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

************
Ted wrote:
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.
*************

I tried to start an e-mail some months ago saying something similar to this,
but never finished and/or couldn't come up with as coherent a statement as
this. This is what I see (based on very limited knowledge) as the real
problem with the Dover decision, although it might have been in line with
current scientific understanding. What I remember reading of the decision
(admittedly a very rough paraphrase from memory), any sort of discussion in
the science classroom that would be religious in nature rather than
scientific is off limits.

My feeling is that what Ted has suggested is a better approach, as long as a
firm position on the religious views is avoided, and as long as to much
class time isn't taken away from "hard science". Isn't science more than
just "hard science"? Certainly socio-political aspects of science should
also be considered in education, whether it be regarding global warming or
biology. What if I were a Christian science teacher in a public high
school, and wanted to bring in a balanced, non-judgmental overview of
various religious viewpoints on creation, in order to ease the mental
discomfort of some fundamentalist Christian pupils? In this I tend to
resonate with Eugenie Scott's quotation. My recollection of the Dover
judgment was that such discussion would be considered unconstitutional.

But on the other hand, if my children were in public schools taking biology
from a Dawkins-like teacher, would I really want them learning from militant
atheists about religious viewpoints on science? Who knows what they would
be taught? The problem with bringing even balanced and impartial religious
views into the science classroom is that once you open the door, how do you
ensure only those viewpoints being expressed by the teacher are congenial to
Christian religious views? I don't think the ID or YEC crowd really want to
open the door (Pandora's box) of religion being fair game in secular
classrooms, because anti-religious views would then be just as
constitutional. There would be no way of limiting the discussion to views
friendly to Christianity, which is their real end-game (even if they claim
it's about "pure science"). Not that I'm opposed to my children learning
about other worldviews, but I would prefer especially younger children to
have those views expressed in a forum where I could know what and how they
were being taught. I feel that is my responsibility as a Christian parent,
not to depend on biology teachers to do the job of expanding their worldview
awareness.

Jon Tandy

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 14:34:32 2008