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: Tech Execs Should Speak Out for Science -- Cleaned Up -- I hope



Hi Everyone,

Here is Robert Zanelli's contribution - the = and =20 -- I hope.

Cheers!
Cherie Bibo Lehman
Retired Physics Teacher

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Dan Gillmor, a noted technology columnist, on an ID-related topic:
46rom: Dan Gillmor <dan@gillmor.com> Date: October 20, 2005 1:22:12 AM
EDT To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Today's column:
http://bayosphere.com/blog/dan_gillmor/20051019/
tech_execs_should_speak_out_ for_science_0
Tech Execs Should Speak Out for Science Submitted by Dan Gillmor on
Wed, 10/19/2005 - 10:06pm. (This is my column in today's Financial
Times.) American technology executives often complain about the
inadequacies of public education, and rightly. They worry especially
loudly about the lack of higher standards and attainment in the
all-critical areas of maths and science. There is self-interest
involved, of course. If any industry needs a qualified workforce in an
increasingly knowledge-based economy, it is theirs. Yet they are all
but silent on a threat to the science curriculum in particular, and to
the scientific method in a more general sense. Few of the technology
elite have addressed the movement to elevate intelligent design a proxy
for biblical creationism to a place equal to evolution in the
classroom. In Kansas, the state's top school officials seem bent on
requiring classes to offer intelligent design as a plausible
alternative to evolution. In a federal trial now under way in
Pennsylvania, a judge is hearing arguments against a local school
board's decision to do likewise. President George W Bush has leapt into
the fray. In a statement that appealed to his political base but
shocked his own science adviser, Mr. Bush recently said he thought
intelligent design should be taught in class as the other side of the
issue. Proponents of intelligent design have become experts in using
language, if not science. They point out, correctly, that Charles
Darwin and his successors can't fully explain some natural phenomena
with the well-established scientific theory of natural selection. And
they point to the astonishing complexity and beauty of our universe.
They also claim that intelligent design isn't really creationism, the
notion that God created the world in a week, with one day off, just a
few thousand years ago. No, they say, it's the examination of life's
near-infinite complexity, and the inescapable conclusion that only an
intelligent entity could have created it, not natural selection,
intelligent as in God. They artfully misuse the word theory as applied
in science. Evolution is not just a theory in the lay sense. The
evidence supports it overwhelmingly. The scientific method does not
support intelligent design. The latter's proponents fill in evolution's
holes -- tiny ones, by scientific standards -- essentially with faith.
There is nothing wrong with faith, and a great deal right. Behind faith
can lie great strength, and if religion has been the root of much
conflict, it is also the root of much good, such as when religious
leaders stand up for the powerless and against abusers of power. But
religion is not science. It does not belong in science class. Bill
Gates is one of the loudest worriers about the quality of US schools,
and has given billions via his foundation and company to improving
education and science, notably healthcare. Yet his foundation has also
lent financial support to the intelligent design movement's most
prominent think-tank, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. The money
is directed at programmes other than intelligent design, but helps pay
the director's salary -- and if anyone knows that money is fungible, it
ought to be Bill Gates. At least one member of the tech elite is not
silent. Eric Benhamou E28093 the former longtime chief executive of
networking pioneer 3Com, currently an adjunct professor at Insead
addressed the issue at a recent public conversation in which I took
part. We were discussing the larger topic of corporate social
responsibility. I asked Benhamou whether it was the duty of executives
to speak out when the president of the US suggests that science classes
be required to teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to
evolution. They absolutely should speak out, he said. It's a fact, he
observed, that today's knowledge-based companies need people whose
minds are trained on knowledge and scientific fact, and not mixed up
with this creationism bullshit. I then asked if he could name anyone in
a prominent corporate position who'd actually spoken out in this way.
He could not, he said with what sounded like regret: It's hard to be
caught on TV saying these things, but it's particularly important now.
I feel quite worried that we're passive about it. Silence in the face
of this challenge to basic education is not just wrong. It is damaging
to America's future. It gives advantage to nations where children learn
science based solely on evidence. Powerful people should be defending
science. Why are so many so silent?



-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Sent: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:09:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Tech Execs Should Speak Out for Science

Allah!

Not another = for CRLF!

bc