Re: [asa] The term Darwinism (school's teaching)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> David C :
> ”What they want is to affect government policy on education at all levels,
> even K-12, so that government endorses this metaphysical or theological
> view.”
>
> Maybe the highest priority thing they want to do is simply teach evolution
> in school, because Americans are so naïve about evolutionary details.
>
If thats what they wanted I'd be fully in favor of that. I have always
wanted as much evolutionary theory as possible taught.

But please note we are discussing these particular beliefs/views not being
made on the basis of science (so says Randy and others). If its outside of
science then the belief has ****nothing**** to do with science education
and cannot have valid secular purpose.

Don't you believe one can teach science without making pronouncements on
things that are outside the area of science?

So if they actually want a goal of teaching science then the best approach
is to leave out the religious-based editorials on things of ultimate and
imponderable import - things which are outside of science. To do anything
else in K-12 amounts to failure to educate.

Instead they speak in the name of science - and profess beliefs that are not
based on science. That - to me - means they try to make science into a
lie. That is horrible.
It vastly overrides any other purpose they may have.

> In my education, evolution-teaching was insignificant. That includes my
> college, though I don’t think I had a biology class
>
I understand and am sympathetic.

> (but evolution is more than just biology).
>
Sorry, I object to this.
Biological evolution is 100% biology. Don't confuse it with, for example,
cosmological evolution. Its not even the same concept.

Back to citizens for science activists groups....people making policies
based on non-science, indeed on religious basis, are to me the equivalent of
YEC's who commit the very same mistake.

Some of these people will go to school boards and tell them that science
education must make sure that "materialism" is protected from
"Christianity". WHAT POSSIBLE SECULAR PURPOSE COULD A SCHOOL BOARD HAVE BY
GETTING ENTANGLED IN PROTECTING MATERIALISM FROM CHRISTIANITY IN A SCIENCE
CURRICULUM?
Yet these organizations are at the core of activity for getting school
boards to do just that in my state.

>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Clounch
> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2009 8:46 AM
> *To:* Don Nield
> *Cc:* Ted Davis; Douglas Hayworth; Cameron Wybrow; Gregory Arago; asa
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] The term Darwinism
>
>
>
> Ted,
>
> > His standard response
> > to the whole origins controversy is to point out that design or its
> absence
> > is a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific conclusion.
>
> Elsewhere today Cameron quotes Randy as saying the very same thing and
> challenges Terry that his position on unguided processes is not scientific
> but is something else, perhaps theological?
>
> I'd agree with Barr,Cameron, and Randy. But what bothers me then is
> Minnesota Citizens for Science leaders (professors of EEB at the University
> of Minnesota ) are telling people there is nothing in the scientific
> literature about design and therefore design is dead and doesn't exist.
> I've heard that in person and I've read it in the university newspaper.
>
> But if the absence of design is not a scientific question then they
> aren't making a scientific statement. They aren't even speaking for
> science. Instead they are making a metaphysical or theological statement.
>
>
> If they, as university professors, want to believe that and promote it
> that's fine by me (as long as they don't punish someone for disagreeing with
> them). But thats not what they want. What they want is to affect
> government policy on education at all levels, even K-12, so that government
> endorses this metaphysical or theological view. This is definitely over
> the line in terms of the establishment clause and the lemon test. That is
> why to me it is a civil rights issue. These metaphysical or theological
> viewpoints that design doesn't exist belong in church, not in government
> institutions or government policy.
>
> Thank You,
> David Clounch
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> It might help the class to note that according to Amazon.com the title of
> the book is "Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in
> Dialogue" The cover of the book and the copyright statement each concur with
> the bookseller.
> Don
>
> Ted Davis wrote:
>
> ... I recommend an essay by Oxford mathematician John Lennox,
>
>
> "Intelligent Design: Some Critical Reflections on the Current Debate," ed.
> Robert B. Stewart (Fortress Press, 2007), 179-95. This is a collection of
>
> essays on both "sides" of the ID controversy, .... OK, class, now go out
> and buy the book,
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 12 16:21:02 2009