’d be great to see some teaching method reform in the U.S. As a somewhat recent graduate, I can vouch for the fact that we’re teaching modern information in a very old style, one that has been shown to fail in many ways compared to others.To Rocky: have your daughter bother some creationists. Seriously. I learned more about biology in high school from stupid little arguments online with people who hold very silly beliefs than I did in biology class. Sometimes it’s easier to research a topic for an hour if you’re trying to see if someone’s silly belief or statement is wrong and if so if it is, as is usually the case with creationists, fractally wrong.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:14:54 +0000

Are you not going to tell us why Jesus is cradling a dinosaur? Or is this obvious and I’m just not getting it.