I apologize for committing the "least appealing" sin, but maybe we
should continue to apply critical thinking to the NABT statement,
http://www.nabt.org/Evolution.html
note: The statement on this web-page has been revised since Saturday (when
I said the two contested words had not yet been removed from it). Also,
there have been some changes in formatting (such as collapsing the final 4
paragraphs from the print-version into one paragraph) but I think the
statement is (except for the two missing words) the same as before.
**********************************************************************
The two words that were removed are only a small part of what deserves
to be critically examined in the NABT statement. For example,
1) By declaring that "scientific creationism & young-earth theory" and
"intelligent design" are "synonyms", NABT ignores distinctions between
views; they insist on maintaining the Two-Model Perspective that is also
favored by YECs.
{ Would NABT also include old-earth creationism as a synonym for YEC?
Based on the treatment of ASA's booklet "Teaching Science in a Climate of
Controversy" by reviewers (whose views are similar to those of NABT), I
think they might say "there is no meaningful difference between OEC and
YEC." }
2) By declaring that "explanations employing nonnaturalistic or
supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a
supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a
valid science curriculum," NABT tries to accomplish two goals:
2a) prevent ID [which does not explicitly refer to God] from being
defined as science, and
2b) prevent any examination of the assumed implication, in current
science education, that "science = truth".
In effect, this sentence encourages teachers to define atheism as
truth, by combining "science is a-theistic" (in 2a) with "science = truth"
(in 2b).
3) But even though 2a-and-2b uses circular logic, circularity is
criticized later: "Science is not teleological: the accepted processes [of
scientific method?] do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change
it,..." But this principle evidently applies only to the implied target of
"creationism" (defined so broadly that it includes everything except
atheistic/deistic evolution?), because NABT seems to accept the use of
circular logic in 2a-and-2b. // The 2a/2b logic seems circular because
NABT encourages the acceptance of premises [which they claim should not be
challenged in science ed] whose logical conclusion is a total
a-theism/deism in nature, and nature includes (by implication, if there is
no discussion of limitations on the domain claimed by science) "everything
that has happened, is happening, or will happen."
4) By saying that "natural selection...has no specific direction or
goal," NABT is still stating that evolution is "unsupervised" -- even if
this word is removed from the statement. // If NABT wants to avoid
theological statements, maybe they could say something like:
"A totally natural process of natural selection has no specific
direction or goal, but a statement that "in *nature* there is no goal"
would require a philosophical extrapolation that moves beyond the
legitimate scope of empirically-based science."
5) In stating that "opposition to teaching evolution reflects confusion
about the nature and processes of science," NABT perpetuates stereotypes by
implying that the *only* reason to oppose *any* type of evolution-teaching
(whose content and attitude can vary from relatively religiously neutral to
the atheistic evangelism of Sagan and Provine, Dawkins and Dennett). If
they intend to say that "SOME opposition to SOME teaching of evolution
reflects confusion," they should say this, accurately and carefully; but if
their claim is that "ALL opposition to ALL teaching of evolution reflects
confusion," I think they are wrong.
The NABT statement also contains an overall treatment that seems
inadequate, regarding the relationships between science and religion -- and
how (or whether) these should be discussed in science education, in an
effort to be religiously neutral. For example, "creation beliefs have no
place in the science classroom" and "contrasting science with religion,
such as belief in creationism, is not a role of science" (yet teachers
should "separate science from various kinds of non-scientific ways of
knowing") and "it is inappropriate to teach any of the different religious
beliefs in the science classroom." {these affirmations of neutrality
contrast with the many non-neutralities discussed above, especially the
implications of assuming both 2a-and-2b}
{ Please don't assume that I disagree with everything quoted in the
paragraph above; each quotation could be part of a balanced discussion.
What I question is whether the NABT proposal (that "teaching is neutral if
there is no discussion of anything except science") is justified. Doesn't
this proposal seem overly simplistic? }
Also, check my semi-independent "NABT & the law" post.
*********************************************************
Because questionable implications occur throughout the NABT statement, the
deletion of two words is a *very small* victory. As a science educator, I
favor a high-quality teaching of evolution. If the NABT wants to avoid
"taking a theological position," their goal should be applauded, but I
don't think this goal has been accomplished by the removal of two words
(which were indeed the most "logically vulnerable" -- especially coming so
soon after the statement had promised from their otherwise-unrevised
statement.
Craig R