What others are saying
More relevant information (not that it matters to the majority on the state board) on the subject of Intelligent Design and the schools courtesy of the American Progress Action Fund.
John
John E. Cleek, Ph.D., President
Board of Education, USD 416
Louisburg, Kansas
"What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other idea for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy." John Dewey
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE: "American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints," the American Association for the Advancement of Science correctly notes. And while this diversity unquestionably enriches students' educational experiences, it is of critical importance that our educators distinguish between information acquired through rigorous scientific methods and those founded upon belief systems. As President Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, acknowledges, "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Although its proponents often point to supposed empirically based "gaps" in the science of evolution, intelligent design theory also necessarily involves positing extra-natural (if not religious) phenomena. "Outside the precincts of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is very close to unanimous." The National Academy of Sciences, "the nation's most prestigious scientific organization," declares evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." A recent National Geographic ran a cover story asking, "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then provided the answer in the subhead: "No. The Evidence for Evolution Is Overwhelming." Evolution is, to again quote Bush science advisor John Marburger, "the cornerstone of modern biology."
SCIENCE CLASSES SHOULD TEACH SCIENCE: Commenting on President Bush's remarks, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said, "Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." O'Reilly added: "There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. ... Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject." This is a red herring. For one, despite the widespread confidence in evolution theory, virtually all involved in the debate believe that teachers must present a thorough, probing analysis of its scientific merits and demerits. Moreover, many believe that intelligent design could play an important role in public school curricula. Students should be and are taught about theories like intelligent design -- they learn of various belief systems in philosophy and humanities classes, and of the levels of religious belief in our society in sociology classes. (Indeed, consider the recent struggle over evolution in Dover, PA: the school board candidates who opposed the teaching of ID in science classes also strongly supported its inclusion in humanities curricula. "Paradoxically," the New York Times observed, "that may mean that if [those candidates] win, intelligent design would be examined more thoroughly, and critically, than under current policy," which was crafted by ID proponents.) But, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.
BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE: As physics professor Lawrence Krauss observes, "One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means." In the latter case, he notes, "the overwhelming evidence that natural selection has determined the evolution of life on earth would simply imply that God is 'the cause of causes,'" as Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated when he presided over the church's International Theological Commission. Indeed, "when a researcher from the University of Georgia surveyed scientists' attitudes toward religion several years ago, he found their positions virtually unchanged from an identical survey in the early years of the 20th century. About 40 percent of scientists said not just that they believed in God, but in a God who communicates with people and to whom one may pray 'in expectation of receiving an answer.'"
SCIENCE CLASSES SHOULD TEACH SCIENCE: Commenting on President Bush's remarks, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said, "Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." O'Reilly added: "There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. ... Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject." This is a red herring. For one, despite the widespread confidence in evolution theory, virtually all involved in the debate believe that teachers must present a thorough, probing analysis of its scientific merits and demerits. Moreover, many believe that intelligent design could play an important role in public school curricula. Students should be and are taught about theories like intelligent design -- they learn of various belief systems in philosophy and humanities classes, and of the levels of religious belief in our society in sociology classes. (Indeed, consider the recent struggle over evolution in Dover, PA: the school board candidates who opposed the teaching of ID in science classes also strongly supported its inclusion in humanities curricula. "Paradoxically," the New York Times observed, "that may mean that if [those candidates] win, intelligent design would be examined more thoroughly, and critically, than under current policy," which was crafted by ID proponents.) But, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.
BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE: As physics professor Lawrence Krauss observes, "One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means." In the latter case, he notes, "the overwhelming evidence that natural selection has determined the evolution of life on earth would simply imply that God is 'the cause of causes,'" as Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated when he presided over the church's International Theological Commission. Indeed, "when a researcher from the University of Georgia surveyed scientists' attitudes toward religion several years ago, he found their positions virtually unchanged from an identical survey in the early years of the 20th century. About 40 percent of scientists said not just that they believed in God, but in a God who communicates with people and to whom one may pray 'in expectation of receiving an answer.'"
posted by John Cleek, Ph.D. | 2:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home