stand up for REAL science

Olivia Judson offers some hope:

But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is something less tangible. It's that the endeavor contains a profound optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or the light made by a firefly, we don’t have to shrug our shoulders in bewilderment.

Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.

This sense of wonder is what attracted many of us to science in the first place. Even better, when you teach science, you get to help future generations discover that wonder.

Judson also notes that

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, "The Republican War on Science," the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence - or indeed, evidence of any kind - has permeated the Bush administration's policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.

One of the most difficult parts of teaching science is to get students to base their conclusions on evidence instead of prior conceptions . . . Honors students especially are so bound and determined to get the "right answer" that they often regard evidence-based conclusions as bothersome noise.

One way to counter this trend is to present situations in which the evidence seems to contradict well-established laws. For example, have students measure out 50.0 mL of alcohol into a graduated cylinder. Use another graduated cylinder to measure out 50.0 mL of water. Add the water to the alcohol and stir. Read the volume of the combined liquids at the bottom of the meniscus. Students don't realize that when the two different liquids are combined, the smaller alcohol molecules will fit between the water molecules such that 50.0 mL + 50.0 mL ~ 96.0 mL. (A larger-scale demonstration of the phenomena is to mix together equal volumes of sand and rocks. The sand fits between the rocks so that the total volume is less than the sum of its parts.)

Encourage students to share their findings with each other. As they realize that this data is reproducible, they start to question their initial assumption that 50.0 + 50.0 always equals 100.0. This is a wonderful opportunity to reassure the students that their conclusions must be based on their evidence and to remind them that fudging the data will result in a failing grade.

Intelligent design theorists don't do REAL science. Instead of analyzing results and basing their conclusions on that evidence, they begin with the premise that "God did it" and work backwards to retrofit others' data to that premise.

They're the ones who'd insist that 50.0 mL H₂O + 50.0 mL EtOH must result in 100.0 mL of the mixture.