Why I Care About Teaching the Controversy
| March 8, 2010 | Posted by johnnyb under Intelligent Design |
I realized after my previous post about Academic Freedom legislation that I did not mention why it is that I care about the ability for teachers to “teach the controversy”.
I have been told by several research leaders that any attempt to change curriculum, or do anything with public schools, is a Bad Idea™. I understand where they are coming from. But let me tell you my personal story, and why it leads me to think that biological science itself needs the controversy to be taught.
When I graduated from high school, there were three things that interested me – theology, computer science, and chemistry. I had trouble choosing degrees, so I just decided to get a B.A. in theology and a B.S. in computer science. It was a hard choice, but I decided to drop chemistry.
Now, you see, biology was not on my radar screen. Why not? In a word, the problem was neo-Darwinism.
The problem wasn’t evolution, per se. I did not believe in evolution at the time, but that wouldn’t have prevented me from entering into biology. The problem was that I actually believed what they said about the nature of biological change. That is, that biological change occurs through random mutations and natural selection.
How Boring!
The two sides I knew of biology was either (a) memorizing names of organisms or their parts, and (b) waiting for and observing pointless (by definition!) changes in organisms.
So, basically, if I wanted to mess with something dynamic, I should choose a different branch of science.
Really, what is cooler than the non-Darwinian research? Bacteria which re-engineer their biochemistry to respond to specific threats? Tuning knobs in the genome? Genomes that plan for the future using targetted randomness? Untemplated genetic changes being thrown in to accomodate for stress? Systems which are made from a metaprogramming template and then refined through highly targetted mutations?
Now, of course, none of these things are going to be taught. Not because they aren’t believed by everyone in biology, but because they don’t support the standard neo-Darwinistic viewpoint. If they are taught, they won’t be taught as the awe-inspiring mechanisms they are, but rather as just another instance of random mutation and natural selection. That’s not only untrue, it’s also HIDEOUSLY BORING.
If you want to bore kids out of their mind and get them to major in something else besides the biological sciences, by all means don’t teach the controversy.
47 Responses to Why I Care About Teaching the Controversy
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bornagain77, TWO ESKIMOS are walking on an ice shelf in Greenland, a walrus notices the eskimos, and it makes a quick approach to steal some of their fish. One of the eskimos pulls off his boots, The other one says “What are you doin? You can outrun an Walrus!” The other says ‘Actually, a walrus is not so fast on land, so actually I can!”
hrun0815 at 27, who does not wish to reveal name, citizenship, or tax burden status (obviously not a proud Canadian, but probably a tax burden somewhere):
No one would pull off their boots to walk any distance across pack ice, if they hoped to save their toes.
Also, it is unwise to assume that we can run faster than all types of animals. Many have died assuming they can run faster than a bear or an alligator. The fact that the animal appears sluggish when he is at rest and unchallenged is NOT a good indicator.
Anyway, I must now leave this discussion, due to work-related issues – with the following observations:
- Tax funding matters a great deal to the question of whether nonsense can be retailed as sense.
The “reptiles show no care for young,” thesis due to tri-partite evolution of the brain – as a blanket statement – is a good example of Darwinism-based nonsense, easily refuted by an Internet search.
Again, I implore all to beware the alligator death roll and also the king cobra family, whom you do NOT want to visit any time near the natal day.
Or any time at all, actually, but especially not when they are hatching dozens of young cobras.
True. It’s a story.
Yet another implied falsehood. Nobody assumed anywhere that we can run faster than all types of animals.
True. Yet it has no bearing on the validity of my or your arguments.
I ask again who is a proponent of the “reptiles show no care for young” theory? When was it espoused? What was their reason? Does anybody still subscribe to it? All those question remain unanswered, yet, somebody decides to draw conclusions nevertheless.
This is one of the things I can whole-heartedly agree with (tax payer funded or not / proud Canadian or not).
Hrun,
It seems most of this silly argument arises from your initial misunderstanding of Denyse’s post. When she said alligators don’t care for their young, she was being sarcastic.
