Teach the controversy

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Further Reading 7 Related claims 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

Claim

Students should be taught all sides of a controversial issue. Evolution should not be taught without teaching the controversy that surrounds it.

Source

• Meyer, Stephen C., Teach the controversy on origins, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 2002.
• Gregg Easterbrook, The New Fundamentalism [1]

Responses

1. Scientifically, there is no controversy. Creationism is pseudoscience, and the theory of evolution has no scientific rival for the last 150+ years.
2. It might well be a good idea for schools to teach students about the Creation/evolution controversy. Since this controversy is basically political, it follows that the best classes in which to teach it would be those dealing with political science or social studies -- there is clearly no reason to consider 'teaching the controversy' in biology classes, any more than any other political controversy ought to be presented in a biology class.
3. Assuming that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, then at least one of them has to be false. It should not be a goal of the education system to teach falsities along with truth. Teachers should not, for instance, teach that the holocaust happened, and then give "equal time" to holocaust deniers. If one wishes to teach critical thinking, taking all viewpoints to be equally valid is not the way to do it.
4. Those advocating this approach should be asked if they approve that all areas of controversy be taught as such. Thus there could be no abstinence-based sex education (as it teaches one side), no religion classes can teach a single interpretation of a scripture, alternate approaches to history must be taught, etc. As Creationists often have additional agendas, such questioning can provide intellectual inconsistency.
5. The issue is not controversial. What is controversial is the creationist unwillingness to acknowledge overwhelming evidence. Yes, it should be taught in schools that some groups of people will spend horrendous amounts of money in order to reinforce century-old delusions based on millennia-old manuscripts. But that doesn't belong in science class so much as it belongs in a psychology-oriented class.
6. Teach logical fallacies and scientific reasoning first, have fallacy list prominently displayed. Teach basic classes organized by historical growth as reasoning evolved. If it is insisted that the "Controversy" be taught, use ID as examples of fallacies.
7. "Teach the controversy" as a rhetorical strategy has been described as a manufactroversy defined as: "a manufactured controversy, motivated by profit or ideology, that intentionally creates public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric." Examplesof similar manufactroversies include the tobacco industry's denial that cigarettes cause cancer and the religious right's repeated attempts to link abortion to breast cancer.

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Equivocation (controversy does not mean controversy between scientists)
• Relativism (claiming that all views are equally worth teaching)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
• CreationWiki's comments [3]
• NCSE, 2002, Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography [4]
• The Appeal to Fair Play

Further Reading

• Scott, E.C. and G. Branch, 2003 (July 24). Evolution: what's wrong with 'teaching the controversy'. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 143 (in press).

Related claims

• Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time
• Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives
• Biology can reasonably be taught without evolution

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments

• Cubist
• Thomas Kettenring