Re: [Plant-education] <no subject>

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

David W. Kramer - 09 Nov 2005 16:03 GMT

Susan wrote:

i don't want to teach astrology or intelligent design, but i'm glad
to hear effective explanations of why not, since i'm called on to
explain this regularly to my nonmajor biology students. i haven't
checked out that programme yet, but i will. i need more than
righteous indignation to convince students of the validity of
evolutionary theory.

sandra

You also might want to read:

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between
God and Evolution -- by Kenneth R. Miller
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060930497/qid=1131551326/sr=2-1/r
ef=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2477755-8466523?v=glance&s=books

I finally found time to read Miller's book this summer. It is hard
going in spots but the early chapters deal with come of the evidence
behind many of the aspects of evolutionary theory that are frequently
the targets of the creationists/intelligent designers. In the later
chapters Miller presents arguments for the the possibility that
scientists, even those who are aware of the preponderance of evidence
for evolution, can subscribe to and practice one of the world's
religions. He also argues (I think effectively) that bashing our
students' religious heritage and beliefs is counter productive. A
very interesting and enlightening read. Of course, there are many
other books of similar nature.

The endorsement of this book is a personal opinion of the author and
does not necessarily reflect the opinion of his department colleagues
or of Ohio State University.

Signature

*********************
David W. Kramer, Ph.D.
Asst. Prof. of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology
Ohio State University at Mansfield
1680 University Drive
Mansfield, OH 44906-1547
Phone: (419) 755-4344 FAX: (419) 755-4367
e-mail: kramer.8@osu.edu
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~dkramer/

Reply to this Message

Jensen, Douglas - 09 Nov 2005 22:04 GMT

I doubt anyone can convince someone else of the validity of evolutionary
theory. However, you can explain to them why it is science, while
astrology et al. are not. You can also point out that there is little
evidence to support intelligent design, but huge amounts of evidence to
support evolution. Most of the arguments that "support" intelligent
design are actually arguments about weaknesses in evolutionary theory.
In some cases the weaknesses are real, while in other cases they are
exaggerated.

One tricky tactic that I brought out this year was to ask students
whether they thought it was a good idea to accept a scientific idea for
which we cannot provide a good mechanism. They said no. Then I pointed
out that we have no good mechanism for gravity, but a good one for
evolution. Also, my introductory biology classes had an assignment to
search the net and find whatever arguments they could that would support
intelligent design. They did the same thing for evolution, and brought
them to class. We then discussed the differences between the evidences
and arguments. The discussion class period landed on the day that
Admissions sent about 10 perspective students and their parents to
visit. I am considering a similar assignment with my junior/senior
evolution class in the spring.

A few years ago, I would not consider discussions of intelligent design
in the classroom, but my mind has changed. I believe it is very
important that we discuss why it is not science. In some disagreements,
it is best to shut up when confronted with an idiotic argument that
should not be given scientific credence. In this case, I believe it is
important to speak out.

Doug

________________________________
Douglas P. Jensen
Assistant Professor and Chair of Biology
Converse College
Spartanburg, South Carolina, 29302
douglas.jensen@converse.edu
(864)596-9123

-----Original Message-----
From: plant-ed-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu
[mailto:plant-ed-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Sandra
Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:11 AM
To: William E Williams
Cc: David Alan Walker; plant ed
Subject: Re: [Plant-education] <no subject>

i don't want to teach astrology or intelligent design, but i'm glad to
hear effective explanations of why not, since i'm called on to explain
this regularly to my nonmajor biology students. i haven't checked out
that programme yet, but i will. i need more than righteous indignation
to convince students of the validity of evolutionary theory.

sandra

William E Williams wrote:

> I was unable to access the interview with Sue Gamble, but egad, you
> have to be kidding! "Intelligent design" is just old-fashioned
> creationism in secular clothing -- why in the world would anyone on
> this list advocate teaching it alongside evolution? It'd be sort of
> like teaching astrology alongside astronomy (as part of the history

> astronomy it would be quite reasonable, of course, as would mention

of,

> say, William Paley or Bishop Wilberforce as part of the history of
> evolution).
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>> select 'Today' and 'Listen'. Then, by moving a marker along a bar
>> until it reads 2:47:23 (hours minutes and seconds into the

broadcast)

>> you will find that she started to speak round then.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Plant-ed@net.bio.net
> http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/plant-ed

_______________________________________________
Plant-ed mailing list
Plant-ed@net.bio.net
http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/plant-ed

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Botany / November 2005

Re: [Plant-education] <no subject>