Of course all this cods-wallop is "hidden" under a false appeal to equality, i.e. the old "teach both sides of the argument" line, when, a) there is no argument and b) the only contra view presented is the Christian one. Why not teach the controversy between the Soux Indian creation myth and the Neo-Darwin synthesis, it amounts to the same thing, i.e. pick the (ever decreasing) gaps in our comprehensive understanding of descent with modification and insert "Takushkanshkan" and his daughter "Wohpe" rather than Yahweh and Jesus.
There are several serious scientific reviews of this book (done by real scientists with relevant qualifications from prestigious Universities) they all point at the same story, here is one from Dr. Brian Metscher of the University of Vienna, he writes,
"All the old favorites are here — fossils saying no, all the Icons, flightless Ubx flies, irreducible flagella, even that irritating homology-is-circular thing. There are no new arguments, no improved understanding of evolution, just a remastered scrapbook of the old ideas patched together in a high-gloss package pre-adapted to survive the post-Dover legal environment. The whole effort would be merely pathetic if it did not actually represent a serious and insidious threat to education."
I will be writing to my kid's schools and letting them know that I strongly disapprove of such books being used (free or not), if one lands on your doorstep then my recommendation would be to "re-cycle" it with extreme prejudice. The British Centre for Science Education is requesting that teachers in schools receiving this book inform them so that they can keep track of the activities of these anti-science organisations, currently they think that the books have been sent to all secondary schools in the country, you can let them know at this WEB site.
2 comments:
Two points.
First, this is what gets me about the 'teach both side of the argument' line: it often fails to recognise that it is 'teaching' from one side of the debate and therefore makes assumptions about the terms of definition which are consequently subject to conflicts of interest.
Of course having a pre-existing tendency to describe what one opposes in ways which preclude agreement does not enable enlightenment or reconciliation, which is why religionists are incapable of fully explaining what evolution is about, just as there are atheists who are incapable of providing a valid insight into the framework of belief if a religionist.
In other words, what looks good in theory falls down in practice.
There is a subsidiary point to this, namely that anyone has a monopoly on or a complete view of truth because there is only one way of correctly describing anything.
But equally there is a structural implication within the methodology that moral relativism is a definitive position and not contingent on sides as they are presented.
For my own part on my blog I try to go beyond overly simplistic dualist oppositions because elements of truth withstand criticism wherever they come from and the more different views that can be found will inevitably weed out the weaknesses on each side.
OP, so how do you explain Ken Millar, a top evolutionary scientist, author of many Biology books and devout Catholic? or Michael Shermer a fundamentalist Christian, now atheist, to name but a few from millions of examples of people who understand perfectly what the other side thinks, feels and believes.
Your theory doesn't work OP.
You can't put science and religion into little separate boxes and then put everything down to a "category error", it doesn't make sense and isn't supported by reality; granted it's a neat way of avoiding making your mind up on something but not a reflection of reality.
Post a Comment