So I was listening to Michael Medved’s show (11/16) today while I was at work. He had a scientist (Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell) and a journalist (Chris Mooney, author of Unscientific America) on to debate about human-caused global warming and evolution (they discussed other things as well, but these were the main two).
The discussion between the two was okay, but Mr. Mooney kept stating ideas as facts. He would not recognize that there is a (according to Dr. Meyer, rather large) faction of the scientific community that does not agree with the theory of human-caused global warming and others who do not hold the theory of evolution as it stands right now as proven fact. Mr. Mooney did assent that people who oppose both global warming and evolution can be highly educated people. However, he still stated that they were wrong, not by proving them so, but just based on the fact that the theory of global warming is widely accepted within the scientific community, as is evolution. If the scientific community states an idea or theory is right, then there can be no discussion.
The debate boiled down to Dr. Meyer questioning why, when science itself is based on checking and rechecking hypothesis and theories, students cannot be taught both sides to the theories. Why not give them all the facts – both pro and con – and allow them to make a decision? Why not discuss the fact that no one know where the first cell came from, or how it got the intricate program in it that allows it to reproduce and change and evolve? Why not talk about sun spots and how they relate to global warming? Or how when Jeff was a kid they thought an ice age was coming?
Mr. Mooney did not really have an answer. His response was that people need to learn what has been accepted and not question stuff because scientists have done a lot of research to get to these conclusions. That’s pretty lame, if you ask me.
Anyways … I got to thinking on the way home and I realized that Mr. Mooney’s reaction is how the public schools teach today. His reluctance to teach both sides really struck me. I recalled conversations I have had with students in public school. They do not know the other side of the theories, they are incapable (to some extent) of thinking a different way – first, because it might change how they answers questions on a test, but second, and more importantly, they have not been taught to question. They have not been taught to test out the theories and seek out the truth. They have only been taught to regurgitate the opinions and ideas “generally accepted”.
I can respect someone who believes in evolution because of what they have studied. I believe God created the world, but I do not think we can limit Him in how He went about that. Someone else, however, might not think God created the world … then, I ask, who or what did? Most people are unable to answer or, like Steven Hawkins in An Inconvenient Truth, come up with an altogether outlandish proposition of aliens!! 🙂 Hawkins would not say God was the Creator, but he would concede that there was some intelligent design … aliens. When asked who or what created the aliens, he didn’t know.
Anyways, I digress. Why is it we have ceased teaching our children to learn by understanding, by discussing, by disagreeing and have come to a place where we just want robots? The students I’ve talked to really dislike disagreements. They shy away from them, asking, “can’t we all just get along?” How is it not getting along to disagree? Don’t you learn more when you discuss what you know with someone? Don’t you learn more when you are forced to hone your ideas and thoughts and be concise about what you know? Why is it wrong to ask questions, or to look at all sides of an issue, idea or theory?
I guess all those people who have the Question Authority/Honor diversity bumper stickers only want you to question other people’s authority while they disrespect your diversity. hmmm …
If someone knows the answers to my questions, please post a response. 🙂
