You’ll remember that a few days ago I dropped the bomb that Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, had come out on the wrong side of the evolution “debate.” The next day Adams replied (to me? the ego likes to think so, but probably not) in his own cryptic way that he didn’t think any such thing, he was just complaining that the two “sides” of the “debate” don’t listen to what the other is saying. Then he tried to get evolution advocates to support using the word ‘god’ in the classroom via a convoluted thought experiment. I replied here, here and here.
Let’s say off the bat that I don’t think there’s a “debate” at all. There’s science, and then there are a group of interested parties who want to pervert science for their own gain. Adams wants to make the point that scientists themselves are ‘interested parties,’ but that’s ridiculous. The safest way to make your name in science is to prove that what everybody else thought about something is wrong. That counts for evolution just as much as it does for every other field.
Adams thought that it would be healthy for kids to ‘learn the debate,’ which I also think is wrong. Kids should ‘learn the debate’ when they have enough grounding in the fundamentals to distinguish a valid argument from a cleverly-constructed fake. If my own experience is any guide, a college elective is the perfect place to learn the ins and outs of the “debate.” The high-school me would never have picked up the bogus arguments in a book like Darwin’s Black Box and there’s a good chance the entire field of science would have ended up looking murkier, uncertain and confused between skepticism and dogmatism.
Anyhow, I bring that up now because it turns out that researchers at Central Washington U. have tested my point and found it good. Basically, undergraduates benefit from learning the debate. The authors argued that the same wouldn’t hold for grade-schoolers (subscription only):
The study provides “powerful evidence” that directly engaging students’ beliefs, rather than ignoring them, may be an effective way to teach evolution, writes biologist Craig Nelson of Indiana University, Bloomington, in an accompanying editorial. But he agrees with evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago that this strategy wouldn’t be appropriate for high school students, who, says Coyne, “are not intellectually equipped to deal with such [a] controversy.”
***Update***
Pharyngula has more.
scs
Cheers for Dilbert for being intellectually open. I don’t know if I agree with you on the debate time. Actually I don’t think it’s a necessity or preferable to debate ID in highschool. But, IF it did happen, I don’t think the world would end. I remember my highschool philosophy course junior year and we got all into all the debates and had a lot of fun doing it. It’s not like highschool students can’t think for themselves. Anyway, the whole controversy is no big deal to me because evolution took up no time at all in my highschool biology class and I hear takes no more than a week in others. As long as students hear about evolution, that should be the main point. Whether they debate ID, as long as it is a fair ‘debate’ depicting it as something outside if mainstream science and not pushing it as fact, should be left up to the schools.
Anderson
Funny guy, Adams. Too bad he’s such a dumbfuck.
jg
Its not left up to schools is the point. People want it to law that ID is taught and evolution is qualified as not a proven fact.
This still comes down to people thinking evolution in any ways addresses theorigins of man. It doesn’t. It explains the processes we have and do go through. Id id a theory that is completely unprovable or disprovable that says an intelligence made us. There’s no science there. At all. We shouldn’t have scientists or science teachers even mentioning it because it gives it credibility. Its a dangerous first step.
Anderson
SCS, what else are students supposed to “debate” in high school? The theory of relativity? Whether the Holocaust happened? Whether women are inferior to men?
The entire point of the “debate” is to signal to the students that evolution by natural selection isn’t “true” the same way other scientific theories are true. That is not a debatable subject. A trained scientific researcher could set out to falsify Darwinism (good luck), but that’s not within the scope of a high school or college survey class.
There are places for shooting the breeze about astrology and ID and ghosts. Blogs for instance. Not the science classroom.
Marcus Wellby
Yeah, we usualy did that behind the gym while smoking some kind bud. ah, good times, good times.
Walker
There are a third faction in the ID debate that doesn’t necessarily support ID, but wants students to be exposed to all viewpoints. However, my experience teaching college students has been exactly along these lines. The students I have these days tend to fall into one of two extremes: (1) all truth is a matter of authority or (2) all viewpoints are equally valid. The analytical skills of these students is quite lacking.
There are two separate issues in this debate. The first “Is ID science?”. The answer to this is safely “no”. There are scientific parts to ID (I will happily call any of Dembski’s papers about random walks in uniform probably spaces “real math”). But the entire research program (putting the parts together to get a Designer) is not considered science from either the perspective of the scientific community nor basic epistemology.
