[Vision2020] Mandating Religion In Science Class

[Michael]

Michael Previously wrote:

 

I can understand trying to nuance how these points of view are communicated,


but requiring that the point of view of half the American populace not BE 

ALLOWED "in the classroom" is nothing short of statist mind control.  How's
that 

for a controversial statement!

------------------------------------

 

Ted Responds:

Are you joking...?  Must be!  <snip>  Does this mean science 

and medicine classes must teach these "theories" as though they are 

legitimate science?

 

No is attempting to require what you state above, at least no one I have 

heard about.  Students, even the teacher, may discuss Intelligent 

Design/Creationism informally in science classes.  The issue is whether it
should be mandated as a formal part of the science curriculum.  In fact, the
"mind control" is 

coming from those seeking to teach religion in science classes, however
cleverly 

disguised as an open minded investigation of alternative theories of the 

origins of the universe or life.  

 

Me:

Most of my involvement in this discussion has so far been, or was intended
to be, regarding Eugenie Scott's talk; my criticism of that has not seen
much direct interaction. Here Ted once again seems to ask if Intelligent
Design must be taught as a scientific theory or a 'legitimate science.' So
far however, I have not gotten to this question, since I wanted to point out
first how parallel Creation and Evolution are in the way they "inform
scientific hypothesis formation" as grand non-scientific narratives of
origins of both life and 'kinds.'  I was attempting to take the discussion
slow, and I was not addressing the current legal battles on Intelligent
Design (of which I currently know very little).  Instead of interacting with
my arguments in this context, Ted appears to be primarily claiming that I
have not been answering the issue of the current legal battles. He writes
below, "The comments above do not directly and honestly face what is
occurring in this debate."   I would recommend going back to my original
post a while back; I think the original context of discussion has gotten a
bit confused. I don't think my arguments there have been directly interacted
with.  

 

However, one quick challenge to a comment above from Ted.  Ted says that no
one is attempting what I speak of above, which was the removal of any
discussion of Creationism from the curriculum of a science classroom.  Ted
says he hasn't heard about this.  But I was referring indirectly to White's
letter, which says,

 

"Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to
articulate the University of Idaho's position with respect to evolution:
This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our
bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research
extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are
testable and anchored in evidence. 

At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution may
occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy,
political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is
inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or
curricula."

 

I think this is pretty clear.  "Teaching of views" that differ from
evolution may occur in religion, sociology (which likes to be called a
'science'), philosophy, and political science; yes, that last one was
political SCIENCE. However "teaching of views" that differ from evolution is
"inappropriate" in the "life, earth, and physical sciences courses and
curricula."  As an analytic philosopher that likes to discuss science from a
broad and critical stance, I think this is an amazing statement, and I
believe it is fairly unique. 

 

Although I have not yet addressed the issue of whether Intelligent Design
should be classified as a scientific theory or thesis (I don't know enough
about it to conclude either way), and although I would first like to discuss
the above and the importance of how world stories inform our scientific
hypothesis formation and our scientific revolutions, I do have one question
for Ted:  What of Michael Behe's research and argument?  Behe's argument and
research HAS been respectfully discussed in professional academic scientific
journals (I stumbled on an article myself, as I have already mentioned).
Behe's research and argument is precisely about evolutionary theory and it
is also clearly an argument and research proposing the fact that irreducible
complexity at the cellular level necessitates the hypothesis of intelligent
design.  In other word's, Behe's work is published the way Ted requires and
it is explicitly regarding the hypotheses of evolutionary theory and the
intelligent design hypothesis.  If I was an atheistic biology professor, I
don't have a clue why it would be inappropriate to have his book called
Black Box in my curriculum.  I would like to know what Ted thinks of Behe.

 

Thanks!

Michael Metzler

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051106/d69287ef/attachment-0001.htm