Re: ASA

Very good of Jack to remind us all of this clear statement.

Let me point to these parts:

*Background*

Science teachers and scientists concerned about the future of science
should ... (b) point out unsolved problems and encourage the investigation
of such
problems.

*Resolution*:
*A Voice for Evolution* /*As Science*/

WE FURTHER URGE that, to make classroom instruction more stimulating
while guarding it against the intrusion of extra-scientific beliefs, the
teaching of /any/ scientific subject, including evolutionary biology,
should include ... (3) candid discussion of unsolved problems and open
questions.

*****

Now my comments.

I think the whole resolution is excellent, and I believe it encourages the
right kinds of educational approaches to all aspects of science, not just to
evolution. However--surprise?--the two parts I identified above will be
seen by many in the NCSE and the ACLU and AUSCS as reflecting an
"intelligent design" approach to the issue. I kid you not. The
politicization of this issue has gotten to that point, unfortunately. It is
IMO completely legitimate to teach about any part of science in this way, to
call attention to the limits of what is currently known and to *scientific*
questions about the science itself--including questions about the scope and
explanatory power of current versions of the relevant theories. If teachers
want to bring in such questions, as long as they are being raised by
scientists themselves in scientific publications, they can fairly be
discussed at the options of high school teachers. And the ACLU should not
be able to say, "well, we know what motivates people to do this, it's really
creationism in disguise." Whether courts will allow the ACLU to say this,
concerning a statement such as our own above, remains to be seen, esp in
light of the recent Georgia decision in which the motives of people were
inferred from the history of the evolution controversy in this country--a
potentially troubling decision, IMO, since it seems to imply that anyone who
challenges the truth of any aspect of evolution, for any reason, can be
accused of being a "creationist" and have their concerns dismissed out of
hand.

Frankly, our own statement can be seen as consistent with the call by IDers
to "teach the controversy" about evolution, since part of what they mean by
this is what we appear to state. It might just come about, that we ASAers
are, once again, going to be dismissed as "creationists" doing
"pseudoscience". Here I am thinking of the California situation involving
"vendetta" Bennetta, the anti-religious person who viciously attacked our
booklet, "Teaching Science," in the early 1990s. On this episode, see Ron
Numbers, The Creationists, 321-2.

Ted
Received on Mon Feb 14 15:38:33 2005