The other issue is “Is teaching ID, even outside of a science class, good educational policy?” Public policy in education is a much, much harder question. I have strong opinions on what the best pedagogical decisions are. But often those decisions involve telling students half-truths that are only expanded later.
Kiganshee
actually, the scientific community is famous for initially rejecting theories. plate tectonics, which we take for granted today, was initially ridiculed by the entire geological community. eventually, as fossil evidence mounted, people started to listen to what alfred wegener had to say.
that’s not to say that ID is a sound scientific theory. it’s not, and shouldn’t be taught in schools. but researchers established in fields can be very closed-minded as well, which does make them “interested parties” as adams puts it.
Walker
(1) They reject good theories as bad science, not a not science. There is a difference here.
(2) I did quality my comment with “nor basic epistemology” as well.
Tim F.
And yet I can summon Alfred Wegner’s name from memory without having to look it up. That more or less proves my point.
scs
Well that is not a good thing of course. ID shouldn’t be required at all and evolution should be presented as however mainstream science views it.
I don’t believe that is true. By debate, it could also mean just ‘inform’ or ‘discuss’. One could discuss how people in Columbus’s time thought the world was flat and show students why they thought that just as you could inform students just what some religious groups and other groups think today, and then explain why it is not accepted by the scientific communuty today
That’s true. That’s why discussion and debate on many subjects shouldn’t be shunned, especially for young people.
Brian
This reminds me of an op-ed in last week’s LA Times about how academics has been muddied through the avoidance of teaching time-honored courses in areas like Greek Civ. or American History, and professors instead “teaching the conflict” between these subjects and those who advocate mushier alternatives or historical rewrites. In other words, Greek Civ/Western Civ would be taught as morally indistinguishable from other forms of society. Religion and Science is just another battleground for this moral muddle.
Walker
But you don’t teach it by throwing them directly into the debate. You need to build up their analytic skills before letting them debate it. This is what is not being done, and that is what often leads to (2): all viewpoints are equally valid.
Fogelin’s book Understanding Arguments is an excellent example for this. This book teaches the students informal logic and basic rhetoric (the separation of these two ideas is one of the greatest pedagogical crimes of the 20th centure) before examining the Creationist arguments in the back of the book.
aop
It’s even simpler than that. ID cannot be verified by experimentation. Therefore, it is not science. Therefore, it should not be taught in science class. Religion class, fine. It’s similar to deism. It ain’t science, and this whole, “high schoolers are too young to understand the debate” tack is the wrong way to go. Leave it at, “ID isn’t science.”
scs
True. I guess you do that by informing students of the facts first. Facts are underrated today I believe. In college, they teach you how “to think” and donn’t really give you enough cold hard knowledge. That’s why you see those college students on the Jay Leno show who don’t know any history. I suppose ideally, it would be a mix, maybe like 80% facts, 20% debate.
Steve S
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s a good healthy part of scientific process, and in the end creates much stronger evidence pro or con. I’ve had mentors who when I told them something asked “Are you sure?” questions back. Pressing, just to validate how thoroughly I had researched the issue. That’s good.
Consider Cold Fusion for example. Many jumped on it, and several scientists tried to validate and were unable to or found alternative theories to explain the initial experiments.
Steve S
Naw, it’s Moral Relativity that leads to “all viewpoints are equally valid.”
I love tossing that one in Republicans faces whenever they bring up some lame claim that I should be more tolerant of their stupidity. :-)
jg
exactly. Why wait until students are old enough or educated enough to see thats it bullshit, to teach them about bullshit? Whats the point?
scs
Because it’s a controversial current topic involving highschool science and students their age and it might interest them to see what’s going on. Anything to interest students in science can’t be a bad thing. But on the whole, I agree there’s no point.
Another point to clarify about debating for young people is that I that I think it’s never too early for young people to start debating, as long as they are treated to a factual framework at the same time. The younger they start, the better, I think.
spoosmith
I’m quite bewildered that this is even an issue. I’d be willing to bet that if teachers in those states that are being made to teach ID in science class proposed that ID covers advanced races of aliens from another galaxy creating life, ID advocates would throw back their heads and roar.
This issue is ALL about bringing religion into school.
Walker
All I ask is that they learn how to debate properly first. There is a lot called debate today that ain’t debate. It’s people talking past each other.
The problem is that there is no place to teach a course on “reasoning” at the secondary level today. English and History courses teach you to write by “citing evidence”, but there is no attempt to teach students how to evaluate that evidence. The only evaluation that was ever being done was in the instruction of mathematical proof. However, thanks to a misunderstanding in the NCTSM 2000 guidelines (a “de-emphasis of two-column proof”, since paragraph-style proofs have been demonstrated to be better, was read by school boards as a “de-emphasis of proof”), that is gone as well.
