Comments on: False Start

By: G. Scott

G. Scott — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:50:06 +0000

On the one hand, the science classroom is the best place to deal with these claims. After all, where else would we talk about what’s science and what’s not science than in the science classroom? On the other hand, teachers have enough to cover without having to deal with pseudo-science.

By: Char

Char — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:28:01 +0000

I tend to agree with the first writer, Thud, but I’m curious. If you don’t think ID/creationism is a science, why do think it’s ok to teach it as part of a science class? Wouldn’t that just confuse students more about what science and the scientific method are?

By: G. Scott

G. Scott — Sun, 11 May 2008 13:36:13 +0000

“If they simply did the old-school thing and said ‘I know what science says, but scientists don’t know everything’ — essentially my position — I’d have a lot more respect for them”

I think this has something to do with the notion of creationists going on the offensive — going into battle, as some like to refer to it. There’s a perception — and with a lot of the books Dawkins and others are publishing, not unfounded — that those who support evolution are out to get creationists. I’m sure some are. I’m not. And I have no problem with it being taught in school — even in science class. As long as it’s not called science, and as long as students understand why it’s not science.

By: Thud

Thud — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:14:29 +0000

For all the emphasis ID / creationists put on talking down science it’s amazing to me that they insist on maintaining the form, structure, and appearance of scientific argument. In fact, occasionally they can be seen to argue that *they* are the real, honest scientists.

If they simply did the old-school thing and said “I know what science says, but scientists don’t know everything” — essentially my position — I’d have a lot more respect for them even if I continued to disagree with them. But these folks won’t do it. Instead they end up demonstrating the intellectual superiority of the scientific method — because they have to pretend to use it to make their beliefs palatable.