Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 22-Dec-05 9:32:08 AM >>> On 22 Dec 2005 at 8:51, Jim Clark wrote: > There are at least several problems with Stephen's eminently sensible > suggestions below [my proposal that ID should be taught in the classroom in > order to refute its claims] I think Jim is too pessimistic about what can be done. > > 1. The level of science education of school teachers. ... Biology teachers in Kansas and in Pennsylvania have refused to go along with the creationist demands placed on them. As I recall, their refusal meant that school principals were forced to visit classrooms and read out the mandated anti-evolution statement. I think we should admire the courage of these teachers in standing up to their school boards. True, they may have limited ability to counter the slick disinformation of creationists, but with the proper help from experts, I think they would welcome the opportunity. *------------------------------------------- JC: I would be cautious about inferring from such actions, or the positions of professional bodies, what would happen if teachers were given license to discuss creationism in the classroom. Or to underestimate the personal sympathy of many teachers for creationism. First, the qualifications of science teachers does still appear to be an issue. If I am reading the table at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_4/4_3/2_2.asp correctly, then 54.4% of Biology/Life Sciences HS teachers do NOT have a major in their discipline. This is not as bad as the state of physics, however, where 83.5% of teachers did not major in physics. We must keep in mind that we are not talking about scientists (even minimally defined) when we talk about science teachers. And the recent special issue of Skeptical Inquirer included the results of a recent poll on religion and science beliefs. A college degree does not indicate much commitment to evolution. Only 31% of College Graduates expressed a belief in Evolution (and it was only slightly higher at 35% for Post Grads). Creationism was selected by 48% of college grads and ID by 15%. We're outnumbered here people! > 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. They will get their wish, namely to have ID discussed in the classroom. Of course they would not be happy with the way in which it is discussed. But it would certainly undercut their argument that the spirit of free inquiry requires that ID be presented as an alternate to evolution. By all means, let's present it as an alternative, and then show how hollow that alternative is. *-------------------------------------------------------------------------- JC: I agree with Stephen that THEY WILL GET THEIR WISH! But it is not what Stephen thinks. Once religion enters the classroom, the religious right will never stand for anything that approaches a criticism of their religious ideas, no matter how objective. developers of one Bible curriculum in use in schools have written, for example, that "One can't teach that the Bible is objectively true (their program teaches that "the Bible says such and such", but one shouldn't teach that it's objectively false," he added. You can bet lawsuits would follow. A university website on teaching evolution is already being sued for straying into the field of religion. See http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13262018.htm. Apparently the site includes quotes from religious leaders who see no conflict with evolution. Even pro-evolution groups appreciate the danger. From the National Science Teachers Association statement on Evolution (which is generally excellent!), one is told that "Because science limits itself to natural explanations and not religious or ultimate ones, science teachers should neither advocate any religious interpretation of nature nor assert that religious interpretations of nature are not possible." I just do not see how this can work. We can teach that science tells us (correctly, I presume) that the world is millions of years old, but this does not mean that religious claims that the world is 6,000 years old are not possible. And we can teach that humans evolved from prior species, but this does not mean that the religious claim that we were created by god or whoever is not possible. And we can show how complex organisms and organs evolved from simpler forms, but this does nothing to discredit the idea that these forms were created by a higher power. Even the NSTA's book on "The Creation Controversy and the Science Classroom" begins with a chapter denouncing a literal interpretation of the Bible (a pretty fundamental belief in some people's religion). The preface states: "In detailing the history and theological meaning of the book of Genesis, Skehan shows why Genesis is not the literal explanation for the nature and history of the natural world." Such an approach would certainly lead to "equal time" for the more fundamentalist version. So even if teachers were inclined toward the scientific worldview (of which I am less certain than Stephen), I doubt very much that they will have the kind of latitude that we might like and feel is necessary to do proper justice to such ideas as ID. > 3. Can public schools really withstand the kinds of conflicts that > have manifested themselves at the school governance level? <snip> > 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. The "disastrous results" occurred not as a result of teaching anything but because the teacher had a big mouth and made strikingly inappropriate comments publicly indicating that he would not be impartial in the classroom. Also, I'm not talking about teaching creationism in religion class but about teaching science in science class, and why religious attacks on evolution are without merit. *--------------------------------------------------------------------- JC: I agree Stephen, but only partly. That certainly accelerated the process ... from course to no course to no chair of department in a matter of days ... I've seldom seen universities act so precipitously! It will be interesting to see (were it possible) what happens now with courses in religious studies or other non-science departments that take a critical stand on id, creationism, and the like (assuming such exist already), and what effect the events in Kansas will have on additional such courses. We'll probably never know. We do know, of course, that many academics have been happy to accept Templeton's millions to promote a rapprochement between science and religion. Take care Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
