Richard:
>I have no objection to informing children that a tiny minority of scientists
>hold dissenting views. If that was all the anti-evolutionists wanted, there
>would probably be no problem. But you're wrong. They're demanding much more
>than that. Indeed, the Kansas school board removed references to evolution
>and the age of the Earth from the state education standards. And IDers are
>trying to have ID taught in public schools.
>It seems to me you're seriously understating the aims of IDers. I find it
>hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s] teaching children orthodox
>Darwinism"!
Bertvan:
Hi Richard. Labeling ID a religious view seems like an attempt to prevent it
being mentioned in schools. ID is the belief that the diversity of life and
the universe is too complex to have occurred by chance. That is compatible
with most religious views, but ID itself makes no religious statement, except
to claim the complexity of life is the result of intelligence. If enough
people hold this view, I see no harm in school children being aware of it.
The Scopes trial was a fight to allow evolution to be discussed in school.
Today the fights are to prevent any criticism of "random mutation and
natural selection" from being discussed in school. As for Johnson, I give
you his own words:
Bertvan
Phillip Johnson:
Here is what I wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Evolution is an
important topic, and students certainly should learn the theory and the
reasons why so many scientists think it is true. It is also a controversial
topic, and students should learn why."
Real education requires that students be exposed to dissenting views about
evolution in their strongest form, rather than merely to some caricature
written by a scientific materialist. The truly educational approach is to
teach
the controversy, presenting students with the evidence and arguments that will
permit them to make up their own minds.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 29 2000 - 10:51:08 EDT