Re: Viewpoint discrimination or careless reading.

Ted Davis wrote:

>Pim:
>
>We clearly do not agree about what is "fair" for a science professor to
>"discuss." Note please that "discuss" does not mean "advocate" or "teach in
>any way whatsoever."
>
>
>
There is often a fine line to walk here between science, or violating
the establishment clause.

>Part of the problem with science and the public is, IMO, the fact that
>science faculty so often utterly ignore criticisms of evolution. Such
>criticisms exist. I know that no one on panda's thumb (e.g.) will admit
>that any of them could ever have any validity in any possible universe, but
>this does nothing to alter the fact that such criticisms exist.
>
>
So ID is criticisms of evolution? My reading of the Idaho statement does
not imply that such criticisms cannot be taught.

>If a professor wants to discuss the notion of "irreducible complexity," so
>that students understand what this point is about, that's just good
>educational pedagogy. Sure, it takes class time from yet one more example
>of biocehmical pathways or DNA sequences, but so what? We always have to
>omit things that someone else might teach in their course. The journal
>Nature, in late April, even went so far as to advocate in the lead editorial
>that science professors should share their religious views with students!
>Surely it can't be inadmissible in Idaho, for a biology professor to talk
>about the bacterial flagellum??
>
>

Of course not, and I doubt this is what the statement says. So what
creationist arguments should professors address and why in a science
class, distracting from teaching science? Where does this end? Young
earth geology? Astrology in astro-physics?
Received on Fri Oct 7 17:09:35 2005