Thanks for obtaining and posting the NABT statement on teaching
evolution, Roy. It amply demonstrates two classic symptoms: inability to
distinguish science from philosophy, and conflation of all forms of
creationism into YEC.
I like Brian Harper's idea. Let's draft a letter (any volunteers?)
of response. I'd start by suggesting two strong points:
1) Teaching that evolution is "unsupervised" is extra-scientific and
completely counter to their stated claim of being religiously neutral.
2) It is scientifically credible to believe that evolution is
limited to microevolution; the "weaker" areas of macroevolutionary
theory should not be glossed over with hand-waving; and it is possible,
with the right preparation, to mention in the science classroom that
some scientists believe that purely natural mechanisms are insufficient
to account for those developments in biological history.
(That could be one letter, or two letters sent jointly.)
Let's suggest a minimal amount of rewording to their statement
necessary to make it reasonable.
Let's sign the letter jointly, maybe pass it around the American Scientific
Affiliation e-mail list (and maybe other email lists) for signitures,
and send it to the NABT directors.
What do y'all think?
Loren Haarsma