Stumble it!Alex Branning Responds
posted in Creationism by admin |Greetings,
My name is Alex Branning and I am the founder of Integrity in Academics. If you don’t mind, I’d like to respond to your blog:
Of course you may respond. I am always happy to have visitors, especially civil ones. Your comment is posted unaltered in the thread where you posted it. My response to you is here.
There is a delay in posting, as you may have noticed, but if I did not monitor the comments sections I’d several hundred ‘comments’ from porn and gambling sites every week, sometimes as many as eighty per day.
“There is no need to pass policy allowing “scientific criticisms”. Scientific criticism has never been a problem. ”
Over five hundred scientists say they have concerns over the Darwinian theory of evolution, dozens of books have been written by prominent scientists explaining some holes they’ve found in theory of evolution and you say there are no “scientific criticisms” of evolution?
Actually, that isn’t what I said. The passage you yourself quoted proves the point. Scientists do debate certain elements of the theory, evidence forces changes in some details now and then, and the jury is still out on some bits. I have no problem, in theory, with such things being mentioned in a science class. A good teacher could mention some of these ideas and move on, a bad teacher– or one with an agenda– could paint a very false picture.
Consequently, I worry that these issues will be given too much significance by being forced into curriculumns where they really don’t belong. You wouldn’t start a ten year old’s exposure to French by handing that ten year old a fourth year college French text. Much of the debate that actually does exist within the scientific community is much like this. It isn’t introductory material and and no matter which side wins, the basics of evolutionary theory remain unharmed. Omitting some of the detail seems therefore the most reasonable course. Kids learn to add before they learn algebra or matrix mechanics. Every other area in education functions by those rules. I don’t see why evolution ought to be any different. But evolution is different, or some want it to be so and the only reason I can think of for this is that these people feel the need to drown kids in details, confuse them before they are old enough, or experienced enough, to sort things out themselves. I’ve touched on this issue before.
Look, I am all for telling kids where a theory has chinks in its armor, but the more I look into this topic the more I am convinced that that is not the point or the method. The more I look into it, the more it looks like the method is to present kids with bad science, which conveniently favors a religious viewpoint to which they likely already ascribe, and expect those kids to evaluate the evidence as if they already had the background to do so rationally. The point of education is to provide that background, to provide the sum total of human knowledge so that the kids don’t have to start all over again at zero. This ‘teach the contraversy’ smacks at going backwards by forcing students to ‘evaluate’ unsupported and poorly argued claims that have been all but utterly rejected by those who have devoted their lives to the various subjects.No one would suggest we teach kids the ‘evidence’ for astrology and have them evaluate it vs. modern astronomy. No. We tell them “Astrology doesn’t work, and here is why.” That way, they get to stand on thousands of years of learning instead of having to trudge through the mud all over again. But that, I think, is what creationists want. Bog kids down deep enough in the intellectual mud and they may never dig themselves out. Religion flourishes in such conditions.
Eminent Scientist Urges Ohio to Keep Critical Analysis of Evolution Lesson Plan
I worry, but the concerns voiced above may be surmountable, though my faith in the public school system is dangerously low. Now, just after the passage you quoted, I went on to say that I do object to unscientific criticism. That point I reassert. I spent a bit of time on the Ohio critical analysis lesson plan, and it illustrates just the sort of bad science– bad science recognized by some of those crafting the resolution, by the way– that seems to follow these ‘teach the controversy’ policies. I won’t quote it here but I hope you follow the link I’ve provided and read the article.
Now, the Discovery Institute’s list– I assume that is the 500 to whom you refer– is deceptive for several reasons. First, it is a blatant appeal to authority and those are weak arguments even when not fallacious. That is, the Discovery Instutute’s list is nothing but a list. Its authority rests solely upon the fact that some educated, and presumably intelligent, people said so. There is no argument, no evidence attached to the list so it is purely a matter of authority and it is all too easy to show how weak that authority actually is.
First, it is not only an appeal to authority but it is mostly an appeal to spurious authority. The first is not necessarily fallacious, though weak, but the second is most definitely a logical no-no. Most of the authorities on the list are authorities in various unrelated fields. An engineer may, for example, be just as bright as a doctor, but an engineer’s opinion on heart surgery bears less weight than the doctor’s opinion on the subject, wouldn’t you agree? Even within the same general field one’s specialty can make a difference. An electrical engineer working on circuit boards is not likely to be equally competent at bridge design.
Finally, this list is frequently used, and I think it is how you’ve used it, to show that there is real dissent within science. Five hundred is a happily large number. But think about it. Five hundred may be a high percentage of the people on my block, but in my state five hundred is hardly noticable. That is the case with this list. If you run the numbers, you’ll find that five hundred scientists is a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of working scientists. If you run the numbers, this five hundred looks like about three scientists of about every ten-thousand. I’ve already worked out the rough estimate. Those are very bad odds. Three in ten-thousand is not enough to justify teaching this stuff in public schools. If this science has merit, soon there will be three out of ten-thousand dissenting. When that happens no one will argue its place in school.
If you are interested in another take on the list, try TheQuestionableAuthority.
“Real science doesn’t need policies. Real science has evidence. Evidence trumps policy.”
Agreed. However, today’s educator’s are stifling our students’ education by not providing all of the scientific evidence, so we need policies that will encourage them to do so.
Well, this is simply not true. Students are provided with the best science available. It is the fringe science that gets blocked, and it is the fringe science these policies support. Rather, it is particular bit of fringe science that these policies support. That really, was the point. Real science has the weight of evidence. It doesn’t need policies. It gets into the school system because it has won the right to be there by winning the minds of the scientists who study the subject.
I’ve been following this debate for years, and I have gone through great efforts both in the past and currently on this blog to point out exactly why particular arguments are flawed and why the resulting conclusions are suspect, and I think I do a fine job of it. I’m happy to run through any of those arguments that interest you. I’ve already posted some examples, and feel free to look around the blog some more.
You can read my web site and you will find that I am not interested in promoting intelligent design or any other alternatives to the origins or diversity of life.
I did read your disclaimer, but forgive my scepticism. You appear to be pushing the same bad science that creationists have been pushing for decades and which ID theorists adopted wholesale, including, for example, the reference to the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian has long been a favorite of creationists and ID theorists, even gaining a position of honor on the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin homepage. And, rather obviously, your organization has a suspiciously wedge-like feel to it and is rather indistinguishable from other pro-ID organizations. So again, forgive my scepticism, but if it quacks like a duck…
You say that you are not interested in promoting intelligent design. What are you interested in promoting? Sincerely. If you are not interested in promoting any alternative theories– that is, theories different than what is currently in the schools– then why have you devoted so much energy to objecting to what is currently in schools? It doesn’t really add up, even given that you claim to only want better science education. I’d like that too, but I don’t adopt arguments culled from fringe science to try to make the case. Which, I suppose, brings me to ask, “Why have you adopted the wretched science that the creationists have been peddling?” Honestly, my first impression– can’t judge a book by the cover… blah, blah, blah and such– is that you are smarter than that.
I look forward to the discussions this policy will bring up, and I appreciate you allowing me to respond.
Yes, I do hope you will respond. So few do.
Take care.
Popularity: 1%
