Re: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

On 1/2/08, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Independent of the topic, the controversies that should be taught in a
> science class are those that are ongoing in the scientific literature. In
> active research fields where one or more theories are still competing for
> acceptance by those working in that field, then the controversy should be
> taught. When "evidences" in any field have not been vetted through the
> peer-review process and published in the technical literature, then it can
> be mentioned as such in order to help put those controveries in perspective.
> But in that case, it should not be "taught" as science.
>

I agree. The question is -- are there anti-GW theories still in contention?

Burgy

> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:56 PM
> *Subject:* [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real
>
>
> There seems to be some similarities betweeen these two very different
> science teaching issues.
>
> If one opposes teaching the "evidences" of ID in a science class, should
> he also oppose teaching the "evidences " against global warming?
>
> What differentiates the two?
>
> Burgy
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 3 10:25:56 2008