You may be wondering about yesterdays post and its application to science education. Why was it discussed?



Here’s my explanation…



Science educators need to find balance. The balance deals with the delivery of: facts/concepts, skills [nature of science] and science literacy [working knowledge of science in society]. I don’t claim to be able to define when and where these areas overlap. I provide them in a general way. Science educators should help their students understand these aspects. How does this apply to yesterdays post?



Members of the ‘intelligent design‘ posse have been attempting to frame the ‘theory of intelligent design’ to the general public. The ultimate purpose is to legitimize the ‘theory of intelligent design’ into a socially acceptable alternative to the theory of evolution. I don’t want to blog about why the ‘theory of intelligent design’ isn’t a true theory and the fallacious arguments used to support it. Check out Pharyngula for that. I suspect I’ll post about this occasionally in the future [or past]. I want to discuss its place in the science classroom.



Why not in the science classroom?



Let us return to the role of the science educator. Science is a process. I consider, and teach, four basic tenets that are necessary for science: experimentation, evidence, theory and reproducibility. [Please don’t flame me for this approach, many may be used]. Ultimately any proposed hypothesis requires experimentation and large amounts of collaborating evidence to become a theory. Here is where the ID ‘theory’ fails. It proposes no experimental, testable hypotheses’. Ultimately, the ID ‘theory’ consistently resorts to an untestable position. Incredulity and supernatural forces. Hence it is not science. [I’ll concede that future experimentations on the supernatural may occur – incredulously!] Due to the lack of experimentally testable hypotheses, ID fails to be science.



So what you may ask?



My final argument contends that science should be taught in science class. A socio-political debate can be held in civics class, or in church. To ask teachers to ‘teach the debate’ confuses students into thinking there is a debate and the nature of science. There is no legitimate scientific debate.



Conclusion:



There is no scientific debate on the stature of evolutionary theory. Until equivalent evidence [amount/importance] to a true alternative can be reproducibly presented, modern evolutionary theory stands as the accepted model describing the emergence of the vast diversity of life on Earth today.



I wholeheartedly encourage you to visit talkorigins.com for a discussion of the socio-political debate and the science substantiating modern evolutionary theory.



Linzel











Powered by ScribeFire.

Advertisements