On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:37:17 -0700 John W Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
writes:
> Howard posted the Kansas science standards, which included these
> words:
>
> ""Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that
> can
> be tested against the natural world. Some scientific concepts and
> theories (e.g., blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system
> role
> in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may
> differ
> from the teachings of a student's religious community or their
> cultural
> beliefs. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal
> of
> education. Nothing in science or in any other field shall be taught
> dogmatically."
>
> I both applaud and view with alarm those last two sentences.
> Understanding how they came to be, and what they are trying to
> guard
> against, they seem far too strong. Surely we wish to teach our
> youngsters that gravity works, so don't jump off the roof; that
> drugs can
> kill, so "just say no." Surely we do not wish to teach science in
> such a
> way that "this is the best explanation for X, but if you want to
> believe
> in a different explanation, that's OK for your beliefs are just as
> valid
> (to you) as others' beliefs are to them."
>
> What I think of here, primarily, is of course youngsters who are fed
> the
> YEC position exclusively at home and at church. Stephen Carter,
> usually a
> very perceptive writer, seems to think in his most recent book,
> GOD'S
> NAME IN VAIN, that the school needs to honor this, teaching, in
> fact,
> that holding such an invalid belief is perfectly OK and as valid as
> any
> other. I don't know if he'd extend this to "Flat Earthers"or not --
> or to
> the teachings of the "Christian" militia, but I see nothing in his
> arguments that draws any lines of this kind.
>
> For my YEC friends here, put some other position than YEC in the
> above --
> KKK teachings on race, for instance.
>
> Burgy (John Burgeson)
Three comments. First, the statement by Samuel Butler: "He that complies
against his will,/Is of his own opinion still." Usually misquoted as, "A
man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still."
Second, the lines from James Russell Lowell: "The right to be a cussed
fool/Is safe from all devices human,/It's common (ez a gin'l rule)/To
every critter born of woman.
Third, the statement does not suggest that all opinions are equal. It
applies to science, and essentially involves the recognition that "this
is the best current scientific explanation." This recognizes that new
information may require a change in the view, though this in the "hard"
sciences is usually only an addition or modification of a detail.
Elsewhere it may recognize that claims are more tentative. It also should
recognize that there are no grounds for metaphysical claims based on
science.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 16 2001 - 15:09:28 EST