“Teach The Controversy” is really just another tactic used to poke holes in the validity of evolution. This time, the tactic has a title that could help attract fair-minded people for support. The phrase “Teach The Controversy” sounds fair, modest and pluralistic. What most people wouldn’t bother to find out is that the “controversy” is between virtually all of the scientific community and fundamentalists who interpret the Bible word for word with a strict literal understanding. Obviously, the latter community does not have any standing in the scientific community, nor should it. Faith has its purposes, but it is not science. Faith-based objections to evolutionary science are not verified by the use of the Scientific Method or any form of strict logic, and therefore, in a scientific debate it does not have a legitimate argument. Hence, the lack of existence of a “controversy”. Until fundamentalists can make a case against evolution science with the use of substantial and empiral (and unmanipulated) evidence or data, there is no real “controversy” to be taught. I believe that Holocaust education should be a requirement in public schools. It’s important for everyone to know what happened, because those who don’t know history are bound to repeat it. Increased awareness of what happened can only help decrease racist, anti-Semetic or otherwise generally prejudice sentiment. However, there are people who deny that the Holocaust happened. Should their views be presented in Holocaust education, just because there is a “controversy” over whether the subject is real or not? That would be disgusting.
In the past, fundamentalists have objected to scientific discoveries that today are accepted by virtually everyone, except for maybe Warren Chisum and Ben Bridges. We should never forget the persecution The Illuminati or Galileo Galilei had to face at the hands of the same type of minds that advocate the Dominionist cause. In the modern world, fundamentalists who claim that the earth is flat, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that the sun revolves around the earth, that the earth is in the center of the universe, that there is no such thing as other planets and that there is no such thing as gravity are seen by most people as insane. “So, logically, if she weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood. And therefore, she’s a witch!” That sort of thing. That’s why fundamentalists are not welcomed or respected in the scientific community. It’s a good thing there isn’t a “Teach The Controversy” movement for school science curriculums when they begin teaching genetics, or the circulatory and respiratory systems or electricity.
Since the fundies have lost court case after court case after court case ruling that public schools cannot teach creationism, or “Intelligent Design,” or “Christian Science,” or whatever they’re going to call it next, they have resorted to going on the offense by smearing evolutionary science. Fortunately, many of these attempts have been thwarted, most notably in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Judge John Jones, a conservative, church-going Republican appointed by none other than George W. Bush himself wrote a 139 page ruling (that’s huge) against the fundies who eventually got kicked off the school board in the town’s subsequent elections (prompting Pat Robertson to start speaking for god again).
It’s funny how, when Jones was confirmed, the Religious Right praised Bush by writing letters non-stop. “Oh, Mr. President, thank you Mr. President for appointing this wonderful Christian judge who’ll just interpret the laws and not legislate from the bench. Thanks, Mr. President.” But after Jones ruled against them, they sounded more along the lines of “Activist judge! Activist judge! Activist judge! Activist judge! Activist judge! Activist judge! Activist judge! Activist judge!” Their change of opinion on Judge Jones is a perfect example of how “Activist judge! Activist judge!” really just means that they disagree with the court’s opinion.
This battle over what will be taught in public schools regarding evolution and creationism will likely go on forever. What’s silly about the Religious Right’s efforts to teach creationism in public schools is that they don’t even want there to be public schools in the first place. In the words of Jerry Falwell, “One day, I hope in the next tean years, I trust that we will have more Christian day schools than there are public schools. I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!” I guess Jerry thinks it’s best to take things one step at a time.
"However, there are people who deny that the Holocaust happened. Should their views be presented in Holocaust education, just because there is a 'controversy' over whether the subject is real or not? That would be disgusting."
I think that when teaching topics that are "controversial," we need to at least acknowledge the other side of the argument. Like, when I was taught about the Holocaust back in seventh grade, our teacher made it clear that there are people who believe that the Holocaust didn't happen (though she didnt spend any time elaborating on why they think that way, and surprisingly, no one asked.) The same should go for Evolution. Fortunately, I had middle school biology before all of this creationism vs. evolution crap started (and of course I live in KS, which is at the forefront of the "intelligent design" movement), and I think it would have been helpful to acknowledge the difference between scientific proof and religious belief (ie. opinion).
The truth is, all of these legislative bodies are making the issue waay to big of a deal. There really is a simple answer to this debate: teach both. But apparently they don't think so simply at Capitol Hill.
---------
Should some study abroad destinations be "off limits?"
We should be teaching all sides of the issue, I agree. But you say "both" as if there were only two sides to be taught. What about my belief on how life began?
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Hey! Just stopping by. Pretty random huh? =D Well, I saw that you were online and decided I'd stop by to see what you were all about!
If you have time, come and check out my VERY FIRST blog! I really think that the topic is unique and that you'll find it interesting. I am trying to spark conversation about it so leave your thoughts in the comment box! =D
http://www.progressiveu.org/050908-essay-inspiration-for-living
TCHO
Except for the fact that every blog I've read today, you've been on it SELF PROMOTING, which gets pretty damn annoying.
And no matter how many times I see your link, I'm not going to read your blog, just because you're posting it everywhere. Counterintuitive though it may be.
---------
Should some study abroad destinations be "off limits?"
