Comments on: One Side Can Be Wrong

By: L’ArrÃªt de mort » Blog Archive » CrÃ©ationnisme et ordinaire de la pensÃ©e

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:29:03 +0000

[...] Je reviens sur un article du Guardian (via Cosmic Variance) concernant la controverse de l’Intelligent Design : One side can be wrong. Richard Dawkins et Jerry Coyne dÃ©cortiquent trÃ¨s justement la logique fallacieuse des crÃ©ationnistes. Cette logique repose sur deux prÃ©supposÃ©s : [...]

By: Robin

Robin — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:47:07 +0000

Hitchen’s, who’s otherwise lost his mind, suggested that churches be forced give equal time to teaching evolution or lose their tax exempt status.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 05 Sep 2005 05:35:14 +0000

I’ve skimmed through some of the contemplations on the pedagogical issue (if not precisely the underlying scientific issue) of including ID in school at The Galilean Library, and the interesting point was raised: what real harm is there in including ID in the classroom, even in a science classroom? What do we fear by including this material alongside evolution or any other science? It can’t that we fear exposing students to the ideas. That would imply both that we don’t trust students to be able to parse fallacy from truth, or at least their patterns in general; and that we think we can keep such garbage from them at all.

If we, as was suggested, chose to attempt teaching skills for analysis rather than a qualitative assessment of what is right and what is wrong, we may lose some focus during the school years; but do we, as a society, gain a generation of adults more capable of resolving issues for themselves? Is it really just a collection of accepted facts that we hope to give the student body?

There is the point, quoted above, which I will quote again for reference:

“Without needing to make a single good point in any argument, it would have won the right for a form of supernaturalism to be recognised as an authentic part of science. And that would be the end of science education in America.”

If trusting students enough to lay these varying points of view or belief side by side and motivating critical analysis should mark the end of science education in America, maybe we’re on to some bit of the reason we’re churn out class after class of unremarkable graduates.

By: Moshe Rozali

Moshe Rozali — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:55:03 +0000

There is also the point that both sides can be wrong… in other words arguments against an opposing view are completely irrelevant for defending your own view– one presumably will still have to give evidence in favor of ID, even if evolution is not the right answer. Cannot imagine anyone even trying to start along those lines.

By: Moshe Rozali

Moshe Rozali — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 16:32:57 +0000

Contemplating a second career as a preacher Clifford? just let me know, I do not want to miss it…

By: Clifford

Clifford — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:26:55 +0000

That’s quite an interesting idea, actually…!

-cvj

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:10:52 +0000

If religion wishes for equal time to present its ideas on evolution and birth of the universe from its point of view at the pulpit of Democritus, then logic tells me that science should demand equal time at the church’s pulpit each Sunday to preach evolution to the congregations..In fact, all other religions and belief systems should be allowed into those congregations to give their views as well. Without being able to conduct one wedding or funeral, they would then have to shut down the churches.