>LH> 1) Teaching that evolution is "unsupervised" is extra-scientific and
> > completely counter to their stated claim of being religiously neutral.
> >
> In science, the "unsupervised" part should be understood. However, I
> am not critical of them including this because it limits the temptation
> of teachers from interjecting their religious views. Although, I don't
> like the wording.
You're right that teachers should be somewhat limitted from interjecting
religious views, either pro- or anti- "supervision."
I'd recommend that teachers don't teach that evolution is EITHER supervised
OR unsupervised. They should, of course, teach the various random
(recombination, different kinds of mutation, etc) and non-random (natural
selection etc) mechanisms which have been observed. At the end of it all, if
the teacher wants to give a larger perspective (and she probably should),
I'd recommend she say that whether or not all of this is "supervised" or
"unsupervised" goes beyond science, and is decided by religious beliefs.
> > 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.
> >
>
> Hmm, this is strange. You are critical for them for including
> extra-scientific ideas, but you want them to include extra-scientific
> ideas of your particular choice? I think you need to rethink this
> statement. An alternative that is not extra-scientific would be, for
> example, that some scientists feel that the proposed mechanisms of
> evolution are insufficient to account for the fossil record, or what ever
> you feel it doesn't account for. Remember, just because the proposed
> mechanisms that exist today don't work, according to you, doesn't mean
> that the ultimate explaination (if there is one) would be supernatural.
> It could be as naturalistic as anything. Saying the current theories are
> insufficient is enough, you do not need to imply supernaturalism.
Whoops, you read something between the lines which I _tried_ to edit out.
I tried to stick with what is infered from the data and leave out as
much extra-scientific stuff as possible. But you're right, I could have
done better.
I'm hoping we can phrase things to be acceptable to as many progressive
creationists, evolutionary creationists, and agnostics as possible.
I wouldn't object to a teacher doing what you suggest in your last
sentence. But I expect lots of teachers will want to say more. So how
can they do that, fairly, in the public school classroom?
O.k., after the students learn about the known evolutionary mechanisms,
the fossil record, and genetics, they run up against a few areas where
macroevolutionary theory has a tough row to hoe: (I walked soybeans in
my youth, so I may use that analogy. :-) abiogenesis, origin of novelty
and complexity, rapid appearance of new forms. Now, it is just plain
good science education to tell students where a theory is strong, and
where it is weaker. Once that's done, I think it's fair to offer (at least)
these three perspectives: some scientists think that known natural
mechanisms are sufficient, we just need to improve our understanding of
them; some scientists think that known natural mechanisms are
insufficient but expect to find new ones; some think that we're unlikely
ever to find purely natural mechanisms to explain those developments.
The strategy here is to spend most of the time teaching the science,
and when extra-scientific issues are finally discussed (and
it's hard NOT to mention them on this topic!), several perspectives
are presented simultaneously.
A few months ago we had a lot of posts on the topic of what should be
taught in the public classroom and how should it be taught, and ---
amazingly enough --- we mostly seemed to come pretty close to agreement.
If anyone volunteers to write a draft letter, a trip through the
archives might be useful.
> > Let's suggest a minimal amount of rewording to their statement
> > necessary to make it reasonable.
>
> I'd agree, but maybe not for the same reasons.
I have two reasons. First, there was a lot of good stuff in the NABT
letter worth keeping. Second, practically, the best hope of being heard
at all is to keep the letter short and the suggested changes minimal.
Loren Haarsma