Re: [asa] Fwd: Denyse reviews Collins

Ted

Do you not think that all these capers about the teaching of
evolution from
Arkansas to Dover ( not to mention that stupid country over the pond
which
allows the teaching of creationism in state schools) makes it harder not
easier to give a broad questioning science education?

Design in its widest sense has a serious place in science lessons, but I
think the politics of ID has destroyed that.

It would be very instructive in biology to teach aspects of design
from Ray,
Buffon, Cuvier Paley and Buckland and how Darwin dealt with it. And
how the
principle of reverse engineering they followed was very fruitful - so
different from Behe's designer of the Gaps. As you know I love
Buckland on
the Design of Megatherium (PSCF Dec 1999) which to me is a great
example of
design being very fruitful scientifically.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>;
<pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: 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 21:45:05 2006