The Discovery Institute’s blog Evolution News and Views tells us that "Science Education Experts Recommend Strengthening Students’ Critical Thinking Skills by Retaining “Strengths and Weaknesses” Language in Texas Science Standards." This post, written by Robert Crowther is referring to the fact that three of the six experts brought in to review the proposed standards have recommended that the language remain in the science standards. These three members are Stephen Meyer, Charles Garner, and Ralph Seelke. Guess what? Each of these reviewers support Intelligent Design! I guess this post should be filed under the captain obvious category.
Lets address a couple of the points presented in the post. First, why did the group recommend keeping the language? As Casey Luskin points out:
Examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a core part of the scientific process, and abandoning such critical analysis merely to satisfy ideological demands of Darwinists harms students by giving them a false view of scientific inquiry.
What Ideological demands? I guess Luskin is referring to the ideology of requiring facts and experimental evidence. Does he really think that bringing up false criticisms of a highly substantiated theory is going to help with students views of “scientific inquiry?”
Reviewer Stephen Meyer observes that:
"Science education that does not encourage students to evaluate competing scientific arguments is not teaching students about the way science actually operates"
The competing theories implied by Meyer is intelligent design, However, I think Meyer is a little confused here. Competing theories need to have evidence in order to be considered. Intelligent design does not have any.
I really do think that critical analysis is very important for today’s students. I just don’t think trying to criticize a legitimate theory with pseudoscience is the best way to go about teaching critical thinking Why not teach critical thinking skills by addressing some of the pseudoscience in society today? It is not like we would be clamoring for subjects. Homeopathy, astrology, numerology, and creationism would all be valid and easy. The only reason to pick evolution as the area for teaching critical thinking is due to ulterior motives.
Filed under: Uncategorized |