My thoughts exactly. It's one thing to include a link, as in my siggy, or yours, but it's another to spend the entire comment going on about how we should visit the blog.
In terms of the blog itself, I took a Holocaust history class last semester, and half of our grade was based on a paper in which we had to look at why people denied the Holocaust. They do have some plausible arguments, and I think it is important to discuss them. However, I also think it is important to ensure that the attitudes of the time are known, and that these attitudes are wrong.
In terms of creationism and evolution... I think that most people that take biology as freshman in high school (when I took it) are going to know about the creationism argument, so it seems kind of pointless to teach it, especially when it is a religious belief rather than a scientific fact.
~C
Visit my blog.
There's a difference between being plausible and sounding plausible.
Holocaust deniers only sound plausible if one ignores the "facts" they use being bullshit. "6 million Jews couldn't have died because there were actually more Jews in Europe after the war than before" makes sense based on its own internal logic, but ignores all evidence to the contrary and a historical consensus that has been resolute in the 60+ years since World War II ended. Those who parrot such claims are either woefully misguided or virulently contemptuous of scholarship, history, and Jews.
It is pointless to teach Creationism in a science class, but as we've seen there are very powerful lobbying forces at work to get it inserted, and a whole lot of credulous Christians willing to take the bait.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
I see that you have basically done no research on Holocaust denial. Some of their arguments are really hard to refute. I know, I've tried. Look into my paper on the subject (it's in my archived blogs... I had to cut out some arguments because I couldn't refute them). There are people who look at the chemistry of the gas chambers and say that it couldn't have happened the way people have claimed. There are people that argue about the plaque that the Soviets put up at Auschwitz. These people, believe it or not, are not crazy. They have done research into the subject, and have an idea what they're talking about.
There are also those that don't necessarily deny the Holocaust happened, but rather say something along the lines of 'ok, 6 million Jews died, what about the 10 million Russians, etc... why are the Jews more important than them?'
I'm not saying that the Holocaust did not happen. I am simply saying that it is reasonable to teach both sides of the argument, because both sides do have some good arguments. At least something like 'these people don't believe the Holocaust happened' followed by a tale from a survivor.
~C
Visit my blog.
I never said they're easy to refute. On the contrary, they're very selective with which sources they put their emphasis on, and the net effect of their collective lies and spin is akin to smashing a vase and leaving the real historians to carefully put it back together again.
The 4 million killed at Auschwitz sign was Soviet propaganda designed to make the Nazis look worse in order to make themselves look better. The historical consensus has long been that close to a million people died there, and the sign was changed not because of some conspiracy, but to reflect reality after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
As for the gas, Fred Leuchter went, took some samples from the delousing chambers and the gas chamber ruins and concluded that there was not enough cyanide in the gas chamber samples to suggest the use of Zyklon B. Another group went, noted that the gas chambers had been destroyed by the Nazis and the ruins exposed to the elements for several decades, unlike the delousing chambers; and carefully chose samples among the rubble where cyanide concentrations would be expected given the method of execution. Viola, they found it.
Although I always hesitate to use it in a citation, especially in a subject as this, Wikipedia has a good summary of refutations to Holocaust deniers' claims. There's also this.
It's certainly true that the Jews get more attention than the gypsies, the homosexuals, the handicapped, and so-forth, but the reason they do is because they were the prime scapegoat of Nazi Germany, and had Hitler not been able to capitalize on German Anti-Semitism the way he did, he would have never been so successful. And the bombing of Dresden was horrible and pointless, but all too often it's played up by Neo-Nazis to whitewash the far, far greater crimes of the Third Reich.
I'm not accusing you of siding with them. But your version of objectivity involves giving all sides equal time to air their views instead of giving them the proportionate consideration that mainstream historians give, which for the Holocaust deniers is next to zilch. They don't debate them because doing so would grant them legitimacy and give people the impression that there is controversy amongst the mainstream over whether the Holocaust happened, which there isn't (which, to tie back into the original post, is the same reason scientists don't debate Intelligent Design proponents). As far as teaching goes, I think they should mention that a fringe group thinks it didn't happen, note they're connection to virulent anti-Semites, and then leave it at that. The material covered in a class on the Holocaust should be more than enough for a refutation.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
But your version of objectivity involves giving all sides equal time to air their views instead of giving them the proportionate consideration that mainstream historians give, which for the Holocaust deniers is next to zilch.
On the contrary. I do not think that the denial side should be given equal consideration. But I don't think that it shouldn't be taught either. It's a good thing to form a lesson plan around the claims that these people make, and then explain why they are wrong. It sets up for less confusion later when the people that took the class initially face these sorts of people in life, and so that these people do not move over to the denial camp because they seem to think that these claims are valid.
note they're connection to virulent anti-Semites
Surprising as it may be, not all people who deny the Holocaust are anti-Semitic. There are people out there who just truly cannot believe the evidence that is presented to them. It is a shame, but it happens.
~C
Visit my blog.
I still think a cursory mention should be enough. Give them some resources that refute the claims and then continue on with the lesson. And at that point if they complain about the refutations being from Jewish sources, then there probably isn't much that will change their mind anyway. And I know that a lot of the people swayed by these arguments are not anti-Semites, but the ones propagating such hogwash are, and should be exposed as such.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"