RE: Dover: Witnesses withdrawing

I hate it when there is one of these trials.Everyone talks about trials and
politics rather than evidence and science. Thus, I haven't followed this
thread very well. But, I am absolutely struck by the statement below and
what it says about ID. They claim they have a science, yet they haven't
promoted it, haven't developed a curriculum for it and want people to avoid
teaching it. I have never met a science with those characteristics. Indeed,
most scientists WANT to tell others about their science because they find it
interesting. But apparently DI wants to keep their science under that
proverbial bushel basket.
 
Scientists throughout history have taken stands for their theories in spite
of the hositility of the teachers and fellow scientists, but DI seems to
think that teacher hostility is a reason not to stand for their views.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of janice matchett
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:09 PM
To: George Murphy; Ted Davis; asa@calvin.edu; pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Dover: Witnesses withdrawing

 MARK RYLAND (DI): "... The Discovery Institute never set out to have a
school board, schools, get into this issue. We've never encouraged people to
do it, we've never promoted it. We have, unfortunately, gotten sucked into
it, because we have a lot of expertise in the issue, that people are
interested in.

When asked for our opinion, we always tell people: don't teach intelligent
design. There's no curriculum developed for it, you're teachers are likely
to be hostile towards it, I mean there's just all these good reasons why you
should not to go down that path. If you want to do anything, you should
teach the evidence for and against Darwin's theory. Teach it dialectically.
Received on Wed Oct 26 18:37:05 2005