Re: Peer review and ID

I agree entirely with what Keith Miller wrote.

I also agree with the view of nearly all scientists, that ID is not science.
 It is however an interesting and potentially fruitful critique of science
that is recognized as worthy of discussion in the professional literature
devoted to the philosophy of science. Like other philosophical aspects of
science, it is part of science more broadly conceived, just as the history
of science is part of science more broadly conceived. A high school or
college teacher who wants to make reference to either historical or
philosophical issues related to science, can legitimately do so, and efforts
to prohibit a teacher from doing so are IMO inappropriate and even
short-sighted. No one's educational purpose is well served when students
are prohibited from learning about certain questions/issues that bear on a
subject, simply b/c they are controversial. We do not do this in other
disciplines (and the extraordinary statement from the President of the
University of Idaho apparently recognizes this fact), why do we do it in
science? One of the most fundamental problems in science education, IMO, is
that there has usually been *too little* attention to "liberal arts" aspects
of the sciences, such as history and philosophy of science. Now that more
states are recognizing the importance of those aspects by requiring some
things from HPS to be taught in schools, it seems suddenly backwards to rule
out discussing ID simply b/c it has a religious dimension. So many other
things schools *are* allowed to discuss have religious dimensions--the
abortion debate, the history of the United States, the civil rights
movement, etc, etc. etc.

I'm with Warren Nord on this one; an internet search will easily fill you in
if you don't know already.

Ted
Received on Fri Oct 21 11:10:10 2005