>> I don't think that young-earth arguments have the support required to
>> justify their inclusion in a science curriculum (I don't think that
>> _popular_ support is sufficient reason for inclusion). I'm also not
>> sure that YECs will appreciate the way in which the their arguments
>> might be presented or discussed. Instead, I think there are examples
>> of other competing scientific models for students to investigate which
>> are less religious-oriented and less likely to draw heated debate...
>
Loren responded:
>
>All of these are fine exercises for gaining historical understanding and
>for comparing competing scientific arguments; however, there are two
>important reasons why YEC-debates could be added to your list. First,
>students are far more likely to run into YEC arguments later in life than
>arguments about plate tectonics, heliocentrism, or nucleic acids. Second,
>people _care_ about YEC arguments far more than the others.
>
>Here is what I envision as a workable compromise: The public school
>teacher offers several independent study units. Each has a brief reading
>list, and each student chooses which one he or she wants to study, and
>perhaps write a short paper on the topic. The topics could include
>non-controversial study subjects, or they could include "controversial"
>topics (e.g. What is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect? How much
>impact are pesticides having on the environment?) in which the reading
>list includes arguments from competing sides...
ONE of the optional topics could be YEC,
>and the reading list would include both (non-religious) YEC arguments and
>refutations of those arguments. (As a fringe benefit, the teacher would
>also become familiar with this literature.)
J. P. Moreland has pointed out that the question of whether YEC is science
or not is not strictly a scientific question. It's a philosophical
question. It could certainly be discussed and analyzed in a philosophy of
science unit offered in the public schools. I'm not convinced that we do
our kids a service by avoiding controversy in our teaching in the public
schools. They will be faced with it later in life, and the sooner they
learn to think constructively about controversial issues, the better off
they will be.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)