Re: Stereotypes and reputations

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
To: "Tim" <tpi.hormel@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: Stereotypes and reputations
........................................

> Intelligent design, by virtue on its argument from
> ignorance is scientifically vacuous. Seems that the DI
> is changing course from teaching ID to 'teach the
> controversy', a thinly veiled religious concept.

The "Teach the controversy" slogan was introduced a few years ago here in
Ohio in debates about state's public school science curriculum. The
optional lesson plan supposedly for critical study of evolution that the
state school board approved (in spite of testimony against it by scientists
in relevant fields) makes clear what "Teach the controversy" really means:
"Teach reasons not to take evolution seriously." If students (& parents)
who may have religious qualms about evolution can be convinced that there
are problems with evolutionary theory (which of course there are since there
are things it hasn't adequately explained yet) & that there are viable
alternative theories (which there aren't) then it will be easy for then to
dismiss evolution as "Just another theory." & a teacher with such
inclinations can easily push things in that direction.

Of course there is "controversy" about evolution. There is religious,
political and social controversy. There is controversy among evolutionary
scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory. But there is no real
scientific controversy about evolution itself.

I have suspected that, in Ohio at least, the IDers never really expected
that they'd be able to get full-fledged ID into the science curriculum. "We
just want to teach the controversy" sounds like a modest compromise on their
part, but if "controversy" is taught the way they want it's a victory for
them.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Jul 29 08:37:59 2005