N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 15 2015,05:47) | What Wes said. Dr. Moran consistently refers to ID-pushers as "Intelligent Design Creationists", and hammers on Creationists' pseudo-arguments, and in general is every inch a supporter of real science. He does, however, believe that the best way to deal with Creationist incursions into the science classroom is to teach what Creationism actually is, rather than to erect legal barriers to the teaching of Creationism. In principle, Dr. Moran's tactic might actually be the best way to go; in practice, Dr. Moran does not appear to have any viable strategy for dealing with the unfortunate reality that there's just a whole lot of teachers and administrators who are openly Creationist and/or sympathetic to Creationism.
It may be worth noting that Dr. Moran is Canadian, and therefore may not be fully conversant with the situation that obtains in the US. |
Creationist claims used to be one the best ways to teach about doing science, because it was a fully worked out counter-example, and students could do a comparatively small amount of original research and see through the arguments, whether they rested on misrepresentation of the evidence, misunderstanding, or outright lies. This would nicely point out the importance of respecting the evidence, being honest, fairly representing prior work, bringing in all relevant data, constructing legitimate hypotheses and logical predictions, and so forth.
However, the intelligent design version of creationism is much more deliberately obscure and obfuscatory, tending to rely on jargon and complex arguments that their supporters are not supposed to understand but just be impressed by (like Dembski's math). Conclusions are smuggled in dishonestly by subterfuge (design being the default conclusion in Dembski's explanatory filter, and the whole "the designer could be an alien extraterrestrial, nudge nudge, wink wink"). By the time one sorts through the piled-high-and-deep BS of a typical ID argument, typical students are confused and tend to be left only with the impression that science is too difficult to understand and that there may be grounds for experts to disagree. Therefore, it is not of much use in a science classroom.
In short, old creationists wanted to convince their audience of their arguments, so they tended to present them plainly. Modern IDists were instead hoping to slide under the radar in a cloud of apparent authority, dense incomprehensibility, and confusion.
|
