I reply to specific questions below:
>As a denomination, PCA doctrine takes a very different view from yours.
>Frank Barker, now retired PCA pastor and one of the founders of the PCA,
>said "The PCA doctrine of creation would be that Adam was created
>genetically unique, i.e. he was not evolved from lower animals and then
>given a soulish nature by God to make him 'man' instead of 'animals.' He
>was created from 'dust' rather than evolving." The PCA "Report of the
>Creation Study Committee" states "that there are presbyteries that do in
>fact receive men holding other views [regarding the age-of-the-earth
>question] without requiring an exception, provided the men can affirm the
>historicity of Gen 1-3 and do reject evolution." So PCA doctrine clearly
>rejects evolution in the sense of "a seamless series of cause-and-effect
>processes."
>
>If schooling a child under the KS Science Standards would tend to
>undermine this PCA religious doctrine by teaching a theory based upon
>inference, and by not teaching any alternative to the theory, then
>indoctrination would occur.
Science, or any other discipline, cannot be taught with integrity in such a
way that all persons set of beliefs are left challenged. What should be
taught is the best current understanding of the discipline - period. If
that current understanding is in conflict with an individual student's
personal beliefs, then it must be responded to with great sensitivity and
respect. However, altering the content of the subject matter in order to
accomodate such beliefs is not an option.
This is a very diverse and pluralistic culture in which a wide range of
beliefs exist. We simply cannot teach everyone's views of the world - and
treat them as though they all have equal claim to acceptance by the
scientific community. To do so, counter to the claims of those who
advocate "teach everything and let the students decide," would strike at
the heart of scientific education and critical thinking. We don't teach
flood geology or geocentricity or a steady state universe for good reason.
These ideas have failed critical scientific test against the available
evidence.
The current scientific consensus exists for a reason - it cannot be
dismissed lightly. This, of course, does not mean that the current
consensus is completely correct. In fact, it most certainly will change.
Part of the responsibility of science teaching is to communicate that
science is a dynamic activity of inquiry in which ideas are constantly
being challenged and previous theories are rejected and modified. Science
is a process, a methodology, not a set of "facts" to memorize.
> *Understand: "Understand" does not mandate "belief." [Why even state
>the blatantly obvious? Belief can only be mandated by force under pain
>of death. This is eyewash for the evolutionists to assuage the irate
>parents and their children - to put them back to sleep.] While students
>may be required to understand some concepts that researchers use to
>conduct research and solve practical problems, they may accept or reject
>the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where
>students' and/or parents' beliefs may be at odds with current scientific
>theories or concepts. See _Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of
>Science_, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page 59. (KS Science Stds.,
>pp 58-60 of 75)
This statement was placed in the standards specifically because critics
were claiming that the educational goal of student "understanding" was
indeed advocating belief.
>I will comment on only this one aspect of the KS Science Standards. For
>those interested in more, the references above contain a wealth of info.
>The central point in my thinking is contained in the following statement
>from the Standards: "If a student should raise a question in a natural
>science class that the teacher determines to be outside the domain of
>science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher
>should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science
>and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her
>family and other appropriate sources" (KS Science Standards, p 6 of 75).
>My impression is that these Standards have been very carefully
>wordsmithed to allow naturalism to be presented, and for supernatural
>possibilities to be excluded.
That the standards are carefully written is undeniable. They were written
by a large dedicated group of outstanding state educators over a period of
more than two years. The document passed through numerous revisions, and
had extensive public comment and input. A well-crafted and worded document
is the result. (BTW: the document that was approved previously by the
critics of evolution had NO review, and NO public and professional input.)
