Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders



I think this short piece highlights the issues very well..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Smith" <larry.smith@SNOW.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders


At 12:05 PM -0700 8/25/05, NSBA Legal Clips wrote:


CURRICULUM

Hamilton Southeastern Schools (HSS) in suburban Indianapolis is
facing a legal challenge over the teaching of evolution. Alex P. Oren, who
heads a group whose mission is to stop "the influence of atheism and
immorality" in public schools, is seeking to force HSS to teach
alternative theories to evolution. Mr. Oren insists he is merely seeking
to include scientific arguments against evolution. "This is not science
versus religion," he says. "This is science versus science." A recent
Harris poll reports that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe human
beings were created directly by God.

A very large group to antagonize over careless phrasing..

The survey also found that a majority believes public schools should
teach evolution, creationism, and intelligent design.

Be interesting to see the original phrasing of the question. As we all
know, the wording of a "survey question" has a large effect on the
responses.

However, Karen Rogers, the science curriculum program
director for the Indiana Department of Education, believes that while
creationism and intelligent design have place in religious studies, they
have no place in the science classroom because they are "nonscientific"
explanations. Intelligent design, she notes, is not susceptible to
testing.

But neither are some of the things we loosely lump INTO science, as a number
of people here have pointed out. Paraphrasing one online poster, this seems
a little like moving the goalposts in the middle of the game <g>!

Glenn Branch, deputy director for the National Center for Science
Education, says supporters of intelligent design should be producing
scientific papers that can be subjected to peer review, instead of relying
on publicity to make their case.

I'd be inclined to agree with him, but we're not going to see tests with
collected data. I think, however, that such papers wouldn't be unlike some
of the "scientific" extrapolations we already see that are untestable.
Whenever you extrapolate from observations/data, you introduce some measure
of uncertainty.
We have to either be more selective about what we consider to be "science",
or more tolerant of opening the door to things we don't like that employ
much the same methodology.

Mr. Oren acknowledges that his challenge
to Hamilton Southeastern is motivated by his belief in the biblical
account of creation. He believes that for many children "the choice
between God or no God" begins in the classroom.

But this is largely a function of either careless or anti-religious phrasing
in how the topic is dealt with in class.

When residents in Columbus
petitioned their school board over equal time with evolution three years
ago, the district created a new social studies class examining all
theories of human origins. The course's treatment of the issues seemed to
soothe the population to the point that, after two semesters, so few kids
were interested in the subject there weren't enough to fill a course
section.

Seems to me to be a very wise compromise. If done well it would, indeed,
constitute "equal time". No such provision was available in the local
schools, so I preferred to discuss the issues directly with my children, as
I was certain it would not be handled in an even-handed manner in the
school.