Re: ASA statement

In response to my comments about the ASA language and how it might be
perceived, Keith wrote:
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."

Ted replies:
I agree, and the same thing has happened/will happen in other states.

(This is not to say that some ID rhetorical points might contain some
truth--is it not true, e.g., that many biology texts have used the infamous
Haeckel diagrams that have long been known to be misleading?)

So, given the fact that ID is mainly being used at the popular level to
promote traditional creationism (the genuine article, not the wrongly
labeled "intelligent design creationism"), how will the ASA statement be
perceived at this point in time? Should we draw attention to our "official
statement," when it is likely IMO that we ourselves will be labeled a
"creationist" organization?

This, I say, is the politics of the situation, the same kind of politics
(driven by a refusal even to try to state things fairly and obviously) that
some years ago led a writer for the NCSE reports to classify one of Howard
Van Till's books as a creationist book. Ludicrous, but true. When truth
calls for careful discernment, leave it to politically driven individuals to
do their very best to obscure the nuances and obliterate the complexities.

ted
Received on Mon Feb 14 19:19:52 2005