Slashdot

I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it.

Yeah, the scientifically criminal "teach the controversy" bullshit.

I mean seriously, what woulf you say if some candidate wanted to bring pro-astrology textbooks into astronomy science lessons and pro-alchemy textbooks into chemistry classrooms, in order to have teachers "teach the controversy"?

There is political controversy over evolution, there is social controversy over evolution, however there is no scientific controversy over evolution. You are suggesting we should bring in flat-earth textbooks into science class and "debate" the issue.

Lets take a concrete look at what we are talking about here, a concrete look at how your proposed education and "debate" would have to go:

It's science class, we teach what the Second law of thermodynamics says, and we teach what it means. We teach that the 2nd law of thermo says that the average entropy (disorder) of a closed system increases, or at best stays constant. We teach the significance of the word "average" in there - that it means that one party of the system can become more ordered if some other part of the system becomes even more disordered to "pay" for that increase in order. Then we also teach the meaning and importance of "a closed system", we teach that if outside energy comes into the system, that energy can be used to do work and can pay for the work to create an increase in order in the system. We then teach a variety of common examples where nature spontaneously produces order out of chaos. We show how a flowing river will automatically separate, sort, and organize different size pebbles. We cover how chaotic disordered water atoms automatically form into complex highly ordered snowflakes. We cover how the sun provides energy to do work on earth melting and forming snowflakes. We cover how energy from the sun can do work to increase order on earth, and how increases in order are *not* a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

We then "teach both sides" of the evolution issue.... we bring in a standard science textbook to teach evolution. Then then we bring in an anti-evolution textbook to teach "the other side". And in that anti-evolution textbook they present arguments such as "evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics". It teaches that evolution involves an increase in order and information, and it teaches that that is impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And then you let the students engage in a "debate" on the evolution issue.

And during that debate one student remembers the snowflake example, that student points out that the anti-evolution textbook is wrong for claiming that increases in order and complexity is impossible. Points out that the anti-evolution textbook was wrong in it's claimed proof against evolution. That student points out that the anti-evolution textbook did not correctly understand the science of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, points out that the anti-evolution textbook gets the science wrong. That the textbook is filled with errors and misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Then a second student stands up to argue the other side. A student who did not understand the lesson on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That student misunderstands it and makes errors. That student presents an invalid argument filled with errors and misunderstandings.

You then give the first student an A and you flunk the second student.

That is how a "scientific debate" on evolution has to go in a legitimate science class. All of the "scientific" arguments against evolution are based on misunderstandings or ignorance errors or misrepresentations or the like.

A science classroom debate on evolution is no different than such a debate on chemistry. In science class they can only end the exact same way.

Also, many Christian schools do teach evolution as well. Some call it a the

Although it may garner some lolz from those who agree with you, associating your opponent's stance with straw men does not make your argument any stronger.

I did nothing of the sort. Flat Earth nutbars and Creationist nutbars have equal weight in the realm of science. Flat Earth Theory and Crationism are nearly identical in their lack of evidence in support of these "theories" and their opposition theories have veritable mountains of evidence on their side, cross-referenced across a multitude of scientific disciplines.

The only difference between Creationism and Flat Earth is that the most proponents of Flat Earth simply died out, cluctching to their "Truth" until their last breath, leaving a pitiful band of lunatics to carry their mantle. Creationists are still abundant and their bone-headed fight with the rock of the obvious still goes on. But, as such things go, it will be their skulls which crack before the rock gives out, just as it was for the Flat Earthers ...

The reason I did such a substitution is because Creationists abhor when they are being exposed for what they are, and will do everything in their power to cloak themselves in pretense of "respectability", as if such posturing somehow gave weight to their abject lunacy.

Your argument is invalid even if true because it is position independent(*). Take anything anyone has said about anything and you can make their argument sound silly by replacing the nouns just as you have. This is a form of begging the question (because it relies on an implicit analogy who's validity depends on the conclusion), with a touch of ad-hominem and a dab of snobbery (by assuming that alternative conclusions can only be reached by ignorance).

No it is not since I did not replace the terms at random. I did replace Creationism with another equally scientifically discredited "theory". Not some random view.

While it sounds like a witty and compelling recrimination of flat earth believers, it can be used against anyone by inserting "round earth believer", "religious", "atheist" or whatever

That only applies to random and unwarranted substitutions.

(*) Positions independence implies truth independence since some positions are true and others false in a non-trivial consistent logic. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the formal name for this fallacy.

That is because such fallacy does not exist. The validity depends on what you are substituting with what.