The evolution versus design debate
Middle schools and high schools don’t tend to have sociology and generally the philosophy of fields gets talked about in the class even if it doesn’t miss. This is the standard that is used in other disciplines. There is no reason to make a special class–calling something the philosophy of science and science during a class should be sufficient to cue what is what. Also, current textbooks probably don’t meet this standard anyway.
You don’t come to terms with her cooption, which means she doesn’t have to win that evolution is wrong down to its core, just that evolution as currently perceived is wrong or flawed. Actually, she can win that evolution of textbooks doesn’t live up to the science of scientists in the field and win that we should teach the controversy. In fact, the argument can show the gaps in evolution and “win” despite Dawkin’s claims to the contrary. Dawkins ultimately conceeds to the issue of science being critical of science being good and that the textbooks and education should reflect this. Dawkins conceeds there are conflicts in science, that dissent is good, and we should debate the controversy.
Defining terms are both peoples jobs. I just thought it could improve the discussion and make it more nuanced (so that less misunderstanding or “ships passing in the night” would take place).
Your response on DNA isn’t an argument.
Her argument on materialism/humanism is pretty standard. Materialism has problems thinking outside of the box of objects, chemistry, and physics. In fact, realist in international relations have used the theory to justify our militarism. I realize the Old Testament has been used in the same way. The argument was more about materialism being incompatable with humanism (not an independent indictment of humanism as your response supposes).
The expertism argument is mostly an aside. I think we probably agree on this issue more or less so I won’t belabor the point. And your ad-homs at the end aren’t really relevant or in the tenor of a valuable exchange. To whatever extent my arguments aren’t expressed in a friendly tone, I apologize in advance.
Unfortunately, the issue of intelligent design isn’t discussed with much rigor on either side in this discussion which limits the value of the exchange slightly–at some level both discussants are responsible.
Lets be clear:
1. Dawkins conceeds there are conflicts in science, that dissent is good, and we should debate the controversy. Teach the controvery is one of her core arguments. Admittedly this doesn’t justify the inclusion of ID, except to the extent that the articles are reflective of a critical stance against “traditional” interpretations of Darwin or evolution.
2. You didn’t make an argument on DNA.