Re: ASA statement

Ted Davis wrote:

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.

Just a couple very short comments. The problem with all of this is
unfortunately how the ID and anti-evolutionary proponents have
manipulated and misused the language of critical thinking and
"critically evaluating evolutionary theory." Most of the people I
know in NCSE and other organizations (such as KCFS where I serve on the
board of directors) respond that critical thinking and critical
evaluation of theories is the essence of ALL science. And this should
by all means be how science is taught. But, the efforts to include
such language are not focussed on furthering critical thinking. The
efforts being made throughout the country explicitly single out only
evolution. Furthermore, when these vague statements are translated
into actual curriculum and lesson plans, it becomes clear that what
they desire to include is simply bad science (everything from
traditional YE creationism to distortions of current research). This
is true in Kansas as our science standards are now under revision. The
great majority of people using the ID language are YECs -- which
becomes very clear on attending any public forum, or reading letters to
the editor. The YECs on the school board are pushing for ID language
(and they will likely get it since they control a majority on the
board) yet what they want in specifics is traditional YE creationist
arguments. The board president has made numerous public statements
over the years (he was the same person behind the openly YEC standards
in 1999) indicating his support for the whole range of rejected YEC
arguments. In addition, the efforts to make the changes in the
standards have been done outside of the public process required. The
statements seem innocuous but they are being used for political
leverage. The whole thing is incredibly frustrating, and has given
evangelicals a bad name within the scientific community. One that I
keep working to overcome.

Keith
Received on Mon Feb 14 17:11:49 2005