RE: Kansas Closing arguments

Learn how to read Michael. If I thought that experimental science was not constitutive of propositions in the historical sciences, then I would have referred to them as historical studies. For instance, there is no such thing as political science. What one has is political studies. Just adding numbers in some studies does not make it a science.

Moorad

________________________________

From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 2:51 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments

If Moorad listened to and noted many posts on this list he would have
realised that it is people like himself who stubbornly will not recognise
the validity of historical science and blithely through out "assumptions".
That has passed into the popular mindset and those who don't understand MN
etc.

It is very hard dealing with invincible ignorance on this scale, and the
recent spat in Kansas gives us some hope.

What is the philosophy behind evolutionary theory?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: RE: Kansas Closing arguments

> There is no doubt that evolutionary theory, whichever way is taught, will
> always give rise to issues on which many people will differ. Why is it
> that we never hear "that physics is and can be taught in a religiously
> neutral manner?" We do not hear such things even when discussing the Big
> Bang theory of the creation of the physical universe. What if a student
> asks the cosmologist, what was there before the Bang? Are we to avoid such
> types of questions? Therefore, those issue to which many students and
> parents are sensitive to ought to be addressed honestly in the classroom.
> What is the fear of biologists? A few words regarding the philosophy
> behind evolutionary theory at the beginning of the course ought not to be
> treated as discussing religion but rather clarifying the assumptions being
> made. Invariably, evolutionary theory will always give rise to the
> question of how life came about and how is the present related to the
> past. These are not only scientific questions but a!
> lso historical questions to which possible answers are based on all sorts
> of assumptions. If there is a controversy, teach it!
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Keith Miller
> Sent: Tue 5/17/2005 5:07 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments
>
>
>
> Ted:
>
>> From where I sit as an outsider to professional science but an insider
>> to
>> the larger story of science in cultural contexts, and an insider to the
>> study of science as a form of reasoning and as a human activity, here
>> is my
>> main concern about what is happening in Kansas and in other states.
>>
>> The politics of this obscures the search for truth. This cuts both
>> ways,
>> IMO, that is, neither "side" is willing to acknowledge actually valid
>> points
>> made by the "other guys." Let me offer just two specific examples.
>
> I agree that politicizing the issue has been highly destructive. The
> current polarizing and divisive national politics is touching a lot
> more than just the evolution/creation issue. Intelligent discussion of
> almost any issue is becoming increasingly difficult.
>
> Unfortunately, the ID group has been a major factor in politicizing the
> creation/evolution issue. The major thrust of their arguments in the
> Kansas hearings was to essentially ignore the middle ground which is
> that evolutionary science is and can be taught in a religiously neutral
> manner. By insisting that evolution is based on a fundamentally
> atheistic worldview - they perpetuate the polarizing and dichotomizing
> thinking which is at the root of the problem. This was the fundamental
> issue during the hearings -- the science was entirely secondary.
>
> The other important thing to keep in mind is that the issue in Kansas
> is the state science standards. It is about which important science
> concepts should be tested in the state's standardized tests. In other
> words, what basic scientific understanding should we expect all
> students to have at different grade levels and upon graduation? For
> this reason, areas of scientific research that are currently in the
> frontiers of research, or for which no significant scientific consensus
> exists, are not part of the standards. That is why there is no mention
> of Origin of Life research in the standards. Some of the ID critiques
> of the standards seem to completely miss what their pedagogical purpose
> is.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 19 10:16:03 2005