Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 2

• 0%

  ForrestPhelps2 months, 4 weeks ago

  I wanted to sink this article, but since I'm trying to avoid sinks, I felt I ought to write a little comment.

  First, the writer of this blog is upset that a New York Times editorial doesn't have a byline. Most newspapers don't attach bylines to their editorials that are written by staff.

  Secondly, I agree that the op-ed piece this writer is criticizing isn't all that well written, but the point the op-ed piece is making is that "teach the controversy" or "teach the pros and cons of evolution" are well-known to be the latest smokescreens by creationists to try and sneak into the science classroom.

  People who accuse scientists of being dogmatic really don't understand science. One of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science is to prove some well-known fact to be wrong. Evolution is (and probably always will be) an incomplete theory, subject to modification.

  (more)

  Reply
• 0%

  ForrestPhelps2 months, 4 weeks ago

  Lots of scientists are studying evolution, trying to make it a more complete theory. It is a complex subject, one not well-suited to cover in detail in most classes, but if evolution is taught at all, and an effort is made by a teacher who actually understands evolution a bit, its strengths and weaknesses ARE being taught.

  Just like anyone teaching classical physics and then on to more modern physics will reach a point where work (and discovery) and modification is still being done.

  Just like Darwin's theory has and will continue to undergo.

  Reply