New book examines evolution vs. intelligent design in science education
Roger Taylor, a SUNY Oswego assistant professor of psychology, wants the next generation of science educators to understand that teaching evolution as doctrine, diametrically opposed to those who believe in intelligent design, sends an arrogant, counterproductive message to their students.Full Story
Since: Aug 08
#1 Feb 2, 2011
Epic Fail here:
"Roger Taylor, a SUNY Oswego assistant professor of psychology, wants the next generation of science educators to understand that teaching evolution as doctrine, diametrically opposed to those who believe in intelligent design, sends an arrogant, counterproductive message to their students".
Immediately uses a strawman. Doctrine? Evolution is the only scientific theory for the subject. as is the germ theory for disease, the theory of gravity... doctrine?
"“When you start talking about the evolution of humans as people, it can be very frightening for some students and parents,” said Taylor
So? Tell them to grow up.
“In terms of the language they use, I would emphasize humbleness,” he said.“We seem to want to make firm statements. The more you know about science, the more you know that it’s tentative. In terms of evolution, let students know that this is our current theory, but it could be overturned".
The possibility of falsification makes no room for creationism/ID.
“Intelligent design can be considered a scientific theory,” he said.
"Taylor argues for an approach to evolution that involves showing, not telling—in an evidence-based, non-opinionated way – about the origin and development of species, and letting students learn to think for themselves".
It is called teaching.
“Science is a way of understanding the world. Science doesn’t talk about ethics and morals and how you should live your life,” Taylor said.“Religion deals with that.”
Actually, he isn't much of a psychologist if he thinks scientific disciplines haven't addressed ethics and morals.
Sounds like another godbot.
#2 Feb 3, 2011
Putrid. Leading me to an ever strengthening conviction that evolution is taking the rap for the sins of psychology.
If we look at the popular anger at evolution, its tied into the perception of "liberalism" which is itself the product of sixties counter culture, something conservatives are still railing against.
Drugs, nihilism, free love, and the cult of irresponsibility.
What are the real foundations of this? How about all that social science claptrap? Everybody is a victim of circumstance. Sexual differences are based on societal pressure and maintained by (evil) white male hegemony. All cultures are equally "valid", we shouldn't value judge (unless its our own evil culture of course). And so on.
What have these views been based on? Pseudo-scientific dogmas like Freud, Jung and co. Hopelessly moralistic and biased anthropological "scientists" like Margaret Mead. Marxism - another pseudoscience with no empirical base...naive and arrogant notions of the "perfectibility of man" in the mould of a social insect. A whole garbled mess of dogma and opinion with precious little empirical support at all.
Evolution takes the rap. Then one of these psychologist douche-bags condescends to lecture on how evolution should be taught so as not to "upset" people. What a crock.
The sooner all this fake psychology is replaced with neuro-biology the better.
Since: Aug 08
#3 Feb 4, 2011
Chimney, agreed but, as it has been with evolution, it is going to be a long road in the USA for neurobiology research to overcome godditit.
Add your comments below
|Fall frights 2014: Sterling Halloweekends||Oct 14||Haunter to the bone||1|
|When ?||Sep '14||Diamond Daisy||2|
|Taco Bell and county standards. (Nov '12)||Sep '14||arodbomb7||5|
|Authorities searching for suspects in two Tompk...||Aug '14||cny||1|
|From GEORGE LUNDY to FEDS to marla Miller to fo...||Aug '14||Diana Vickery||3|
|Heidi Allen||Aug '14||faghettabouit||1|
|Exclusive: New evidence in Heidi Allen's 1994 d...||Jul '14||Sarah||3|
Find what you want!
Search Oswego Forum Now