Hi There are at least several problems with Stephen's eminently sensible suggestions below.
1. The level of science education of school teachers. I do not know the current literature, but at least historically science students were less likely to choose education as a profession and were more likely to quit teaching early once they started. A sophisticated examination of creationism/id requires sophisticated science instructors, or at least ones committed as much to science and education as to their religious beliefs. 2. The religious advocates of creationism/id have certainly not demonstrated any marked sense of morality in the debates, including this trial. It appears highly likely that they will abuse any introduction of creationism/id into the curriculum with unwanted (by scientists and many others) negative consequences. A recent article in the NY Times, for example, points out that a Texas school board has chosen as a text for bible classes one that advocates for creationism (and other aspects of protestant fundamentalism). Who really doubts that coverage of religion in religion classes, social science classes, or whatever, will be used as a license to promote beliefs about the natural world contrary to those taught in science classes (e.g., young earth, the flood, ...)? 3. Can public schools really withstand the kinds of conflicts that have manifested themselves at the school governance level? I am sure that many students, parents, and even teachers would balk at the kinds of criticism that creationism/id would come under if covered in an objective way by competent teachers. Although the courts were told (wrongly I believe) in this recent case that science does not conflict with religion, any attempt to cover both topics within the same course (i.e., religion in science classes or science in religion classes) will quickly reveal this belief as a myth. Certainly the recent experience trying (with disastrous results) to teach about creationism and other mythologies in a university religious studies course should not lead us to be sanguine about what would happen at lower levels of the educational system. For such reasons, I doubt that Stephen's suggestion is workable, at least at the high school level. And it might even be a challenge at the university level, at least in Kansas and like states. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22-Dec-05 2:01:22 AM >>> On 20 Dec 2005 at 12:49, Scott Lilienfeld wrote: > I'm of course pleased to hear about the judge's decision, although some news > outlets, like CNN, are already describing it as "banning" ID theory from > being mentioned in biology classes (see www.cnn.com). <snip> > Much as I feel strongly that ID theory should not be taught as an equally > viable alternative to Darwinian natural selection in biology classes, I > would not want biology teachers to be muzzled into not even mentioning > or discussing it. I'd go further. I support the heresy (from the science camp standpoint) that ID _should_ be taught in the classroom. For two reasons: 1) Refusing to discuss ID in the classroom, when ID has been presented to many students elsewhere as a credible alternative to evolution, sends exactly the wrong message about science. It says that science suppresses views it disagrees with, rather than debating and refuting them with logic and evidence. This is the way religion operates, not science. We want students to understand this distinction, and the best way to ensure that they do is to meet the ID challenge head on. To refuse to discuss ID suggests to students that it represents a valid alternative which evolutionists are unable or afraid to debate. 2) To ignore ID in the classroom wastes a unique opportunity to clarify for students the difference between a true scientific theory and a religious belief, or between science and pseudoscience. Experts in the philosophy of science and in evolution could provide model lessons for biology teachers to apply in the classroom illustrating how evolution constitutes a valid scientific theory and ID does not. In particular, ID proponents argue for a Designer by attempting to find flaws in the evidence for evolution. Judge John Jones made short work of this illogical claim in his recent Dover school district judgement, pointing out that whatevert the alleged deficiencies in evolutionary theory, they provide no support for its religious alternative. Yet the objections raised by creationists do have a degree of plausibility which a non-expert would have difficulty in refuting, and which seem persuasive to many. We can't assume that if they don't hear about it in class, they won't hear about it elsewhere. For example, I'm sure that the now notorious _Of Pandas and People_ is required reading in many homes. The opportunity to examine the well-worn criticisms of the creationists and provide evidence against them should not be missed. It will give students the knowledge to effectively refute such specious arguments. It's important not only to tell students that evolution is a fact but to provide evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, we're saying only, "believe us, not them". For example, what would you say to refute or evaluate each of the following claims (taken from http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ except as noted): 1: The perfection of structures like the human eye is proof of creation. 2: "Irreducibly complex" things could not have evolved by small steps, and evolutionists have not even tried to show that they have. 3: There is no explanation for how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. 4: Evolutionists cannot explain how feathers could have evolved. 5:The peppered moth does not demonstrate evolution because no speciation occurs [or that the peppered moth example of evolution is a fraud--SB] 6: Mutations are always harmful. 7:: Chromosome numbers cannot change without producing harmful effects. 8: There are plenty of mutations that cause birth defects, but none that cause "birth improvements." 9: The rate of mutation is too small for mutation to serve as a source of variation. 10: Regardless of mutation rates, the rate of microevolution is too low to account for the macroevolutionary change observed in the fossil record. 11: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific. 12: No one has ever seen one species arise from another. 13: Natural selection is a tautology: the fittest survive, and those who survive are the fittest. 14: If humans had evolved from apes, there would no longer be any apes around. 15. Evolution is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. A few I've heard elsewhere (no source) 16. Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution 17. Haeckel's drawings showing that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (an observation which supports evolution) are faked 18. The earth is much younger than is claimed by evolutionists Speaking personally, without researching these criticisms I would be hard pressed to answer them in a convincing manner. Classroom lessons providing sound discussion and evidence bearing on such claims would provide an invaluable experience in how science operates, and give students the means to refute them. So by all means let's discuss ID in the classroom. Let's tell 'em what IDers say about evolution and then tell 'em why it's wrong. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