Heck, Fogelin’s class isn’t even required all Dartmouth students — just the philosophy majors.
scs
That’s why I enjoyed my highschool philsophy course so much. Should be more of that.
aop
If they’re interested in the “debate” (and I use the term facetiously), they can read about it in the newspapers, or ask their parents, or talk to their pastor. It would also be controversial to say that there’s an invisible planet between Earth and Mars. That doesn’t mean it should be taught in astronomy class.
Shark
There’s science, and then there are a group of interested parties who want to pervert science for their own gain
Oh, you mean the whole global warming thing! Yeah, I agree with you.
Science in general today is basically a load of crap. “Scientists” are chasing the lucrative grant money, and it seems that global warming is being taken as a secular article of faith.
So honestly, may as well teach ID. It’s not like “science” deserves any better at this point…
Walker
Having minored in philosophy with my math degree, I agree that this would be nice. But not all philosophy courses are equal. You could do a entire course (and probably should) on rhetoric and reasoning without getting into stuff like Decartes and Kant.
scs
Yeah that’s pretty much what we did. I must have had a good one.
Walker
I know this is a troll, and I shouldn’t be responding, but…
Tell that to your average biology postdoc making 30k annually. Grant money typically pays for lab costs, not people’s salaries. When it does pay for salaries, it is capped at 2/9 of the salary set by their home institution (i.e. essentially covering summer leave from a university).
jg
What is gained by the supporters of global warming if their ideas are accepted? What is their purpose in perverting the science as you say?
What is gained by those who oppose it?
From what I’ve read global warning is a collection of data and facts that show that our presence on this planet affects the environment and some have observed adverse effects that should be studied and acted upon.
Why are some opposed to that? What possible reason could there be to be against taking steps to prevent worsening our environment?
BlogReeder
Tim F.,
I can’t find where Scott says “grade school” kids in his post. Or “high school” kids. He just says “kids”. Are you misrepresenting his argument and then attacking the misrepresentation and then taking credit for being right?
:)
mark
scs said:
I remember my highschool philosophy course junior year and we got all into all the debates and had a lot of fun doing it.
ID in philosophy class or a comparative religion class, fine. science class eh, not so much
Tim F.
BlogReeder,
Nobody is debating whether college students should be taught evolution. That question, at least for now, is outside the creation nuts’ ability to control. So the only ‘kids’ Scott Adams can be talking about is grade schoolers, unless he intended to insert himself into a debate that doesn’t exist.
We also do not generally refer to undergraduates as ‘kids.’
Please feel free to try again.
DougJ
What if we just paid the newspapers to run positive stories about intelligent design? Would that satisfy the Dobsonites?
NOTR
Scott is also giving away (on the web) his book, “God’s Debris.” I provide the URL to goto to d/l it in:http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2005/11/gods-debris-by-scott-adams.html
But read it again if you think it is about “Intel Design.” You may have missed the point.:)
Jcricket
It’s really sad how proponents (such as Scott Adams) of “teach the controversy” fail to understand the “facts” about evolution:
* First, they consistently misuse the word theory to mean “something less than a fact” to bolster their case that evolution isn’t “proven”.
* Second, they overstate the evidence that supposedly needs to be addressed (i.e. all of the counter-arguments have been debunked, especially the empirically/logically falsifiable ones).
* Third, they fail to understand that there are lots of scientific theories, like gravity, that are far less thoroughly understood than evolution. Nevertheless, we would never “teach the controversy” about gravity because there is no controversy, just some more understanding left to be discovered.
* More importantly, ID is not science, and therefore has no place in science class. Whether taught as science or discussed in relation to evolution.
* Evolution is well supported by the facts. Deeply, in fact. At this stage there’s little left in the “hypothesis” stage (which is what most people think the word “theory” means).
* “Trillion-to-one” hypotheticals about how there might be some evidence found in the future to support a designer are also no reason to muddy the waters (see first bullet point) now, except in a philosophy class. Even then, the hypotheticals are usually “logically weak” proofs for tossing evolutionary theory.
* Evolution makes great testable/falsifiable predictions and is used every day (viral theory, economic markets, etc.). Evolution is, in fact, a wonderful example of a scientific theory, and, in fact, the “evolution” of “evolutionary theory” is a perfect example of how science works. Darwin himself couldn’t understand how certain organisms would evolve, and proposed explanations that later turned out to be incorrect. The fact that his core theory of natural selection still stands is a testament to its scientific validity.
