Surely the easiest way to do so is to show examples of design that are clearly unintelligent? If we can show unambiguous examples of gross stupidity, incompetence, and inefficiency (not to mention extreme immorality) in the design of certain organisms, then we can make certain deductions about any hypothetical designer, which will contradict most of the usual religious hypotheses. Yes?

(Indeed, with the possible exception of the Gnostic heresy and their demiurge theory, many might think it ought to be considered blasphemous to accuse the Gods of being so incompetent and evil. That’s not a scientific argument, but it ought to give the religious reason to pause.)

It is true that science cannot prove absolutely that every conceivable ‘intentional designer’ hypothesis is untrue, but we can actually disprove a lot of specific designer hypotheses.

All views? How many creation stories are you going to include in your biology class?

My guess is that many parents would be just fine with you teaching creationism alongside evolution, right up until you start teaching their kids somebody else’s mythology.

Controversy surrounding the interface between science and religion in public schools is long-standing and often only resolved in court. But science education in public school systems has changed quite a bit over the last few decades, and not for the better. This story is neglected by journalists, I think because it is not a “sexy,” hot-button topic like the teaching of creationism in public schools. That’s a shame.

One important culprit is the National Science Education Standards as promulgated by the National Research Council itself, as interpreted by state boards of education, and as applied in high-stakes comprehensive testing at various grade levels.

Today’s notion of science education reform involves the words “accountability” and “testing.” In a previous era, reform involved “designing good courses” and “training teachers to teach them.”

This is the real problem with science education. Not the the creationism/evolution debate, even if it still rages.

What is troubling, and truly dangerous, is the author’s misunderstanding of science and the scientific process. The belief that an all knowing group known as the “scientific community” decree what is true or not true, and that disagreement with that prognosis is proof positive of how silly and ignorant one is, stifles real scientific advancement.

Not all children are going to grow up to be biologists, or even use biology very often in their daily lives. What they will need is the ability to reach rational conclusions based on the evidence at hand. Does a 15-year-old have enough information to question the scientific community? No. That’s why they are in school. They must be taught to question everything and evaluate their opinions according to the evidence. Insisting they believe what their teacher says because they are too inferior to understand the difference is the exact opposite of what scientific education must be.

I’m not advocating creationism. I’m advocating the teaching of scientific evaluation. The author’s assertion that the 28% of teachers who don’t immediately burn creationists at the stake as heretics are the ones to be commended is extremely misguided, with horrible implications far beyond the evolution debate. That philosophy leads to lock-step, unquestioning drones, not future scientists.

And, in the end, it *doesn’t* matter if they believe or not. It only matters that they understand – actually understand – the theory, and why it is the backbone of biology.

The “why shouldn’t we teach both sides in science class” argument always comes down to someone saying “But you can’t *disprove* Creationism or Intelligent Design!”. And that is *precisely* why they aren’t science. Any scientist dealing with evolution will be able to state what it would take to change their mind on evolution. Falsifiability is a cornerstone of the scientific method. If a theory cannot be proven wrong it is no use as a theory, and has to be discarded.

“Oh, we just want to expose students to other viewpoints” you cry, so come on then, teach them about all the other creation myths too.

While you’re at it you might as well teach the Flat-Earth hypothesis in geography lessons (Teach the Controversy!) and Alchemy in chemistry classes (Teach the Controversy!)

Facepalm.