Re: [asa] Book TV on C-SPAN 2

Pim,

Let's look closer at a passage from Dr Scott that you highlighted:

If evolution is presented as antithetical to religion (which is
precisely how organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research
present it), it is no wonder that a high percentage of Americans reject
it.
Actually, as suggested by the selections in Voices for Evolution, mainline
Christianity can accommodate evolution, though it is doubtful that
Biblical
literalism can. As teachers and scientists, we need to leave an
opportunity
for the religious individual to work out the accommodation according to
his
or her beliefs, and not slam the door by inserting extra-scientific
philosophical statements about purpose and meaning into our discussions of
evolution. I will discuss this in greater detail below.

***

I fully agree with her here, and (consistently with what she says) I
applaud the fact that some "extra-scientific philosophical statements" about
evolution have recently come out of the Miller/Levine text. (I refer to one
or more the passages that were read in court to Miller, when he responded
basically by saying something like, "gee, does our book really say that?
That must be my co-author...") But look at her specific endorsement of
mainline religious views over those of Biblical literalists. Can public
schools as presently understood really get into that? In this passage she
doesn't say that schools *should* endorse that mainline view over other
views, but the court swallowed the plaintiff's testimony that such a view is
the "correct" one. And, IMO, that's where the problem lies. It's
unconstitutional to talk about ID in a science class, but not
unconstitutional to give students the impression that evolution & religion
are fully compatible. Can someone please show me the balance in that
ruling? (I don't blame the judge for this; he studied hard what he saw in
court, and he's got to follow the precedents that the plaintiffs kept
putting on his plate without adequate rebuttals from the defendants.)

Far better, IMO, to do a version of "teach the controversy." (Please don't
misquote me, anyone--take this entire paragraph or nothing at all. Anything
else I will consider dishonest.) Let science teachers (not just social
studies teachers) explain why this issue is controversial in modern America,
if they wish (many will lack the interest or background to do it properly).
Let them explain which parts of evolution are being questioned by many
Americans, and why this is so. Let them mention & briefly describe a range
of religious positions on this, without endorsing any one of them as the
correct position. Unless someone believes (as many scientists and science
teachers probably believe) that one just shouldn't take classroom time away
from "hard science" in order to discuss the relationship(s) between science
and the larger society, then it's hard for me to see why this would not be
good science education.

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 13:50:01 2008