She did show that the theory of the reptilian brain is still promoted.
If your promotion of Darwinism is a publicly funded job does not directly impinge on the correctness of your argument, but it might impinge upon your motives.
Many times, it is motive first, and the attempt at logical underpinning second.
And, if you think someone has misunderstood you, why not restate what you said and save time?
avocationist, I very well understood what Denyse was implying.
She is claiming that it is false to say that “the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no concern for her eggs.”
I asked her who promotes this view. Neither she, nor Barry Arrington, where able to show people who currently do. What followed was a long diatribe about the ‘reptilian brain theory’ which I also showed misrepresented the facts. That’s all I did. None of my statements promoted Darwinism. It doesn’t matter whether or not I am Canadian. I doesn’t matter whether or not my work is publicly funded.
And, surprisingly, I’d be happy to clarify any misunderstanding. Maybe Denyse can do so. For example, she claims that ‘[I] need to believe in a construct called “the reptilian brain”‘! She claims that somebody assumed ‘that we can run faster than all types of animals’! She claims that somebody thinks (or teaches) that ‘the primitively evolved “reptilian brain” guarantees that the cow alligator shows no concern for her eggs’!
Are all of these misunderstandings she is unwilling to clear up? Are they falsehoods she is promoting? Are they exaggerations? Is the whole deal about publicly funded Canadians simply a ruse to distract from somebody calling her on her falsehoods?
I don’t know. You tell me.
Given the continued existence of tax funded religious based education in Canada, I’d be careful playing that card.
The question of whether any other species has the same emotions we do hasn’t been supported here by anything more than “looks that way to me”. Is there a clear definition of any given behavior as emotionally driven that we are all agreeing to? I thought not. A great way to talk past each other.
Look, I gotta get back to my paid job really soon, but why would anyone want to fudge the question of whether he is a Canadian? Or whether his job is supported by tax funding? Some other funding?
For the record, I am born* Canadian citizen and British subject (Saskatchewan, March 31, 1950).
Live in city of Toronto (province of Ontario). No one funds me other than my clients for usual editing or writing work. Despite rumours, I have never solicited or received funds from the Discovery Institute.
I did ask them for book prizes for a contest I run here, and hope to announce new prizes shortly.
*You think that is not important? You should have seen the reaction of the driving instructor at a local Bismillah driving school. He told the other students: “Do you see this woman? She was actually BORN here.”
At the time, I thought, “Yeah, so? People are born here every day.”
Later, I came to realize what that means. And I am dedicated to preserving what it means. As I hope all Americans who deserve well of their country are dedicated to a similar objective.
Aehhhh, I know: Cause it is completely irrelevant to the arguments being made.
That’s just great for you, but it does not change anything about any of the arguments you put forth.
The rest, I simply can’t follow. It’s simply a story with– yet again– no bearing on ANY of the arguments put forth here.
O’Leary at 9: “By the way, just so I know, are you funded by taxpayers? I’m not.”
So should people (even scientists) who are funded by taxpayers have free speech or not?
It looks like virtually all of your writing is directed at religious institutions and their members. Does Canada subsidize religion by letting them skip paying property taxes and allowing donations to be deducted from income taxes like America does?
If so, that is a direct subsidy to any religious organization that purchases your writings and it leaves more money for anyone who donates to their church to purchase your writings.
But I think you should have free speech anyway.
Okay, let me summarize:
hrun0815 does not wish to say if he a Canadian. If so, I assume he is not a proud one.
Also does not wish to say if my taxes fund him. Whether proud of that or otherwise, I cannot judge, but I suspect I do fund him.
Consider: Anyone would immediately disclaim personal financial interest in a matter in which they do not in fact have a personal financial interest. So, beating around the bush suggests a personal financial interest.
The whole “reptilian brain” construct is evident nonsense aimed at propping up a Darwinian view of evolution, with little relevance to actual vertebrate evolution in reality.
