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

David -

Yes, what a state scool board & what a state legislature do are different things. (However, the latter may be as much "rank amateurs" as the former.) But I don't see how this makes any difference for the question of whather or not there is any scientific controversy about the reality of biological evolution (in distinction from its mechanisms & implications). Again, if you'd like to give me a link to the Supreme Court decision in question (or just a journalistic reprise of it) I'll try to get to it. But the Supreme Court, wanting any paleontologists, geneticists &c on the bench, is also pretty amateur on this matter. & if they said there's a scientific controversy about the bare fact of evolution, they're worng.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Clounch
  To: George Murphy
  Cc: Cameron Wybrow ; asa
  Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 12:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] The Definition of TE: Explicit versus implicit

  George,

  Since you are going off list I wanted to make sure I comment on your reply before you leave. I was talking about a case where a state legislature wrote a law that was evaluated by the US Supreme court. You are talking about a case where a school board (consisting of rank amateurs) did something stupid and it was dealt with by a district court.
  They are two different situations.

  Part of what gets lost is this: it is important to understand what the high court use as principles by which to evaluate the actions of states.

  As for the case your refer to, it needs to go to appeal so other relevant principles can be applied. Until the question is asked, nobody can know whether all the principles the high court will apply have been brought to bear.

  Thanks,
  Dave C

  On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:44 AM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

    Fine - give me a link to the cases or, (better) snip relevant portions. What I know about this is that the ID proponents who testified before the Ohio state board of education about the science standards said they weren't demanding that ID be taught but that they just wanted the "controversy" presented. The problem with that is that there is no scientific controversy about the reality of evolution. There are social, religious & political controversies which might be discussed in other classes but not in science. My own take is that "teach the controversy" (whatever its origins) means in practice raising enough doubt about evolution in the minds of students that they (and their parents) can be comfortable with learning about it for a test because they don't really have to believe it & can forget about it as soon as the class is over.

    & as far as disagreeing with the Supreme Court, this wouldn't be the 1st time for me.

    Shalom
    George
    http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Clounch
      To: George Murphy
      Cc: Cameron Wybrow ; asa
      Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:12 PM
      Subject: 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 Mon Nov 2 12:55:46 2009