Denialism

Teach the (right) controversy

—

by

MarkH
in

So, McCain’s picked a running mate. We don’t know much about her, but she has advocated “teaching the controversy” when it comes to Creationism. I’m sure her views will become more clear over the next several weeks, and we’ll let them speak for themselves. I’m simply interested in the idea of “teaching the controversy” (TTC).

First of all, I agree with the idea. A current events or social science class should delve into the details of the creationist cults and their assault on science. But I have a feeling that when theocrats talk about “teaching the controversy”, that’s not what they mean.

What they mean is “teach our creation myth alongside real science in biology classes”. Why should one theocratic cult’s myths be dragged into a science class? I have no idea. I thought that Dover pretty much dealt with this, but the cdesign proponentsists are always looking for a wedge, and “teaching the controversy” is just such a wedge.

So why not teach it in bio?

Because first of all, TTC is almost always code for teaching creation myths as being equally valid as evolution. Of course the fact that one is religious mythology and one is science is often left out. In a social science class, the Dover decision could be discussed, etc. In biology class, the scientific method and our understanding of life is the proper focus. To perhaps give a paragraph to creation myths would be interesting. I always loved the first section of each chapter of my science books where they would give a brief history of the topic. For example, an intro to biology could start with:

As long as humans have walked and thought, they have pondered their origins. For over a million years, these ponderings were limited to superstition. In the last two centuries, with the development of modern scientific method, we have gained a remarkable understanding of life in a remarkably short time. Genetics, cladistics, and molecular biology have worked together to give us a clear picture of the development and evolution of life on Earth.

Or we could just skip that and say “Shut up. Goddidit.”

Comments

  1. Mike

    I have no problem with teaching students about controversies. Unfortunately, TTC supporters invariably want to teach about a controversy that doesn’t exist — namely, that there is lack of scientific consensus on the fact of evolution. The only actual controversy surrounding evolution is that so many laypeople think that non-science belongs in science classrooms.

    Reply
  2. Brian D

    Not only is she a creationist, she’s also a climate change denier, pro-lifer, NRA member, and peak oil denier (arguable on the last point, I’ll admit; her statements mirror those of suchd deniers and she has strong oil-company ties).

    …But she’s a Woman(tm), and thus the McCain It-Getters know (with their gut) that all the Clinton supporters will instantly switch to red. I mean, obviously! (/facepalm)

    The interesting bits is that by choosing a climate change denier, he alienates anyone who bought his straight-talk campaign (those who looked at his voting record already knew he was lying through his teeth), by choosing a woman, he alienates the fundies (see Timothy 2:11), and by choosing perhaps the least experienced federal politician, he sacrifices his “Obama’s inexperienced” talking point. Who on earth suggested this pick?

    Reply
  3. Interrobang

    The view on women from the McCain side is even more insulting than the view on women from the Obama side — according to McCain, women are a monolith who’ll always vote for a woman over a platform stressing issues of interest to women, every time. (That said, Obama has some serious catch-up work to do there.)

    The strongest Clinton supporter I know of online posted a blog entry yesterday about McCain called “The Asshole Express,” which would kind of be a tip-off.

    Reply
  4. razib

    she attends an assemblies of god christian center. that should flesh out our priors in terms of the expectation of her religious orientation.

    a climate change denier, pro-lifer, NRA member, and peak oil denier

    there are category mistakes here. abortion and guns are to a large extent normative issues embedded in value systems. peak oil and climate not so much.

    Reply
  5. Mike

    BrianD:
    “she’s also a climate change denier, pro-lifer, NRA member, and peak oil denier ”

    What an odd grouping of descriptors to use as a criticism.

    1. An NRA member. Good. Unlike both Bush and Obama, maybe she will not treat the Constitution like a God damn piece of paper that can be ignored if you do not like what it says.

    2. climate change denier and peak oil denier seem to be better criticisms as if true, it would show that she rejects science.

    Reply
  6. RPauli

    Teaching the controversy of climate change denialism is a form of treason to our very future.

    By slowing research, hindering legislation and hindering public awareness, this directly causes real, serious problems for our children who face the world we give them.

    The carbon industries have funded a PR campaign similar to the very successful tobacco industry one:

    “Science is not sure that tobacco causes cancer”
    now becomes
    “Science is not sure that CO2 causes global warming”

    It really is sinful to spread this kind of speech – it amounts to teaching global treason and adds a tremendous burden to the lives of our children.

    And for me, I cannot stand to hear it anymore.

    Reply
  7. Danimal

    Hopefully they do not win, though I find the choice of a woman interesting. I would be hard pressed to have to deal with Bush Jr. for the next four years. Ultimately, whoever is president is my boss, way way way up the chain of command.

    Reply
  8. Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD

    she’s also a climate change denier, pro-lifer, NRA member, and peak oil denier

    yes, but her positions on these issues are not extreme. For example, she has never advocated concealed carry permits for fetuses.

    Reply
  9. abb3w

    That really should be “teach the (correct) controversy”, given that that mostly nonsense is coming from the Political Right on this issue.

    Reply
  10. pete

    Ever see this? http://ideonexus.com/2008/02/13/sun-spot-cycle-prompts-fears-of-global-cooling/

    Why are data and statistics always a skewed mess? One year’s great discovery or solution is another year’s downfall. Asbestos was once heralded as a great discovery http://www.genwi.com/read/6975741 now it is an evil invention.