Facts worth considering: To my knowledge, all birds lay eggs, which fact forces birds to either sit on the eggs or find another bird to do so (cf cuckoo). Mammals’ offspring are usually born underdeveloped and must be fed milk or else (marsupials) further incubated as well, in a specially developed pouch.
Reptiles are exothermic, so offspring can be live born replicas of their parents – but often are not. In that latter case, the reptilian cow will show about the same response as a mammalian cow will to perceived threats to her offspring – in the latter case, whether hatched or not.
So a reasonable way of understanding the reptile would be to say that the reptile shows emotion about what matters to the reptile, and uses the reptilian brain to do so. Evidence makes this clear.
So the “reptilian brain” theory, as commonly understood, is simply wrong, and should be retired.
We do not really yet know what causes animals to be concerned about their offspring.
How does that follow? I could be an extremely proud Canadian who knows that his canadianess does not have any bearing on the argument.
How is that true? It could be that my unwillingness to reveal if you fund me has simply to do with the fact that the funding also does not have any bearings on the argument.
Or, of course, they would simply see what is plain to see: The financial ties don’t have anything to do with the arugments presented here.
Nobody really disputes these facts. I, at the very least, certainly do no.
How does that follow? They could simply guard their eggs without any emotion. However, I ask you not to belabor that point either, because it also has no bearing on the argument.
Ahhhhhh: As commonly understood. Funny thing is, it is probably folks like you who promote this whole deal about ‘commonly understood’. How about discussion what reptilian brain theory actually is? How about discussing all the other things that I supposedly ‘misunderstood’?
True again. So why in the world would you claim that in the case of the reptile emotions are in play?
O’Leary @41,
He has the same rights as kairosfocus does to withold any of his personal information for any reasons.
It has nothing to do with this debate and I don’t believe anyone on either side should feel pressured into revealing any personal info in order to make a point.
Toronto, thank you for your post. Sadly, though, you forgot:
#38
#32
#28
#19
#14
#9
All of which asked me if I was a Canadian citizen and/or funded by Denyse’s taxes. And all of which I had to point out are meaningless to the discussion. Each one of those posts could have been used to simply point out the ‘misunderstandings’ or correct the ‘exaggerations’ or outright ‘falsehoods’.
hrun + numbers [?]
Men and women fight and die as proud Canadians. I am sorry if you think it is somehow just another academic issue whether you live here or are a Canadian.
I still don’t know who you are, and that matters a great deal.
Arguments are not made in a vaccuum.
For the record, I am Denyse O’Leary, born Saskatchewan, Canada, 1950, current Toronto, Ontario, resident.
I became interested in all the nonsense about the reptilian brain because it so little resembled what my American friends say about the reptiles they actually know.
(We have fewer reptiles here in Canada, so it makes sense that “reptile brain” nonsense would be fronted by a Canadian Darwinist U, right?)
O’Leary @45,
Men and women fight and die as proud citizens of their respective countries all over the world.
Not stating their nationalities will not change the validity of any their arguments.
I too am a Canadian but it doesn’t help me in any debate with anyone here.
You are the one trying to make an issue where none exists.
Re O’Leary:
I am very well aware that men and women fight as proud Canadians (or any other nationality). I, by the way, do not think at all think that it is an academic issue if I live in Canada.
I do understand that this matters TO YOU a lot. It seems that virtually nobody else cares. And, you have never explained why it matters to the argument at hand.
I am also aware that arguments are not made in a vacuuum. What context about the argument would you like? You never asked.
Thank you for, yet again, stating this for the record.
Thank you also for explaining why you are interested. Did you ever figure out what ‘reptilian brain’ actually means? Wikipedia disagrees with you. I know you don’t care about that. But you were also unable to find biologists who claim that reptiles don’t care for their young, have memories, have emotions, …
And I am sorry you don’t have that many reptiles in Canada. But, there are heating systems in Canada, so reptiles can be kept and studied in Canada as well.
(And, yet again, no effort has been made to clear anything up. We just have ANOTHER post about whether or not I am Canadian. As if it matters to the argument about the reptilian brain in the least.)