Support and commentary for students at Raleigh Charter High School

RCHS

Class Pages

 
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

In August of this year President Bush made the above statement and either came out in support of the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classes or simply made his advocacy of critical thinking and analysis known. On its face, this statement is hard to disagree with. As a teacher, I believe that diversity of opinion breeds worthwhile discussion, and only through discussion can we arrive at truth, or at least the best version of it available. As a science teacher, I think that the scientific community represents the most refined state of this process: ideas are publicly subjected to scrutiny before acceptance into the body of knowledge. Does that mean that scientific facts, or those collections of explanations of fact we call theories, are indisputable once accepted into the body of scientific knowledge? Of course not. But we have to work with something, so science does the best it can.

Consistent with this public debate spirit, advocates of the evolution alternative known as Intelligent Design advocate “teaching the controversy.” They believe that there are serious scientific criticisms of conventional Darwinian evolution, and because of this, the theory cannot be taught as the only origin and change mechanism. Alternatives, principally theirs, should be included, as they, well “expose people to different schools of thought.” The scientific community, including biology teachers, is widely opposed to this.

Why should there be opposition to such a public discussion? Both sides offer reasons: ID advocates say that the scientific orthodoxy is dogmatic about evolution; ID opponents say that ID is bad science or isn’t really science at all. Why should there be a debate? Both sides point to peer-reviewed publications, pools of support in the science community, and serious philosophical and scientific difficulties with the other side. ID advocates would have you believe that the playing field is level, and that their theory is a meritorious as Darwinian evolution, and ID opponents would have you believe that ID’s scientific basis is so unsupportable as to not even warrant calling it science.

This places the lay person in the position of going with his gut, trusting a friend or other authority figure, but probably not delving into the literature, which is the antithesis of the scientific validation process. Unfortunately, this is why school boards across the nation are entertaining the idea of mandating the inclusion of ID as an alternative to the theory of evolution. After all, what’s the harm in teaching the controversy?

The Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, known also as “Operation Pearl” as explained by mathematician Dr. A.K. Dewdney at the University of Western Ontario, elaborates, in great detail, how the 9/11 attacks were not, in fact, carried out by 19 young Arab men who hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings, killing nearly 3000 people. A cabal including the CIA, Mossad, and other agencies concerned with state security, attacked the buildings using cruise missiles, demolished the Twin Towers with controlled demolitions, then murdered the passengers of the four “hijacked” aircraft over Pennsylvania and the remaining three planes were scuttled in the Atlantic. All of this occurred while President Bush watched via private video feed in his limousine on the way to the Florida elementary school where he would allegedly later learn about the attacks.

Is there a 9/11 controversy? If I asked 100 Americans on the street if they thought this idea was likely, I would probably be punched in the face by 95 of them. We all watched the towers collapse on TV, and this kind of speculation makes most people ill. But not all people. 300000 copies of Thierry Meyssan’s book “The Big Lie”, which was the first major media account of these theories. Many more read websites like physics911.net, which contains scientific discussions of the evidence supporting these alternative theories. Apparently there are serious scientific questions that the official account of the 9/11 attacks can’t answer. Operation Pearl, according to the author, fits the facts just as well as the official account and offers additional explanations for some unanswered questions. According to historian of science Thomas Kuhn, this would make the Operation Pearl hypothesis the better one. If it were scientific.

If the Operation Pearl hypothesis is unacceptable, then why is ID? Both are supported by respectable (you may debate this on your own) scientists and authors who have done a lot of thinking on the topic. Both are supported by books, websites, and DVDs (though many are published by advocacy groups). Both are supported by a number of people, including professionals who know something about science, engineering, and philosophy. Both are, unfortunately, subject to the religious views of their advocates. Here’s the rub—both are unceremoniously dismissed by the vast majority of people who profess to know anything about the subject. The Discovery Institute, a leading ID proponent, touts a letter signed by 100 scientists questioning Darwinian evolution. The National Center for Science Education sponsored Project Steve, which bears the signatures of supporters of evolution—and only those named Steve (or Stephanie). They have upwards of 500 names. How many papers in mainstream, respectable journals have been published on ID? The Discovery Institute touts 33 peer-reviewed publications, including journal articles, books, and essays. 33, huh? How many papers in the peer-reviewed history literature have been published on Operation Pearl?

President Bush is not quite right when he says we should expose people to different ideas. We should only expose our schoolchildren to those ideas that have merit. The very proposition that history teachers be required to include alternative 9/11 theories in their classrooms is absurd, not because those theories might be wrong, but because the body of evidence supporting them is poor. So with ID. Teaching the controversy leads us to the idea that the controversy is what’s important, not the quality of the idea. Maybe someday ID will have its pedigree and a sizeable body of literature supporting it. How about we include it then?
posted by Eric at 10:34 AM

 
In this case, necessity isn't the mother of invention so much as abundance. Scientists invent pee-powered battery | The Register. Would this be a P-cell?
posted by Eric at 10:31 AM