Keith B Miller wrote:
> Following is a Baptist Press story on the recent decision by the Kansas
> BOE. You will notice a comment by John Weister. I want to be on the
> record, as an intimate participant in this whole affair, that his
> characterization of the standards is completely false.
.........................................
> >Ý John Wiester, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation's
> >science education commission, meanwhile told Baptist Press, "The
> >new Kansas science standards tilt toward indoctrination rather
> >than education."
> >
> >Ý American Scientific Affiliation is an international
> >organization made up of 2,500 evangelical Christian scientists
> >who advocate teaching evolution as one of many scientific
> >theories not an ideology.
> >
> >Ý "The new Kansas science standards have enshrined philosophical
> >naturalism as the official definition of science," Wiester said.
> >"The purposeless, undirected Darwinian mechanism of natural
> >selection is our official creator. It is by definition protected
> >from critical analysis and alternative hypotheses by the new
> >Kansas science standards. ... Teaching our children that they are
> >the result of an accidental process is naturalistic philosophy
> >masquerading as science."
While John Wiester didn't say here that he was speaking for the ASA,
that will certainly be the
impression that most readers will get, and the account gives no indication that
he tried to avoid that result. The fact that he is a member of the science
education committee gives him no more authority to speak for the organization
than any other has. Even the way in which ASA's position is described, with
the term "ideology", is misleading. An honest report would have pointed out
that many ASA members thought that the previous Kansas standards which omitted
the big bang and evolution were absurd.
This kind of thing gives the ASA a bad name in the scientific community
and among theologically literate Christians. Many people in both communities
(which of course overlap) already think of the ASA as an organization which is
suspicious of evolution. If we really are to be neutral on evolution then
members have the obligation to try to avoid having their own views represented
as those of the organization.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology
Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 18 2001 - 14:03:27 EST