Teach the Controversy? No Teach the Evidence!

The Commissar has come up with a great response to the Intelligent Design Creationists mantra of “Teach the Controversy”. His resposne,

bumper_sticker_var_11.jpg

I like this alot. First, it highlights that ID has no evidence and that evolutionary theory has a mountain of evidence. It is precisely what scientists do: look at the evidence and then revise and update one’s theories.

FILED UNDER: Education, Science & Technology,
Steve Verdon
About Steve Verdon
Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research. He joined the staff at OTB in November 2004.

Comments

  1. RJN says:

    ID has all the evidence that evolutionary theory has. ID does not dispute any evidence produced by evolutionary theory scientists.

  2. Christopher says:

    Steve,

    WHAT evolutionary evidence? Scientists have never been able to prove evolution-EVER! Anti-religious types will have us believe they have and that if you don’t believe then you are blind to the evidence. But listen very closely-THEY HAVE NEVER PROVEN EVOLUTION! THERE IS A DISTINCT LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR IT!

    Got it?

  3. MrGone says:

    Steve, the phrase “blowin’ against the wind” comes to mind.

  4. Steve Verdon says:

    MrGone,

    I long ago realized that for some people no amount of evidence will ever suffice to get them to change their views.

    Christopher,

    Science never proves anything, ever. Really. So your complaint is irrelevent.

  5. floyd says:

    teach the truth, now there’s a slogan! how about stick to the subject there’s another. for instance if you are teaching physiology, it is not necessary to even mention evolution or design, just “this is how it works and why”. Separate comment; archeologists find a broken piece of pottery and say it is proof of “intelligent design”, evolutionists see the hand that made it and say it is not.[lol]

  6. Steve Verdon says:

    What truth floyd? Your truth, the Hindu truth, the athiest’s truth? Exactly whose? How about we teach the evidence (and how to evaluate it) and let people make up their own minds?

    As for evolution and physiology? I don’t know I don’t know much about physiology, but for medicine it has been known to come in handy.

    Separate comment; archeologists find a broken piece of pottery and say it is proof of �intelligent design�, evolutionists see the hand that made it and say it is not.

    LOL? Sorry, I’ve seen this false analogy…err joke so many times that I get MEGO.

  7. floyd says:

    whose evidence?your evidence? hindu evidence? christian evidence? pure objectivity is of course impossible. the obvious point here is that you don’t offer it. what do you see as false in the two statements you claim to be analogous? evolution has all the earmarks of religion, since it serves as a source of personal identity to the believer and is seen by them as crucial,or at least “handy”, to every subject from classroom english to car sales.will the new “evolvo” be intelligently designed?

  8. Steve Verdon says:

    Evidence in science has another name floyd, it is called data. So when it comes to teaching the evidence it is in reality teaching the data and how to evaluate it in terms of hypotheses. Really, I don’t see what is so controversial about this.

    As for objectivity, I never claimed that teaching the evidence would be purely objective. This is getting tiresome floyd. You and RJN, Bithead and the rest of the ID choir section always fall back on these strawman arguments. You keep writting about how I’m arguing in favor of something I haven’t even suggested.

    Evolution does not serve as a personal diety anymore than a tree or lake could. This kind of thing defines the notion of a deity downwards to such a point that it makes the term deity meaningless. Why isn’t the process that makes rain a personal deity? It is natural, and debunks all the supernatural explanations of how rain is made. Further, it believed by every single athiest as well as every religious person. So it strikes me that we shouldn’t be able to teach kids about the process of rain, and other things such as plate tectonics.

    Same for thunder, lightening, and the wind. Maybe we should go back to the three R’s eh floyd. That way we can have a backwards population that is clueless about the science that is driving the modern age.