I also find it humorous that the same people who spend all their time railing against “moral relativism” are themselves in favor of teaching an “alternative viewpoint” when the facts don’t gibe with their own beliefs.
Gary Farber
“You’ll remember that a few days ago I dropped the bomb that Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame,”
You did? I missed that. If it involved announcing either the existence of Adam’s blog, or his nonsensical views, it was hardly an announcement.
Adams has been making nonsense on his blog since he got onto ID, but everyone knows that, of course. What was the “bomb”?
blogReeder
I think you misunderstood and read way more into his use of the word. Let’s say he used the word ‘guys’ instead of kids, OK. To me, you like someone who would say he’s only talking about boys and rant about him leaving out girls. See what I mean? I know this sounds like nit picking and really I don’t know what he really meant. but you based your whole rant on this little word. Right? And where would your point go if he had said guys?
blogReeder
This is how I see the whole thing:
A humorist (Scott Adams) making a point (non-credible arguments by both sides against the other) about a ongoing (he didn’t start it) debate (ID vs evolution) is attacked by one side (PZ Meyers, Tim F. and others) because he didn’t say the other side was not a valid theory (see Jcriket above) which wasn’t his point.
Until someone actually talks about the point of his post and shows how it’s wrong/right/or what ever (we are not misrepresenting ID arguments because..), you are misreprenting him and as an extra bonus, proving his point.
Tim F.
blogreeder, Scott Adams made three basic points, of which I asnwered two. First, he’s wrong that scientists as a whole constitute ‘interested parties.’ See above. Second, it is not helpful for grade schoolers to ‘learn the debate,’ as Scott claims. It is helpful for people to ‘learn the debate’ when they understand the fundamentals well enough to distinguish legitimate arguments from bogus.
You claimed that Scott was never talking explicitly about grade schoolers, but that’s simply idiotic. If Scott had college students in mind then he’s the only person on the planet having that debate. The question at hand is whether middle schoolers and high schoolers should learn about creationism, and that’s the question he attempted to answer. He was wrong.
I didn’t answer his third point because it was too silly. Yes, everybody can agree on something and be wrong. So what? That’s true for evolution, it’s true for germ theory and it’s true for universal gravitation. If some doofus declares that masturbation causes disease and the planets are pushed on their orbits by angels flapping their wings, that should not oblige me to teach it. Scientific consensus changes when an ambitious young scientist comes along and makes a name for himself by doing first-rate science, not in response to some jerk with an ulterior motive. That’s the difference between, say, Alfred Wegner and James Dobson. The Curies and the Eagle Forum.
Absorb that and get back to me about whether I answered Adams’s points.
Chris Arndt
The exact same thing is what I say about evolution or the theory of evolution as it is presented as an origin of our species.
Now I may not be an authority in any such science to the point where I can adequately adress various relevent issues but I can tell you that I have never been communicated sufficient evidence to convince me that 1) evolution is science under the definition in the above blockquote and that 2) science is even capable of accurately and significantly (let alone sufficiently) describing origins over a vast period of pre-historical time.
scs
Scott said “kids” which can apply to highschool kids. You ever hear the phrase “a bunch of highschool kids”? He obviously meant highschool kids and not grade school kids because biology and evolution is not commonly taught to grade school kids, and instead is taught to highschool kids. Nice try to get out of that one Tim.
Tim F.
Oh for pete’s sake. Anything short of college fits perfectly with my argument. High school too.
blogReeder
Just one question before I absorb. You are talking about the third Scott Adams post, right?
I sorry I wasn’t clear but I was talking about his first post in my rant. I felt that’s the one that started it all.
scs
Tim said:
Tim you’re losing me here. You said this above, as a rebuttal to what Scott said. However, he never said or even implied gradeschoolers. He was obviously talking about highschool, when kids learn biology. So how can you write that Scott “claimed” gradeschool? The issue of highschool was never resolved by the researchers you quote because they only commented on gradeschool- and highschool is not gradeschool. So we only have your opinion to go on about highschool, but no research, so we can’t say Scott was “wrong”. I think you made a little error there. Just admit it man, we won’t think less of you.
Tim F.
Yes, and I repeatedly said that college was the point when students are prepared to understand the fallacies of creationism, not high school. So high school goes together with grade school here in being too soon to ‘learn the debate.’ My post makes that quite clear.