>The Standards are clearly based upon a search for naturalistic
>explanations rather than a search for truth (the word "truth" doesn't
>appear in the Standards). This is not a minor point, but it was
>apparently missed by the Chancellor of the University of Kansas, Robert
>E. Hemenway, in "The Evolution of a Controversy in Kansas Shows Why
>Scientists Must Defend the Search for Truth". Hemenway states: "Most
>scientists, of course, believe that science is never fully certain and
>complete, and that new truths lie just around the corner, somewhere in
>the next experiment or observation. But that hardly means that
>scientific theories - incorporating facts, laws, inferences, and tested
>hypotheses - are not truths that can be used to explain the natural
>world. Evolution is still the central unifying concept of biology - and
>that is an understanding that schools and universities must teach if
>education is to maintain its continuous search for biological truth."
>The Chancellor of the University of Kansas equates biological *truth*
>with "scientific theories... that can be used to explain the natural
>world."
The word "truth" is not in the document for a very good reason. Science
cannot every demonstrate that something is "true" in the sense of a logical
or mathematical proof. Some scientific theories are so well established
and supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that they are no
longer seriously questioned. An example is the vast size and age of the
universe. But such theories cannot be demonstrated to be "true" in an
absolute sense.
>"Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can
>be tested against the natural world.... Compelling student belief is
>inconsistent with the goal of education" (KS Science Standards, p 6 of
>75). What is presented as truth, but based upon inference, may not be
>true at all. Historical science is neither observable nor subject to
>repeatable experiments, but is an interpretation of empirical data.
>
>The Standards are internally inconsistent. They cannot promote
>intellectual honesty, appropriate skepticism, open-mindedness to new
>ideas, and decisions based upon evidence, while limiting the questions
>that may be asked to the realm of nature. On the one hand, the
>Introduction to the Standards says "Inquiry is central to science
>learning... Students...identify their assumptions, use critical and
>logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations." (p 4 of 75)
>This is patently false; the Standards prohibit consideration of any
>explanation alternative to naturalism. On page 5 of 75, "Nature of
>Science": "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations
>for what we observe in the world around us." By definition, any
>nonnatural explanation would be deemed as "outside the domain of
>science", which means that every teacher is directed to shunt the
>question out of the science classroom and out of the school system.
Your issue is with the methodology of science, not with the standards.
This listserve has dealt with this issue extensively, as have I. You have
read my essay in "Darwinism Defeated?" so you must know my position.
Science simply cannot test the action of a non-natural agent. The
exclusion of non-natural agency from "scientific" description does not in
any way deny the reality of the supernatural or its possible action in the
world. Science is a limited way of knowing. It is scientism which tries
to make science the path to all truth. It seems to me that this is
precisely what some proponents of ID are doing. They demand that science
be a search for ALL truth. It is not, nor can it be!
>The question of intelligent design is permitted in SETI and in suspected
>arson and murder cases, but not in the Kansas Science Standards. The
>Standards are internally inconsistent by encouraging students to "use
>critical and logical thinking, and consider alternative explanations",
>while prohibiting alternative explanations which are subjectively judged
>by *evolutionists* to be "outside the domain of science." How can
>intelligent design be *within* the domain of science for SETI but
>*outside* the domain of science for biology? By creating a misleading
>impression.
These examples all involve the action, or proposed action, of human agents
or alien intelligences which are modelled on human agents. Human agents
(and aliens if they exist) are "natural" agents. They are as much natural
agents as other organisms. As a paleontologist I look for the signs of the
action of such agents (burrows, traces, boring patterns, etc) and
distinguish them from non-biological physical agents. This is all within
the proper perview of science. However, a "non-natural" agent by
definition is not subject to natural laws and processes - it can do
anything. As such it has no predictive value. Science "has no use of that
hypothesis" because it contributes nothing to a particularly "scientific"
understanding of the universe.
>So let me ask you once again, Keith, may we offer John a chance to defend
>himself against your allegation that his statement was "completely
>false"? I would think you should either publicly apologize (if you agree
>with what I have said above, which I don't expect :-)) or extend to John
>the opportunity to defend himself.
I fully stand by all my previous statements. I have never suggested that
John should not "defend himself." In fact I was surprised that he did not
join the discussion as I had thought that you specifically invited him to
do so.
Sincerely,
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 25 2001 - 11:31:01 EDT