Just a few notes from me on Jim's thoughtful (and depressing) response to my proposal that we should teach the controversy, and how we should do it:
On 22 Dec 2005 at 12:38, Jim Clark wrote: > > 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. > <snip> If it is the case (and Jim's figures seem persuasive) that many in charge of teaching biology are supporters of creationism, then the problem goes way beyond the risks of debunking ID in the classroom. Even if ID is banned from the classroom and teachers are mandated to teach evolution (which appears to be the requirement in the US following the Dover judgement) then those biology teacher True Believers will still find ways to disparage evolution as a fatally flawed theory. Certainly, given that "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" (Dobzhansky, 1973), the idea of creationist biology teachers is a disturbing and oxymoronic one. But unfortunately, requiring allegiance to evolution as a prerequisite to teaching biology is just not on. (I recall that a professor who refused to write letters of reference for his graduate students who opposed evolution raised a mighty stink, for example). > > 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. Same point. They're going to do it regardless, whether or not ID is on the lesson plan. > <snip> 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. Perhaps I'm naïve here, but what I'm suggesting is not an evaluation of religious beliefs, but an examination of religiously-inspired scientific claims which have no validity, such as the claim of a seriously young earth. When religion strays into science (or what appears to be science), its assertions should be fair game for debunking. I find it distasteful and also demeaning to science to have to timidly say instead, "We just won't discuss that". Ok, I admit it. I'm naïve. Stephen ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Department of Psychology Bishop's University 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]
