Shuan Rose wrote:
> Dear Walt,
> I agree with many of your points, but don't you set up the potential problem
> that the only the science that you will teach is that which is "politically
> correct", i.e. inoffensive to people. I am a bit worried that "political
> correctness" would be the yardstick used to determine what science we should
> teach our children.
Yes Shuan,
I agree that this is not a good yardstick. But neither is humanism.
The intensity with which people insist on teaching "evolution" in grade school,
versus other scientific or non-scientific areas, seems out of
proportion to the
importance of the subject as a field. That suggests to me the possibility of
ulterior motives (by either humanists or non YEC Christians). If the
facts could
be presented without the (unsubstantiated) theories, it could be a different
situation.
I personally believe in the existence of evolution and really think that God
just designed it to happen that way. However, I have long been skeptical of
Darwin's gradualism notions and was quite unimpressed by his fossil discussion
in Origin of Species. Gould's theory seems to make more sense to me -- but that
does not appear to be what is taught in the schools. Also the use of the word
"random" in secular teaching of evolution has a definite meaning to most people
-- and it does not correspond to the theology used on this list. But you will
not get that word removed for teaching of evolution so long as the "theory of
evolution" is taught in public schools. Also, you cannot in a public school
redefine "random" to mean possibly under the control of God.
> Moreover, what happens when children go to college. Do we extend the rule of
> "political correctness" there as well?
Colleges are not publicly funded schools in general and attendance in
college is
not required. Students can go wherever they choose and select YEC or anything
else that they want to. I agree with Jan that the best solution is the ability
to send children to Christian schools which will teach science
appropriately and
yet not rule God out of the equation. (Yes, I favor vouchers.)
Walt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Walter Hicks
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 4:36 AM
> To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: My Daughter is a YEC
>
> Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I can basically agree, but one very sticky point
> > is over the education issues. As far as what someone
> > wants to believe, that is probably not my business
> > to monkey with, but we do need to teach students
> > science: how to analyze a process and how to
> > formulate and test that hypothesis. That is what
> > good science is all about. It seems to satisfy
> > the YEC folk in the US, we are either forced to
> > simply skip over the origins issue all together,
> > or confront the model in the best way we know how
> > from a scientific view point (which assumes
> > the intelligibility of our universe). If we do the
> > latter, the hard line YECs start demanding this
> > equal time nonsense. At some point, we *do* need to
> > teach our students how to do good science on the issue
> > of origins, and the YEC stuff just doesn't measure up.
> > So what do we do? If we present their ideas, we end
> > up doing short work on them, and so we lose whatever
> > we do.
> >
> > So whereas I don't require that my students become
> > some carbon copy of my own way of thinking to
> > satisfy some goal in my life (probably a good idea
> > all of its own), neither do I feel it right to
> > simply neglect teaching students (at least in a
> > public institution) what scientist think is the best
> > (intelligible) way to describe what actually happened.
> >
> > What do you suggest?
>
> If students go to a private institution, they will be taught whatever is
> the philosophy of that institution. It could be YEC, humanism or
> anything else. The basic question then is: what _must_ be taught in the
> public schools. If science is a subject, then what should and should not
> be taught? Is it mandatory to teach Gravitational Theory? Relativity
> Theory? Quantum Mechanical Theory? Evolutionary Theory?
>
> I went to school a very long time ago -- but not much of any of these
> subjects were taught. Although science is more important nowadays, one
> can teach biology and all manner of subjects without getting into areas
> which are potentially offensive. One can be absolutely certain that
> there are humanists who love to push evolution into students as a means,
> not to teach science, but as "sneaky" way to push atheism. I am not
> being paranoid here because it is their openly stated goal to eliminate
> religion and parental influence over children. One need only read the
> "Humanist Manifestos". If one must teach evolution, there is no need
> whatsoever to present a theory of how it comes about. There appears to
> be a great emphasis on Darwinian evolution when it is a theory which
> Gould disputed. One can present facts without presenting an underlying
> theory --- especially a controversial one.
>
> >
> >
> > by Grace we proceed,
> > Wayne
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:49:37 EDT