Re: Peer review and ID

Well, my idea assumes we can convince that large segment that evolution is not equivalent to
atheism, which is not likely to happen until the Francis Collins, Darrell Falks and Alistair
MacGrath's of the world can get as much airtime and sell more videos than the Philip Johnson's
and Kent Hovinds* (or, from the other side of the fence, the Richard Dawkins). But in fairness, I
did say we would be critically evaluating the theories (all of 'em not just the Big E) so that
should take care of the flaws and limitations. I'm sorry if scienctists as a group don't find as
many flaws and limitations with evolution as you'd like there to be, but we will not invent new
ones to make you happy.

And if you understood the definition of theory we are trying to teach your kids, you might not
be so inclined to use the words "only" and "mere."

Are you also offended when your child is taught that bats are not birds, that rabbits don't chew
cuds, or that pi equals 3.14, not 3?

As for the idea of public funding for all schools, again, an idea I like in principle, but in
practicality I think it will create more problems than it solves. What happens when white
supremicists, Raellians, Houlocaust deniers, geocentrists and radiacal vegans demand that the
government, in fairness, also fund their schools so their children can be educated in a non-
offensive environment. What about Muslim schools which choose to teach that suicide bombers
go to heaven and that wife-beating is acceptable? Does the funding government have the right
to regulate what's taught, who's hired to teach or who's admitted to the schools? What happens
when the universities refuse to admit students from some of these publically funded schools,
on the grounds that their students are not adequately prepared in science (or history or math or
whatever) Does the government then have the obligation not only to provide an education, but
an education perfectly consistant with every family's religious and philosophical principles?

* I am not suggesting that these to men are moral, intellectual or scientific equivalents, just that
they are both populaizers of the notion that Darwin=atheism
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

> A very large segment of the American taxpaying population responds,
> echoing William Jennings Bryan's point (a not entirely invalid one,
> IMO, in any democracy) that "the hand that pays the teachers rules the
> schools." Here is what they say:
> Sorry, that's just not good enough. Evolution is not a religiously
> neutral theory--it violates several basic tenets of our religion, and
> we are offended that you teach it without reference to its scientific
> flaws and limitations. It's only a theory, but you teach it as if it
> were genuinely established knowledge. Why should mere theories take
> precedence over truths that God has revealed to us? More to the point,
> why should we continue to pay for you to teach atheism to our children,
> when you won't even give us the courtesy of allowing other perspectives
> into science classes? This is outrageous, we're sick of it, and we've
> decided to pull the financial plug on your "neutral" schools.
>
> As I said, I like my option 3, not this one. But I do think, ladies
> and gentlemen, that we have to do *something* more substantive than
> what we are presently doing; we need to find a way to let some of the
> steam out of the boiler, before the whole building blows up. I know I
> won't persuade too many of this, and I do hope I'm wrong. But as
> Eugenie Scott (how often do I really agree with her? not very often
> actually) told a reporter the other evening, we have to stop running
> around putting out fires. She certainly doesn't agree with my method
> for putting them out, and I know a lot of others won't either. But
> maybe I just think the fire is a lot bigger and a lot hotter than many
> others do....
>
> ted
>
Received on Fri Oct 21 17:51:43 2005