blogs for industry: ...blogs for the dead

Gaps in the linguistic record | Back to blogs for industry | Seigenthaler again next_post

Teaching the controversy posted 12/04/2005 03:27 pm by Jim Hu

Last update:12/04/2005 03:33 pm

Most biologists I know, and a substantial fraction of those online, are not just bewildered, but also annoyed (or worse) by the idea that anyone could believe in Intelligent Design, much less the stronger forms of Creationism. The two sides also roughly, but imperfectly, map to a longstanding divide in US culture and politics, which gets injected into the discussion in the form of accusations of hidden agendas (some of which are not so hidden) etc. In other words, some on each side view the other as misguided, lying, corrosive, and evil...and the stakes are high: the war is over the minds of the next generation.

In this context, calls to "teach the controversy" come with plenty of baggage. And Biology faculty who are already worried about covering the material students need in order to claim a solid foundation in Biology are justifiably concerned about wasting time on material that isn't science. We also bristle at being told what to teach by people who have essentially zero background in our fields of expertise. It would be like me telling someone what they should do in Bible Study.

Into this imbroglio, two attempts to teach the controversy have been noted on the net, one in Biology and another in Religious Studies:

Steve Verhey at Central Washington Univ. has incorporated readings that critique the standard Darwinian view, along with online rebuttals into his Intro Bio class. He's doing this in the context of William Perry's Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development, and with the goal of engaging the beliefs the students bring to the classroom. Dr. Verhys has published a paper (pdf). This is discussed at Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb.
Getting more press: Kansas Religious Studies Prof Paul Mirecki has cancelled a proposed class on "Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies," after controversy erupted based on emails Mirecki had posted on the net, which not only boasted that his class would be a "slap in the face" to "fundies", but also included some pretty offensive Catholic-bashing.

The contrast is instructive. Here's what Verheys says on Panda's thumb:

Honest, my goal wasn't to "convert" creationists - the off-line PT discussion seems to assume that it was, and that that is the only worthy goal. My goal actually was to do as I describe in the paper: to engage the students' very real prior learning about creationism, to give them information, to help (or to stay out of the way of) their cognitive development, and to let the chips fall where they might. I did expect that this approach would convert creationists, and it did do so, but what I claim in the paper is that my approach "produced more attitude change than the other approaches."

IMHO, Dr. Verhey sounds like a great teacher. Most of us talk about the importance of teaching students how to think, not what to think, but it's hard to walk the walk...especially if the students don't use their sharpened cognitive tools to get to the same place as the instructor. I agree with Verhey that students will, on average, be more likely to move toward the Darwinian view of evolution as they practice critical thinking...and I suspect that not all of the seeds he planted in his course have germinated yet.

But as he says, this is not the proper goal. If his students wind up being better, more effective proponents of ID, I can live with that...as long as they use what he teaches them to do it in an intellectually honest way.

Dr. Mirecki, on the other hand, sounds like a jerk.

Edit : Trackbacks(0)

Categories: academia Biology in the news

Trackbacks

The Trackback URL for this entry is: http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/tb.php/2887

No trackbacks.

Pingbacks

No pingbacks.