Teach the controversy

{{teach the controversy}}{{cquote|…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie [[Balance_fallacy|exactly halfway between them]]. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.|4=[[Richard Dawkins]], quoted in ''Scientific American''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wronger-than-wrong/|title=Wronger than Wrong|author=[[Michael Shermer]]|work=Scientific American}}</ref>}}
'''"Teach the controversy"''' is a [[Politics|political]] [[astroturf]] campaign started by the [[Discovery Institute]] that aims to convince [[Public education|public schools]] and local Boards of Education in the [[United States]] to discuss the "non-scientific problems" [[religion]]ists have found with the [[theory of evolution]]. Of course, when it comes to [[evolution]], there isn't actually a "controversy" at all: it is a [[manufactroversy]] that exists only in the minds of [[Cdesign proponentsists|intelligent design proponents]] and other [[creationist]]s. The dumbest example of its use so far is recorded in [[Richard Dawkins]]' interview of [[Wendy Wright]].

==The argument==
The [[argument]] is structured (using [[pseudoscience]]) in such a way that if one follows it through, it appears as though "Teaching the Controversy" is a reasonable and "right" thing to do for school-age [[children]].

Correct premises are established:
# [[Science|Scientists]] have disagreements about evolution; specific disagreements about the way evolution works, what factors influence it, if it proceeds at a constant or [[Punctuated equilibrium|variable rate]], etc.
# Scientists [[science doesn't know everything|do not know everything]] about evolution.
# There are rare instances where the data (possibly incomplete data) does not fit into the current evolutionary model.
# Scientists have made [[History|historical]] and [[fact]]ual [[Science was wrong before|mistakes about evolution.]] They have ''dared'' to change their minds and their [[Theory|theories]] about aspects of evolution when faced with contrary data. (In other words, scientists are guilty of being not as cock-sure of their ideas as [[fundamentalist]]s are of [[Bullshit|theirs]].)
# The best education is one that encourages students to look at legitimate arguments and talk about them, forming their own conclusion. (Although even this has the potential for [[Loaded language|abuse]].) Examples:
:* Who won a political [[debate]]?
:* Should the world spend more money today for a green earth tomorrow?
:* Did [[Native American]]s cross in 1, 2, 3 or more waves?

From those correct premises, leaps of [[logic]] are then made:
# If scientists disagree about evolution, it must be entirely wrong, in full.
# If scientists do not know everything about evolution, it must be entirely wrong, in full.
# When any single event or fact cannot be explained, today, the theory that explains most things must be entirely wrong, in full.
# If a mistake is made, or a theory is changed, it proves there is a controversy in the scientific community. It also generally proves someone wants to hide that controversy.
# Since science is [[Ignorance|ignorant]] of all these things, the '''[[god of the gaps]]''' is the only answer.

These leaps of logic are then used to "rationally" reach a conclusion:
# Since evolution is wrong, and even the scientists agree it is wrong, then the best thing for students, and the best way to challenge students even according to [[liberal]]s' own views of education is to '''"teach the controversy"''' and let students decide.

The culture of the U.S. is replete with aphorisms like "there are two sides to every story", "let the reader decide", and so on. This predisposes people who are not experts in science to agree that it is important to teach both sides. Of course, creationists don't care that creationism is not an accepted part of the game by any reasonable definition of ''science'', and any real extant controversy would be over the exact details of how life changes (and not ''whether'' it does).

Most [[National Center for Science Education|educational resources]] reinforce that the [[straw man]] controversy of "evolution" vs. "[[God]]" is not real, is not represented in any [[Scientific publication|scientific literature]], and should most certainly not be taught in a [[Public education|public school]] [[biology]] course.

