What do you mean by *all* of the data? Surely one cannot regard decrease of
the speed of light, moon dust, aledged problems with radiometric dating,
circular basic of the geological column as Data?
I await any data which nullifies the age of the earth and a general view of
evolution - note I did not say natural selection.
Can anyone provide any?
Michael Roberts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Payne" <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: New Kansas Science Stds.
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:39:57 -0500 kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller)
> writes:
>
> >Teaching science is not about
> > compelling belief, it is always about introducing students to a way of
> > learning about the world around us, and demonstrating the observation
> basis
> > for our current theorectical understanding.
>
> As I see it, the problem arises when you withhold information which
> undermines "our current theorectical understanding," which is why Wiester
> said: "The new Kansas science standards tilt toward indoctrination
> rather than education." If you, Genie Scott, et al could bring
> yourselves to be candid in the presentation of *all* of the data, then
> you would blunt the criticism you rightly receive.
>
> On February 8, 2001, the Alabama State School Board voted unanimously to
> approve an updated science curriculum with yet another warning: "The
> theory of evolution by natural selection is a controversial theory that
> is included in this document. It is controversial because it states that
> natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific
> explanation for the diversity of living things. Since natural selection
> has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in the
> population, it is assumed, based on the study of artifacts, that it
> produces large changes, even though this has not been directly observed."
>
> A number of educators and a few ministers, who refuse to tolerate any
> criticism of the theory of evolution, stridently objected to this
> warning. The Board approved it anyway. Board member Bradley Byrne (an
> evolutionist) said: "I have no problem with a preface that says we should
> teach our theories, certainly the most widely accepted theories, but at
> the same time ask our children to question them and keep an open mind."
>
> When you say that "science is .... demonstrating the observation basis
> for our current theorectical understanding," rather than saying that
> science is presenting not only data in support of but also against our
> current theoretical understanding, then it seems that you yourself
> provide the basis for Wiester to say that your standards "tilt toward
> indoctrination rather than education."
>
> Phil Johnson says "Teach the controversy." How can a conscientious
> educator do anything less? The members of the Alabama Committee who
> drafted the new warning, and the members of the Alabama State School
> Board who approved it, certainly found they could not settle for less.
>
> What am I missing, Keith? Have I misunderstood what you are saying?
>
> Bill
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 18 2001 - 08:16:04 EST