|
||||||
|
Organizations for
21st Century Science Education |
What harm is there in teaching "strengths and weaknesses"?False Weaknesses We've compiled a list of some of the common false weaknesses and explained how they teach students to think unscientifically: It sounds fair to teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, doesn't it? But what if the “weaknesses” are all false? What if they are fabrications made to sound true to people who don't know much about evolution? Unfortunately, this is exactly what's happening. The alleged weaknesses with evolution are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution. Is this hard to believe? If this is true, you might wonder, how can it possibly be that some people think “the weaknesses” are real? It happens to be easy to demonstrate that “weaknesses” can be convincing while still being outright wrong. You may have heard the theory that the Earth is round. Well, have a look at the following “weaknesses” with this theory: “Weaknesses” with the Round-Earth Theory According to the theory that the Earth is a spinning sphere, the circumference of the Earth at the equator is 24,900 miles. If the Earth were really spinning, then at the equator people would rotate through 24,900 miles in 24 hours. That's over 1,000 miles per hour—blazingly fast! Too fast! This theory has “weaknesses”:
It's hard to argue with these “weaknesses.” They sound reasonable, like they might be true. To understand why these “weaknesses” are all false, you'd have to learn some physics. Teach “both sides”? Some argue that we should teach “both sides” and let students use critical thinking to decide. Is this critical analysis or taking sides? The weaknesses alleged with evolution have the same problem. Some of them may sound reasonable, like they might be true, but if you understood evolution, you would see that they are just as false as the above examples. Like these examples, they appeal to intuition and to common misunderstandings about evolution and science. Instead of teaching science, they further confuse students' understanding of science. The alleged weaknesses with evolution teach falsehoods and bad logic and reinforce existing misconceptions. Teaching them undermines a student's education. Evolution is as well established as the fact that the Earth is round. Your Child on False Weaknesses How would you feel if someone taught your child that unanswered questions are unanswerable? Or to argue illogically? Or when writing a paper to only report facts that support the thesis and not to tell the reader about those that don't? How would you feel if your child were taught to argue with people by exploiting their misunderstandings instead of clarifying them? These are some of the unscientific “skills” that creationism's false weaknesses would teach our children. Below are some more of the “skills” that children would learn. Each “skill” lists examples of the false weaknesess that teach them. Click on
False weaknesses Virtually all of the false weaknesses convey false information. At a minimum, teaching them teaches students misunderstandings about the world. People can normally get around with misunderstandings, and sometimes misunderstandings are later corrected. But information is power, and teaching false information disempowers people. False weaknesses that teach false information:
False weaknesses Science is founded on the idea that if we investigate carefully enough, we can learn to understand the world. Science proceeds by finding questions and striving hard to answer them. Yet some of the most popular false weaknesses make exactly the opposite assumption. Contradicting the spirit of science, they teach that if we don't already understand something, we never will. False weaknesses that assume the unexplained is unexplainable:
False weaknesses If one scientist fakes his evidence, does that make all scientists wrong? If a scientist stages an illustration to explain a point, does that mean she staged all of her evidence from all of her experiments too? Science tests hypotheses to determine how universal they are, but the false weaknesses teach that if it's true for one, then it's true for all. False weaknesses that extrapolate from one or a few to all:
False weaknesses Thinking logically is a skill with endless benefits. Logic allows a person to solve problems, to write convincingly, to determine the truth, and to do science and math. Teachers and textbooks should strive to arm students with this all-empowering skill. Yet there are false weakness textbooks designed to teach students to think illogically. False weaknesses that argue illogically:
False weaknesses Science is about figuring out how the natural world works. To do science, students have to take all the facts into account. They're going to have to test their explanations against the real world, and each of those facts is a clue. They just can't pick an explanation and then argue for it with only supporting facts, ignoring contrary ones. But that's exactly what many false weaknesses teach students to do. False weaknesses that only report supporting facts:
False weaknesses Science is about trying to understand the natural world. When scientists get together to make sense of a problem, they have to ensure that everyone understands the facts so that they can come to the correct conclusion. The false weaknesses, however, simply try to win the argument. They employ whatever tactics succeed, including exploiting people's naïvety. False weaknesses that exploit naïvety to win an argument:
False weaknesses When scientists ask questions about the world, they have to ask them in such a way that it's possible to answer them. Certain false weaknesses, however, confuse asking questions about the world with asking questions of people. If you design the question so that it is impossible for the other person to answer, then you can make it look like you won the argument, regardless of what's true. These false weaknesses teach students the unscientific skill of establishing impossible criteria. False weaknesses that establish impossible criteria:
False weaknesses Science teachers have the highly challenging and highly responsible job of helping students to understand science. Their students are tomorrow's scientists, engineers, policymakers, and voters. The first step to understanding science is to clear up misconceptions. Were teachers to teach the false weaknesses, however, they would instead be reinforcing misconceptions. False weaknesses exploit people's misconceptions. False weaknesses that reinforce misconceptions: Anti-evolutionists say it's only fair to teach the “strengths and weaknesses.” Instead, as you can see, it's horribly unfair to teach the alleged weaknesses. It's unfair to our children, who should have the opportunity to compete in the sciences. It's unfair to the state of Texas, since these children are our future workforce. And it's unfair to the United States of America, which must compete with other nations that do take science seriously. Please No “Strengths & Weaknesses” Language The “strengths and weaknesses” language was in the Texas science curriculum standards from 1994 to 2009. Every time the State Board of Education (SBOE) evaluated textbooks, anti-evolutionists on the board tried to enforce the language. 
The Texas SBOE voted on March 27, 2009, to adopt science standards which do not include the “strengths and weaknesses” language. However, Representative Wayne Christian Here's why the science standards should exclude the “strengths and weaknesses” language:
If “strengths and weaknesses” are in the standards, students could be forced to study from books such as the deceptively titled textbook Explore Evolution More Information
|
|||||
|
Sponsored By
|
||||||
