Read the Gregg Easterbrook piece on pages 343-346 of "Presence" and respond by writing whether you agree or disagree with the solution he mentions at the end -- "to teach the controversy." How do you think that strategy would work in a Lyndon State biology class?
I 100% agree with Easterbrooks statement to "teach the controversy." If this was taught in a Lyndon State biology class I think that it would go over rather well. As Easterbrook states "...kids cannot understand astronomy without knowing the ideas behind it." This goes for the theory of evelution as well. We need to know all different veiw point in order to pass our own personal judgment.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Easterbrook when he says "teach the controversy." I think if this was taught it would be fine. In order for students to form their own opinions about different issues they are going to need/want to know all sides and viewpoints about the specific topic.
ReplyDeletewell i also agree with Easterbrooks Teach the Controversy solution. i believe that it would go over really well in a Lyndon State Bio class. I think it would be easier to learn and make logical decisions about a topic if you learned all the sides first.
ReplyDeletei would agree with Easterbrook. i know that if i had all the viewpoints of a story, it would be easier for me to learn about all the different theories. that being said, i think this style of learning would be very helpfull in a Lyndon State Bio class.
ReplyDeleteGregg Easterbrook is right. I would have to agree with Teach the Controvery. Schools everywhere should teach the controversy. Students, kids, and adults i think would all agree with this. Everyone wants to know the side of every story, not just one persons views. He is also right when saying "this isn't freedom of thought." If our country is so free like everyone thinks it is, then why can't schools teach this???
ReplyDeleteI agree with Easterbook's statement to "teach the controversy" I think it is very important to know two sides of the argument. You wont have a very compelling argument if you dont know what the other argument or side is about.
ReplyDeleteIf you "teach the controversy" as Easterbrook suggests, and "present students with the arguments for and against natural and supernatural explanations of life," don't you also have to teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? Are there only two sides to this argument, or an infinite number of sides?
ReplyDeleteI think Easterbrook has a good idea. It would be easier for students to understand if you present both sides of the theory. They would get a better sense of both the natural and supernatual explanations of the universe. This also raises a dilemma though, as stated by the professor; do they have to teach ALL explanations of life? No, I think they should only teach the ones that have enough reasonable evidence to support them. That way there's not tons of different crazy things to learn about.
ReplyDeleteWho decides what is reasonable? Some people think evolution is a crazy theory. Some think Intelligent Design is a crazy theory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Easterbook. I think its a great idea to teach multiple views on a subject. This lets the student derive their own view instead of one they were raised with. This helps the student to think for themselves and believe what they choose to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Easterbrook also. I think students should be taught the controversy and decide for themselves what they believe. It is good to know both stories so you can decide for yourself. If this really is a free country i think different opinions should be taught. I think it would go over well in Lyndon Bio class. If i knew all the facts about both stories it would be much easier for me to make a decision about what i want to believe.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the thought that students being taught the controversary and take in all different potential outcomes and adress them.I look at this method as being very helpful to a powerful arguement that i believe will benefit what each person really thinks. Everyone's point of veiw and side of the story is a big thing to keep in mind, before you create your own self opinion.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Easterbrook. When teaching something like the explanations of life it is only fair to teach arguments for and against it. Give the students both sides and let them decide for themselves what they think is right. Every student has their own opinion and has the right to think what they want. Sure they can debate with each other and try to persuade others in their way but it doesnt always work. I think that strategy would work in an LSC class because students could have their opinion on the subject.
ReplyDeleteThere are always different sides to the what is the correct solution to a question or problem. I also agree to Teaching the Contreversy in a Lyndon Bio class because it would let students pick what they bieleve is the right solution and not be forced to learn what they do not bieleve in.
ReplyDeleteI think Easterbrook is right becaues I have always been taught to think of how the other person may think or do something and not just think of just one way to do something! In order to fully understand something and grip a true feeling and understanding of something you have to know everything about what you're learning and believe, opinions can change. I would like to think that at a college level everyone can be mature and handle being taught both ways, but it would have to be something the school worked out for students that fit their needs on things!
ReplyDeleteSince coming here I have noticed LSC's lack of religious belief. Although the theory of intelligent design is not creationism, I feel as though many students would believe it to be and laugh the matter off without any second thoughts. We are taught all throughout high school that we evolved from apes; everything evolved from something else. We are led to believe that we started as tiny micro-organisms that somehow developed after the big bang. But does one ever stop to question how the organisms evolved or how the big bang (if it really happened) came to be? I dont think that Lyndon students would accept this "new" theory simply because it implys that there is some sort of greater being.
ReplyDelete