    I believe in responsible environmental policy – it is crucial. I also don’t believe in creationism (it could be true, I just don’t really know and don’t think we can know – and I am fine without knowing). The big issue we always avoid – all sides – is if we want to save the environment, then why don’t we discuss population issues?
    That one is scary – either messing with freedom or you’re messing with God. In the end – the middle wins and humanity is usually reactionary – handling problems well after they should have realized they existed. Notice that neither both Bush nor Clinton really fixed the fuel issues – didn’t the 70’s give them a hint????

    Reply
  11. Ames

    Someone already hit this but she is a climate change denier –

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/palin-buys-climate-denial_b_122428.html

    Reply
  12. p

    Not sure if she denied it, just said that it may not be primarily caused by man. In the end – that one is still a huge debate (volcanoes being one perported giant contributor).

    I think it has more to do with all the hot air coming out of people’s mouths as they spread fear, hate, and discontent (that would be liberal and conservative).

    Reply
  13. D. C. Sessions

    Way, way back in the day (before O’Hair v. Board of Education) my school district figured they could duck the whole “establishment clause” thing by leaving the details to the classroom teachers, as long as a “moment of prayer” was mandated. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

    It only took one teacher (as it happens, my English teacher). He started the day with a prayer, all right. Prayers to Odin, Hindu prayers, Muslim prayers, Voudoun prayers-if-that’s-the-right-word, you name it. Something new every day. You can imagine the consequences.

    Fair enough, “teach the controversy:” did the world begin in fire and ice per the Norse, or was it all a drop of blood per the Qu’ran? There are lots to choose from, so I doubt that biology class will have much time for anything besides comparative religion.

    Reply
  14. D. C. Sessions

    Who on earth suggested this pick?

    Being up against the first major-party black candidate, he had to do something original. That’s why he picked the second major-party woman VP candidate.

    The pitch is pretty straightforward: He’s 72, and if elected will be the oldest first-term president ever. You can look up the odds of his serving two terms. The VP spot may be the best chance for a woman in the Oval Office for another decade or two.

    Reply
  15. Paul Murray

    What I recall from school is that science classes discussed the content of science – its output, but no so much science per se. Science as a discipline, as a human endeavour. We need that in order to understand why we trust science, and possibly science class isn’t the place it should be taught. The sciences badly need to get the humanities batting in their corner on this one – it’s the role of historians and sociologists (even lawyers) to justify the place of science in our schools.

    “abortion and guns are to a large extent normative issues embedded in value systems. peak oil and climate not so much”

    To a fundie, *everything* is about values. Every issue is framed in terms of whether God is for it or against it. There’s a division in christendom: the “God won’t let the oil run out until Jesus returns” camp and the “God told Adam to tend the garden and care for it” camp.

    Reply
  16. khan

    When Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro, she became “That Bitch” to republicans.

    BTW, will the republican delegates be wearing purple bandaids this year?

    Reply
  17. biologyprof

    The issue of teaching creationism is a difficult one; for myself I side with hard science. However, there is an excellent discussion of this conversy in Anthony Serafini’s book THE EPIC HISTORY OF BIOLOGY

    Reply
  18. hipmonkey

    Just vote for Obama it’s a no brainer. McBush will destroy this country. But Die Bold probably already knows who the next prez is, thanks to the Bush Regime. ”Home of the free” – hahahahaha

    Reply
  19. Didac

    It’s a pity that “Teach the Controversy” forgot economic classes. Perhaps the TINA concept wouldn’t be so enthralled if TTC approaches were also applied in sociology, politics or economics.

    Reply
  20. The Blind Watchmaker

    The “controversy” in my mind stems from a lack of understanding of the words ‘theory’ and ‘fact’.

    Evolution happened. The overwhelming amount of evidence allows us to infer this as fact.

    How did evolution happen. This is theory. This is what the scientists are studying and arguing about at their conferences.

    The “fact” of evolution is not controversial. The theory of evolution is still being worked out (just as gravity was an obvious fact, but the theory of how it works wasn’t modelled really well until Einstein).

    I have stated it before. Creationism/ID may be taught in schools, but not in science class. Only testable things, by definition, belong in science class. Religion class is down the hall and to the right.

    Reply
  21. John

    I sometimes slip the controversy into my community college freshman physics classes. For example, I give the students data and have them calculate when Supernova 1987A actually occurred. (Should be a trivial junior-high problem.) Then I mention how long ago light that we see was emitted from more distant astronomical objects. I conclude noting the absurd notion going about that the universe is only six thousand years old.

    Another example I cover if I have time is thermodynamics involved in life begin driven by the sun. Steady situation: energy of sunlight absorbed = energy of infrared radiated out. So take a typical 6000 Joules of energy.

    At the end, when the energy is radiated from the earth, the entropy loss is about 6000 Joules/300 Kelvin.

    The entropy of the light from the sun is at least 6000 Joules/6000 Kelvin, and is probably 4/3 Joule/Kelvin from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. If a surface layer of water absorbs the light, it heats up immediately so that the entropy increase from the absorption is less than 20 Joules/Kelvin.

    So the entropy on the surface of the earth can decrease, contrary to creationist claims.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *