>Hello. This is my first contribution to this reflector.
>
Welcome.
>I was talking with Phil Johnson after his presentation at the Cornerstone
>Christian Music Festival a few weeks ago. He told me about a recent
>statement on the definition of evolution published in 1995 by the 8000
>member National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT).
>
>The excerpt below implies that evolution is, by definition, identical with
>atheism. Teachers in the TE camp can teach that God has something to do
>with evolution, but such claims contradict the atheistic meaning attached
>to the word *evolution* by those who actually have the cultural authority
>to define it: e.g. the NABT, Gould, Dawkins, and authors of leading
>Biology texts such as Douglas Futuyma, whose definitions are equally
>atheistic.
>
>Here's the excerpt:
>==============================================================
>National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT)
>
>STATEMENT ON TEACHING EVOLUTION
>
>[Adopted by the Board of Directors, March 15, 1995.]
>
>The National Association of Biology Teachers, an
>organization of science teachers, endorses the following tenets
>of science, evolution and biology education:
>
>The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an
>*unsupervised*, *impersonal*, unpredictable and natural process of
>temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by
>natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing
>environments.
>[emphasis added by NR]
>==========================end of excerpt===================================
>
Would you or perhaps someone else have a reference for this?
I think it might be a good idea if some of us wrote letters
to the NABT expressing our concern over this statement. Before
I do this I would like to see the original statement and read it
in its entirety. I downloaded the following list of the names
of the board of directors from their web page:
==============================================
NABT
1996 Board of Directors
Elizabeth A. Carvellas
President
Colchester High School
Laker Lane, P.O. Box 31
Colchester, Vermont 05446
(802) 658-1570
E-mail: AEECarvell@aol.com
Alan J. McCormack
President-Elect
San Diego State University
5300 Campanile Drive
San Diego, California 92188
(619) 594-4807
Catherine A. Wilcoxson
Secretary/Treasurer
Northern Arizona University
P.O. Box 5640
Flagstaff, Arizona 86011-5640
(520) 523-7026
Wayne Carley
Executive Director
National Assoc. of Biology Teachers (NABT)
11250 Roger Bacon Drive, #19
Reston, Virginia 22090-5202
(703) 471-1134
E-mail: wcarley@aol.com
Margaret (Betsy) G. Ott
Director at Large
Tyler Junior College
P.O. Box 9020
Tyler, Texas 75711
(903) 510-2240
Rita A. Hoots
Director at Large
Yuba College
41605 Gibson Road
Woodland, California 95776
(916) 661-5759
E-mail: krhoots@aol.com
Gordon E. Uno
Past President
University of Oklahoma
Botany/Microbiology Dept.
Norman, Oklahoma 73019
(405) 325-6281
E-mail: unobotany@uoknor.edu
NABT Staff Contacts
Wayne Carley
Executive Director
NABT
11250 Roger Bacon Drive, #19
Reston, Virginia 22090-5202
(703) 471-1134
E-mail: wcarley@aol.com
===========================================
Although they had a page giving titles of their various position
statements, I could not find one that seemed to relate to
teaching evolution. Perhaps its too new to have made the list.
>If *unsupervised* and *impersonal* don't rule out TE, then look at the
>conspicuous absence of the supernatural in the list of that which *affects*
>evolution: natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and
>changing environments.
>
I take it then that you acknowledge Dawkins, Futyama, Gould, the NABT,
and the PUKE (Priesthood United to Kommunikate Evilutionism) as the
Royal Priesthood of Science and whatever they say must be true?
Sorry about the sarcasm, but this type of thing really irritates
me. People so often complain about the Royal Priesthood while all the
time treating them as a Royal Priesthood. The Royal Priests owe
their existence to convincing the gullible that they do exist.
The best answer to the above statement comes by adopting methodological
naturalism as defining limitations of science. In this way the statement
can be immediately identified as a religious committment.
Why isn't this done? Here is my suspicion. Some people really like
the idea of a Royal Priesthood, they just want a different set of
Priests.
>According to the NABT, God is, as Phil Johnson puts it, "permanently
>unemployed" at best.
>
>So if you're in the TE camp, please consider rejecting TE on the basis that
>it refutes itself. Or at least wait to affirm TE until after you aquire
>cultural authority and use it to change the meaning of the word evolution.
>
The predominant meaning of creationism is literal, fundamentalist,
young earth creationism. Will you reject being a creationist until
you gain the cultural authority to change this definition?
========================
Brian Harper | "People of that kind are academics, scholars,
Associate Professor | and that is the nastiest kind of man I know."
Applied Mechanics | -- Blaise Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================