==The Wealth of Educations==
{{cquote|[[Adam Smith|<nowiki>[Adam]</nowiki> Smith]] observed in his day the unfortunate proclivity of some authorities to interject their views into the educational system, and unfortunately many of those views may not have been educated views – but founded in political or religious zealotry which, unchecked, were destructive to the educational processes. Unfortunately, in modern times, we seem to have no shortage of examples where such religious constraints are imposed on education. For example, “Creationism” is a religious idea that politicians have substituted into the science curriculum in a few states where religious fundamentalism is also a powerful political force. State legislatures or school boards substituting their own personal faith or political understanding, for the knowledge of the scientist is precisely the type of extraneous jurisdiction Smith warned about 230 years ago.|||Samavati 2015 ''et al''<ref>Samavati, Hedayeh, and David A. Dilts. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20211025035156/http://t.www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/DiltsDA_Web15_6_.pdf Classical Views of the Academy: Education in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.]"</ref>}}

==Discovery Institute stance==
The Discovery Institute has been very careful with its wording on the recent [[Anti-science|anti-evolutionary]] campaigns. It tries not to directly promote creationism and attack evolution, hence the "teach the evidence" and "let the people decide." However, the campaign does some strong hinting towards [[Intelligent Design]], labelling it as a valid alternative to evolution.

Naturally, if the [[evidence]] was properly taught, ID and creationism would be laughed off the stage. This leads to the most valid criticism toward rejecting "teach the controversy", namely that if you did properly teach it, creationism would be undermined.

==Yes! Teach the controversy!==
With all the brouhaha about [[Origins debate|evolution vs. creationism]], it is clear there is a controversy — at least in some circles. However, said controversy relates not to the scientific community, but within the [[social science]] fields of politics and religion, and it is in those fields that it should be addressed. Curriculum in political science or comparative religion class, dealing with creationism and evolution, is acceptable by just about any standards, and would certainly teach the "controversy" as it exists. Teachers just need to make time in classes at all levels to teach important controversies — such as those between [[Young-Earth creationism|Young-Earth]] and [[Old Earth creationism|Old-Earth creationist]]s — alongside the significant (and sometimes many-sided) [[theological]] controversies between (for example) the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] and the [[Eastern Churches|Oriental Orthodox churches]] and the [[Waldensians]].

And if we're making room for Creationism in the classrooms, we should go for Islamic or Hindu creationism. Oh, wait — was that a ''controversial'' suggestion? If so, let's ''teach the controversy!'' And if that ''wasn't'' a controversial suggestion, then per definition that means that we're in agreement (read: there is an absence of controversy) on teaching Qur'anic lore in American science classes. Great!

And what about [[sex education]]? It's a controversial topic that so many school districts [[Abstinence programs|exclusively teach abstinence in their sex ed classes]], so why not "teach the controversy" there?

==Spin-offs==
The phrase has since been reclaimed somewhat (if the [[Google]] search for the term is anything to go by) as the [[reductio ad absurdum]] that it denotes. If the "controversy" around evolution should be taught, then the "controversy" surrounding topics like where [[scientific storkism|babies come from]], [[Global warming denialism|whether or not climate change is caused by human activities]], [[Smoking|whether or not passive smoking is harmful]], the [[flat earth|shape of the Earth]], and [[Holocaust denial|whether or not the Holocaust happened]] should also be taught — including the views of other religions on the matter.<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html</ref> The [[Texans for Better Science Education|strengths and weaknesses movement]] is the next logical progression in that it attempts to undermine evolution without explicitly discussing creationism.

==See also==
*[[Wedge Document]]
*[[Wishful thinking]]
*[[Fun:Pi#Biblically knowing pi|Biblically knowing pi]] &mdash; teach the other controversy

==External links==
*[http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/an-evolutionary-analysis-of-anti-evolution-legislation/ An evolutionary analysis of anti-evolution legislation], ArsTechnica
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20080608023334/http://controversy.wearscience.com/ Wearscience.com] - for a range of spiffing t-shirts declaring the multiple controversies facing the modern classroom.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Clichéed_sayings]]
[[Category:Discovery Institute]]
[[Category:Education]]
[[Category:Intelligent design creationism]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]
[[Category:Teach the controversy| ]]

Categories: Clichéed_sayings, Discovery Institute, Education, Intelligent design creationism, Propaganda, Teach the controversy