Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive 2

message: The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves.  Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.  
Opponents believe that this conflicts with the position of mainstream science.  They also believe that the debate thus revolves around the nature of the poltical campaign designed to establish the phrase "teach the evidence" as being equivalent to "teach the controversy".  The position of mainstream science as expressed by the National Association of Biology Teachers in their statement on teaching evolution:
:"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. . . . Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing.  Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."
Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate on-going debates in the scientific community.  They note that some of the problems that were acknowledged by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species,   are still actively debated in the current scientific literature.    The proposed policy, including issues to be analyzed by students can also be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan and the peer-reviewed scientific literature to which it makes reference.  
--VorpalBlade 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: in moving toward resolution, would you be so kind as to list your specific issues with the intro, provide alternatives, and explain why your alternative is more in line with npov guidelines than the present one?  Ungtss 19:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: List my specific issues with the proposed intro? Um, I just did. As for proposing an alternative, as I said, the current one is better, and I'm uncertain I could improve on it at this time. FeloniousMonk 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Balanced Intro

message: Teach the Controversy is a Discovery Institute program.  It is a political action movement in the United States which proposes an education policy for American public schools that involves presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves.  Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.  
 
Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that. 
Proponents respond by noting that they only want to teach scientific evidence and have students critically evaluate continuing debates in the scientific community.  They also point out that what they advocate would comply with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that they have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.  One example of the proposed educational policy, including issues to be analyzed by students, can be found in Ohio's Model Lesson Plan of 2004 and the scientific literature to which it makes reference.
----
::Still propaganda. Advocating "presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution" implies that there is evidence aginst evolution that is being suppressed, i.e. we're back to dogma and the views of the unnamed Chinese paleontologist about censorship in the US again but without referring to them specifically. Ian Pitchford 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is far from what I would call neutral, but I can live with this version.  This is the best version so far (besides my own) and Monk shows a good faith effort to balance.  --VorpalBlade 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the nod and duly acknowledge that it seems to me you too are willing to work in good faith to reach consensus. Let's next consider the proposed methodlogy for moving forward, and revisit this later. FeloniousMonk 00:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal II

message: SUBJECT: This article is about a movement, a loose organisation of affliated beliefs/ideas/theories, etc., that all have a specific POV.
SOLUTION: Edit this article by removing all material that does not identify the momement, who belongs to it, how it is organised and by whom and what its core beliefs/ideas/theories, etc., are:
#statement one
#statement two
#statement three
CRITICS:Then, have a section underneath stating who its critics are and why they do not agree with the movement. Otherwise this will become (has become) a blog rather than an article. The solution is very simple and it can be performed right now!
Take a vote right now. If everyone likes the idea and will play fair, unlock the article and immediately remove the critis and state the 1, 2, 3 of the organisation. Make a section for the critics and DEMAND that the critics are very specific in their factual criticisms. MPLX/MH 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC0
::::I couldn't agree more.  Thank you.  --VorpalBlade 00:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You, sir, are my hero:).  Ungtss 01:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggestion

message: As Robert M. Young has often pointed out power often lies with the person who defines the situation. In this case the power to define the situation in the US public school system as one in which evidence against evolution is not taught lends legitimacy to the campaign to coerce biology teachers to teach something other than the position of mainstream science. Of course, members of the “teach the controversy” campaign want to claim that they are only arguing for the evidence to be taught and critically evaluated in schools, but the very existence of a campaign with those aims as stated implies that the majority of educators are either incompetent or corrupt, i.e., allowing the proponent’s definition of their aims to stand doesn’t contribute to the debate or to understanding of any kind but of itself ends the debate by acceptance of a thought-terminating cliché. Absolutely no one disgrees with “teaching the evidence”, but only a very, very few agree with “teaching the controversy” and so it’s pretty fundamental that these two phrases must not be equated if we are to give two hoots about the integrity of the US educational system. 
With regard to the material presented under the heading “Square One” the following phrases are standard creationist propaganda
*”contemporary Darwinian theory” – educators don’t teach “Darwinian theory” they teach contemporary evolutionary biology in accordance with the consensus in the scientific community. That consensus is challenged by contributions to the peer-reviewed literature, not by political campaigns or sloganeering.
*”the growing controversy over biological origins” – the theory of evolution isn’t a theory of origins. Creationists like to give the impression that it is so that people are left with the choice between either creation or evolution, i.e. either you can be a decent god-fearing person and choose creation or you can side with the evil materialist teachers and scientists by choosing evolution. Even mainstream Christianity doesn’t accept the position that there is a conflict between belief in God an acceptance of the theory of evolution. 
:Anyone interested in the scientific consensus on the other items of propaganda in the article regarding the Cambrian explosion, natural selection etc can simply read the relevant reports produced by the National Center for Science Education or the detailed responses archived at talkorigins.org.
*”intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins” – ID is not a new theory of origins - it was proposed by William Paley in 1800, and as I mentioned above we are not dealing with two opposing theories of origins here, that is simply the fundamentalist assertion.
*”scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism” – evolutionary biology is not based on “Darwinism” orthodox or otherwise. This eponym is used specifically to imply that evolutionary theory is based on dogma.
*“polls show that over 70% of the electorate favor teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution” – of course they do, but “Darwin's theory of evolution” isn’t taught in schools, if it were students would know nothing of genetics, which does not appear in Darwin’s theory. Educators teach contemporary evolutionary biology!
Just as MPLX/MH says “in America, censorship should be the dirtiest word of all” and the “teach the controversy” movement shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it by the use of clever phraseology and by misrepresenting what educators and scientists do. Ian Pitchford 09:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, on all points. FeloniousMonk 13:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Suggestion and Votes Above

message: Teach the Controversy is a movement in the United States that proposes an education policy for American public schools that entails presenting to students the scientific evidence for and against evolution, as well as the on-going debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves.  It is a loose coalition of various groups and individuals, but the leading proponents are the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson.
--VorpalBlade 01:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Intro based on MPLX'S suggestion

message: *Creationism
*Evolution
::I agree with both points here, with one exception. That TTC is a political action movement is a fact. The intro needs to include that fact. Those who work collectively to advance TTC as a policy and those who codied the TTC strategy do so a PAM, irrespective of the motives of individual's who choose to implement it. I'll have to insist on this point being part of any intro. FeloniousMonk 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See also:

message: *links to outside web sites.
MPLX/MH 03:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External References

message: :::I have no ax to grind on this issue - none at all - totally neutral. My interest was in trying to clear up a mess, but what I discovered was that there are SEVERAL existing and duplicated articles on Wikipedia that are all covering the same thing and none of them are very good! There is even a mirror of this article. This article relates to the newspaper article referenced above and that is referenced on the Discovery Institute site itself. If you read the Discovery Institute web site articles you will soon discover that the entire presentation on Wikipedia had been written as though their entire cause was about one topic: creationism v. Darwinism and that is not what you will find on the DI linked pages.
:::I was trying to assist in cleaning up a mess, for which an unnamed contributor has hurled bricks at me since he has a superior attitude of being the final judge of all. I don't like that attitude at all. However, before work continues here I suggest that everyone takes a look at the DI site and at the MIRROR of this article on Wikipedia. I discovered it by reaching the conclusion that this article had the wrong title and so I used the DI title to create a new article ... only to discover that it already existed on Wikipedia. There are several interrelated articles on Wikipedia and I suggest that everyone goes to "square one" - NOT a religious term - just a bit of British common sense (since no one likes my references to the USA - I am British by the way.)
:::Have fun! MPLX/MH 16:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Of axes and squares...