Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts

Thursday, October 17, 2013

That is not what "balanced" means.

Billy Hallowell over at Glenn Beck's The Blaze posted an article today with the headline: Creationists Dealt Major Blow in Battle Over Evolutionary Content in Texas Biology Textbooks.  The article begins thusly:
The battle over evolution and creationism in public schools forges on. And in Texas, where some social conservatives have advocated for a more balanced approach to the study of life’s origins, it seems creationists may be in for major disappointment.
Notice that social conservatives are merely asking for 'balance'; how could that be unreasonable?  The answer is simple: the type of balance they'd like is not balance at all as it is appropriate to the discipline of biology.  Scientists and sciences are responsible for reviewing/regulating the methods appropriate to their respective fields.  In general, the scientific method includes the collection of empirical data, testing through observable experimentation and the formulation of hypotheses and predictions that can be so tested.  Creationism conforms to none of these methodological requirements.  Within evolutionary biology two scientists may disagree on the importance of alleles in replication or Dawkins' notion of the 'selfish gene'.  And these sorts of disputes can (and perhaps should--depending on the level of education) be included in biology textbooks.  That, however, is because both sides may be discussed within the confines of the methodology appropriate to the sciences.  Creationism should be taught in schools (even secular, public schools) in classes on religion, history, philosophy.  That represents balance.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Science, religion and education.

I think it is absolutely imperative that the Bible be taught in schools (indeed, I do teach portions of the Bible at the college where I work).  It should be taught, however, in religion classes or in literature classes.  The Bible is one of the most influential texts in the whole of western history, and should be treated as such.  It is not, however, a science book (nor do any of its authors really make such a claim for it), and, hence, should not be used in science classes.  Apparently the Indiana state legislature agrees, since Rep. Dennis Kruse was unable to pass his legislation that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science classes.  But Kruse will not quit.  Instead, he's decided there is more than one way to skin a cat.  His newest proposal, which he calls the "truth in education" bill, will allow students to ask questions in class, challenging teachers to prove what they are teaching.  Why hadn't we thought of that before?