Teach both sides
Should 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
"Weaknesses" of evolution
Evolution in the scientific literature
"The problem with �teaching all sides� is that it can give fringe ideas a credibility they have not earned. Excessive concern for �balance� leads to presenting the speculations of cranks and crackpots as if they were 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 do not need to win the rhetorical battle outright; they can triumph merely by muddying the waters and preventing a consensus from forming around the truth. This is the same 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."
