Teach the weaknesses

From EvoWiki

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

Claim

Students should be equally taught the weaknesses of any theory. This is a variant of Teach the controversy where no alternatives, per se, are included in the teaching, but simply alleged weaknesses in Evolution; therefore much of the controversy about Creationism or Intelligent Design is ducked. It was adopted as a creationist strategy for Texas school book review where state law was interpreted to require teaching weaknesses of Evolution, so that during the testimony it was frequently stated 'this is not about including ID or creationism'.

From [1]: "The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills are the concepts and skills school children kindergarten through high school must learn. The science-related TEKS include clause 3A. According to 3A, the high school biology student is expected to 'analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.' "

Source

• Texas textbooks
• Testimony record of hearings on the point in Texas in September 2003 [2]

Responses

1. Dr. Alan D. Gishlick provided one of the strongest responses in his testimony: "If these examples that have been -- we've talked about endlessly tonight are as flawed as some critics have claimed, then why aren't they asking to be removed? Instead, they are asking you to leave them in and then criticize them. This would have the effect of teachers saying, 'Well, we just made you learn this and now we're going to tell you it's wrong.' "
2. The teaching of weaknesses dispute then turns on what is a weakness? - any claim made by anyone, a claim made by someone with alternative theory, a claim only made in peer-reviewed science. Since the objections to Texas schoolbooks were entirely raised by Discovery Institute naturally the "weakness" to include was those from Intelligent Design. So rather than ID as an "alternative", now it becomes weaknesses in Evolution
3. By simply stating the argument the presumption is made that there are weaknesses. But there is the inconsistency in the argument, that if there are factual errors in the textbooks (as asserted) then why not fix them instead of include them as "weaknesses". Outside the public testimony and largely out of sight of any review, Discovery Institute through allies on the SBOE attempted to intimidate textbook publishers to include ID.
4. This is a good point for creationists to tout, since any class that is devoted to teaching only the weaknesses of a theory would be able to recount creationism in its entirety, whereas other, more scientific, theories would appear cryptic and jumbled, due to the large portions that would have to be omitted from the class, due to being proven facts.

• add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Equivocation (controversy does not mean controversy between scientists)
• add more fallacies

External Links

• The full archive of materials [3] (search in page for '2003')
• A good general description of the issues [4]
• Texas Citizens for Science helped mobilize an effort to counter this attack.

Related claims

• Teach the controversy
• Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time
• Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments

• Dmill96