Devolution
This whole "teach-the-controversy" approach to classroom science teaching of evolution being spearheaded by the misnamed Discovery Institute is downright ridiculous and shameful.
It'd be one thing if, say, there were legitimate differences of bona fide scientific opinion on the subject, something where there were multiple theories of scientific merit. That, of course, would warrant teaching science students about the various arguments postulated for a natural phenomenon.
But, of course, this is pure politics. There is no "controversy." And the notion that a fictitious controversy exists is a disturbing testament to the ability of the extreme conservative movement to fabricate such a debate in order to get into the picture.
Mainstream scientists reject the notion that any controversy over evolution even exists. But Mr. Bush embraced the institute's talking points by suggesting that alternative theories and criticism should be included in biology curriculums "so people can understand what the debate is about."
I certainly don't consider Dubya an expert on scientific matters, or much of anything intellectually rigorous, so I find it highly inappropriate that he and others of his ilk would lecture us on something like science, which in its purest form strives for true objectivity in the form of empirically derived and verifiable results.
And it's all high and noble of these conservative cultural crusaders to couch their PR campaign in the language of academic freedom, when clearly the real controversy is simple whether religion has any business in a science classroom, or in most classrooms, for that matter.
While it's tempting to term the "intelligent design" missionaries cultural Luddites, that'd be a misnomer. The Luddite movement only aimed to forestall technological progress; the anti-evolution crowd wants to turn back the scientific clock at minimum a good century and a half.
"We are in the very initial stages of a scientific revolution," said the center's director, Stephen C. Meyer, 47, a historian and philosopher of science recruited by Discovery after he protested a professor being punished for criticizing Darwin in class. "We want to have an effect on the dominant view of our culture."
But therein lies the problem. It's advocacy of science grounded in religious and cultural prejudices, rather than pure, empirical science, the bedrock of, well, pretty much every major advance in knowledge since the real Scientiic Revolution and Age of Enlightenment, at minimum.
"All ideas go through three stages - first they're ignored, then they're attacked, then they're accepted," said Jay W. Richards, a philosopher and the institute's vice president. "We're kind of beyond the ignored stage. We're somewhere in the attack."
Well, that's certainly one route. But there are a lot more ideas that fell by the wayside because they couldn't withstand proper scrutiny. We can only hope this creationism-in-sheep's-clothing business meets a similar fate.
What strikes me as particularly dangerous and damaging in this whole controversy is that it doesn't address real, pressing needs in scientific learning and education. I don't know the current figures, but I know American schoolchildren have routinely scored dismally in comparison to the students of other leading industrialized countries in math and science. This hubbub over a pseudo-controversy on evolution doesn't help to rectify that gap. Certainly American science students aren't falling behind their counterparts in Asia and Europe because they aren't being taught hokey, meritless rebuttals to evolution. But, you know, if it was really about learning and not cultural politics, then we wouldn't be discussing this at all.
Except that cultural conservatives are growing ascendant, or at least gaining influence in powerful places, with dire consequences for all involved.
A watershed moment came with the adoption in 2001 of the No Child Left Behind Act, whose legislative history includes a passage that comes straight from the institute's talking points. "Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy," was language that Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, tried to include.
Ironic in all of this is that these and other arguments about growing ecumenicalism and an emerging Christian majority have unacknowledged echoes of bastardized social Darwinism.
It'd be one thing if, say, there were legitimate differences of bona fide scientific opinion on the subject, something where there were multiple theories of scientific merit. That, of course, would warrant teaching science students about the various arguments postulated for a natural phenomenon.
But, of course, this is pure politics. There is no "controversy." And the notion that a fictitious controversy exists is a disturbing testament to the ability of the extreme conservative movement to fabricate such a debate in order to get into the picture.
Mainstream scientists reject the notion that any controversy over evolution even exists. But Mr. Bush embraced the institute's talking points by suggesting that alternative theories and criticism should be included in biology curriculums "so people can understand what the debate is about."
I certainly don't consider Dubya an expert on scientific matters, or much of anything intellectually rigorous, so I find it highly inappropriate that he and others of his ilk would lecture us on something like science, which in its purest form strives for true objectivity in the form of empirically derived and verifiable results.
And it's all high and noble of these conservative cultural crusaders to couch their PR campaign in the language of academic freedom, when clearly the real controversy is simple whether religion has any business in a science classroom, or in most classrooms, for that matter.
While it's tempting to term the "intelligent design" missionaries cultural Luddites, that'd be a misnomer. The Luddite movement only aimed to forestall technological progress; the anti-evolution crowd wants to turn back the scientific clock at minimum a good century and a half.
"We are in the very initial stages of a scientific revolution," said the center's director, Stephen C. Meyer, 47, a historian and philosopher of science recruited by Discovery after he protested a professor being punished for criticizing Darwin in class. "We want to have an effect on the dominant view of our culture."
But therein lies the problem. It's advocacy of science grounded in religious and cultural prejudices, rather than pure, empirical science, the bedrock of, well, pretty much every major advance in knowledge since the real Scientiic Revolution and Age of Enlightenment, at minimum.
"All ideas go through three stages - first they're ignored, then they're attacked, then they're accepted," said Jay W. Richards, a philosopher and the institute's vice president. "We're kind of beyond the ignored stage. We're somewhere in the attack."
Well, that's certainly one route. But there are a lot more ideas that fell by the wayside because they couldn't withstand proper scrutiny. We can only hope this creationism-in-sheep's-clothing business meets a similar fate.
What strikes me as particularly dangerous and damaging in this whole controversy is that it doesn't address real, pressing needs in scientific learning and education. I don't know the current figures, but I know American schoolchildren have routinely scored dismally in comparison to the students of other leading industrialized countries in math and science. This hubbub over a pseudo-controversy on evolution doesn't help to rectify that gap. Certainly American science students aren't falling behind their counterparts in Asia and Europe because they aren't being taught hokey, meritless rebuttals to evolution. But, you know, if it was really about learning and not cultural politics, then we wouldn't be discussing this at all.
Except that cultural conservatives are growing ascendant, or at least gaining influence in powerful places, with dire consequences for all involved.
A watershed moment came with the adoption in 2001 of the No Child Left Behind Act, whose legislative history includes a passage that comes straight from the institute's talking points. "Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy," was language that Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, tried to include.
Ironic in all of this is that these and other arguments about growing ecumenicalism and an emerging Christian majority have unacknowledged echoes of bastardized social Darwinism.
posted by Alexander Dubcek | 11:23
0 Comments:
Okomentovat
<< Home