Teach both sides
Teach both sidesShould we teach "both sides" in biology (i.e. "strengths and weaknesses" or "evolution and alternatives")?
If we value science we should teach only legitimate science (what's in the scientific literature). Since "alternatives" aren't mainstream science and are promoted by antiscientific special interest groups, i.e the Discovery Institute, they're best avoided. "Both sides" is a legal concept, not a scientific concept. The concept of "both sides" furthermore promotes debate, which isn't a legitimate scientific method. The quality of American science has driven the American economy. Teaching anything but "the best" in American science classes is a route to third world status in science.
In cartoon form, Critical thinking in science
Creationism and critical thinking
"Weaknesses" of evolution
Evolution in the scientific literature"The problem with “teaching all sides” is that it gives fringe ideas credibility they haven't earned. Excessive concern for “balance” leads to presenting the speculations of cranks and crackpots on equal footing with the positions defended by vast majorities of qualified experts. (The media has a similar problem.) And this is very useful to advocates of pseudoscience, who often don't need to win rhetorical battles, but merely to muddy the waters and prevent consensus from forming around the truth. This is the strategy employed by tobacco companies, as we can see from the second excerpt above, as well as by oil companies seeking to forestall regulation of greenhouse gas emissions."