Science's true ID?

[adderslj]

Idle thought on the whole "Intelligent Design" debacle*.

Has it occured to any of the people that are frothing at the mouth about the moves to push ID into science that the main fault here lies with the way that science has been taught? At school, you get taught that science is fact. Once you move to post-school level, you discover that science is, on the whole, what we think might be true, but chances are something else will come along in a few decades and make us look at it in a whole different way again.

By taking an absolutist stance on science, which is, by its very nature, incorrect, you open the doors for certain folks to say "well, if you're teaching this idea of truth, you should teach the alternative as well." Now the correct answer to that is not "You're mad!" but "actually, we're not teaching a truth, we're teaching the latest thinking from a particualr world view we call 'science". Your alternative truth is actually the latest thinking from a particular world view we call 'theology', which you'll find right down the hall, buster."

Rather too many people seem to be letting the IDers define the battle ground. Sun Tzu, folks.


*You know, you take a bunch of religious people who the mainstream of religious thought in their native country think are 'nutters'**, stick 'em on a boat and let them found a country, and this is what happens. It's all us Brits to blame you know, for not properly dealing with our religious nutjobs***.

**Technical term, clearly.

***See **

Comments

[wtimmins.livejournal.com]

While nice in theory, the problem is kids have to be taught in stages.

It's somewhat like history; you don't just plop kids down and start outlining the constellation of gray areas and countless threads that make up history, you start with simple declaratives.

I suspect science becomes a punching bag when it simply goes through the same 'teaching of nuance' all the other subjects get into.

I mean, heck, the same thing happens in religious study; down the road, things aren't as simple and clearcut as when you were a kid.

[adders.livejournal.com]

You're missing the point...

Of course kids need to be taught in stages. The issue here is that of "look at this simple thing, now here's why it happens" instead of "look at this simple, this is why we believe it happens".

This breaks the cycle of "Ha! We lied! This is really why it happens!" and then "Ha! We lied again! This is why it really, really happens" that goes on through science education. It becomes "here's a more complex idea of what it might be happening" and "here's an even more complex idea".

The point is that science is a process of open minded questioning and research. The first isn't teaching that, or even opening the possibility - it's the path to getting credentials not an education, to cramming facts, not learning mindsets,

[5eh.livejournal.com]

I'd have to agree with Adam on this one. I was really pissed in high school when I realized all of it was (in my naivete) all complete bullshit and that NONE of it was REALLY REAL^tm, which just led to me having even less faith in humanity and the education system.

Kind of like how I feel about the fluffy nature of the "lamb of God" thing that seems to be drilled into people. I'd say 90% of Christians in the U.S. don't even realize that "Lamb of God" means sacrificial lamb of God, not squishy happy everyone hug the cuoOOote little baa baa.