Re: [asa] Fwd: Denyse reviews Collins

>>> Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> 11/28/06 2:32 PM >>>writes:
I too have found Denyse suffer from her preconceptions about what
Intelligent Design should be, not what it is. A similar affliction
extends to others in the ID movement such as Beckwith who for the
sake of the argument seems to accept that 'scientific' claims of ID
to argue that it should be legal to teach ID. But as Kitzmiller has
shown, such an argument is based on a flawed foundation: namely the
concept of ID being scientific or scientifically relevant.

Ted responds:
IMO, it is highly relevant to quality education (and I do mean science
education in a secular context) to discuss issues related to philosophy of
science and history of science in science classes.

The following facts (not opinions) relate to this opinion. Many states now
call for this, explicitly. There exists refereed literature in the
philosophy of science related to ID, by both proponents and opponents, in
journals such as Philosophy of Science, Biology & Philosophy, and from
academic presses such as Cambridge (who published Dembski's book, "The
Design Inference" and the Dembski/Ruse collection, "Debating Design"), MIT,
and others. Charles Darwin discusses design extensively in his "Origin of
Species," esp in the long concluding chapter that bright high school
students could well benefit from reading. It clearly suits a secular
educational purpose to have (say) students in an AP biology course read
parts of the "Origin". It does not suit any educational purpose to have
them do so without discussing design, and without also discussing aspects of
the contemporary controversy about evolution.

Now, please note: This is not at all the same thing as "teaching ID as an
alternative to evolution," which is what Judge Jones said could not be done.
 My view on this is well known: ID is not now, nor has it yet been, an
alternative to evolution. It does not offer (e.g.) a theory about when/how
dinosaurs became extinct; about when/how the solar system came into being;
about how old the universe and the earth are, etc., etc. Unless/until it
does offer specifics on points such as these, it won't be a candidate to be
called an alternative theory--I'm a strict Kuhnian (see p. 77 in "Structure
of Scientific Revolutions") on this point. Science abhors a(n)
(intellectual) vacuum, and a widely accepted picture of the story of
everything is not about to go away, no matter how severely it is criticized,
until an alternative story of everything is available to take its place.

That is, discussing aspects of ID is very different from teaching ID as an
alternative to evolution.

Prior to the judge's ruling, Ed Larson, the leading authority on
creationism and the law, held the view that a science teacher could discuss
ID in science classes--if there was a clear secular purpose for doing so.
He still held that view on the last day of the trial, when I asked him
directly about this. When I asked her about this during the trial, none
other than Eugenie Scott also (with much reluctance, I sensed) agreed with
Ed's opinion. I do not know if his view is any different now--we don't know
where we are yet, I would add, since the judge's ruling presently applies to
just a couple of area codes.

Now, this isn't exactly what IDs mean by "teach the controversy," and it
isn't exactly what the NCSE wants to see, either. But IMO such educational
decisions should be left to science teachers, not to the courts. And the
judge's decision *might* still allow such decisions to be made, though I
suspect most school boards will be most reluctant to allow it. If so, it
wouldn't be the first time that good pedagogy and creative teaching are
subordinated to bureaucracy.

I don't know, Pim, whether or not ID is scientifically relevant. I think
the future will have to determine that, and until it does I'll be sceptical
(perhaps not as sceptical as you, but sceptical none the less). But I do
hold that discussing ID *in science classes* (not ghettoizing it in history
or philosophy) is highly relevant to good science education. I understand
why many won't want to go there, but entirely to bar that door is not IMO a
sound idea.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 28 15:05:27 2006