Re: Stereotypes and reputations

".."Teach the controversy" really means: "Teach reasons not to take
evolution seriously." ..." ~ George

If you're referring to the religious philosophy (Scientism) which is taught
in biology classes in the public schools - that concerns origins and should
not be taught as "science".

The scientism of Carl Sagan:
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/science/saganand.htm

The scientism of Richard Dawkins:
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

Janice

At 08:35 AM 7/29/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>----- 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 10:08:57 2005