Re: [asa] The Definition of TE: Explicit versus implicit

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:57 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> 1st an addition to my earlier post on this thread. Another reason why
> TEs who in particular are science educators to view YECs & IDers negatively
> is that they're the ones most likely to interfere with the teaching of
> science, today under the "teach the controversy" guise.
>
>
> George,

There are many things to talk about, but let me pick this and I'll try for
brevity. What if I were to show you where the US Supreme Court created the
criteria that states must teach the controversy? Because a state law
didn't they struck it down, and this was part of the reasoning.

So, I don't know for sure, but the guy who started DI, who was was working
for the Reagan administration at the time...I suspect he saw this and said
to himself "well, if the court is backing this idea then we ought to get in
front of that and bang that drumbeat."
So thats where this idea actually came from.

If thats true then DI doesn't deserve your ire. The US Supreme Court
does. Can you blame someone for wanting to follow the law?

Do you know the court also reasoned that the state law should be struck
down because it didn't properly accomplish the goal of teaching
creationism? People say "oh, they struck down creationism". No, they
didnt.

You need to read the cases. They will blow your mind. This is where a wiki
becomes a good tool because I could actually show you the case. Sadly, I too
have too many projects and limited time.

Thanks,
Dave C

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 30 12:12:40 2009