Monday, May 08, 2006
Stubborn as a . . .
I previously analyzed the language of the bill. It essentially requires that "equal to or greater" effort be given to teaching criticisms of evolution than is given to the teaching of evolution itself. It may go further and mandate that such "critical analysis" be conducted in regards to any "historical science," presumably including such things as the age of the Earth and universe.
The science education act also represents a subtle tactical shift by intelligent design proponents, said Jay Wexler, an associate professor of law at Boston University. Since a U.S. district judge in Dover, Pa., ruled in December that a resolution requiring the teaching of intelligent design violates the Constitution, proponents are more aggressively pointing out the gaps in evolutionary theory while attempting to change the definition of science in the classroom.
"Their strategies evolve over time," said Wexler, who thinks the Missouri bill still raises constitutional concerns but says it is more likely to be accepted than the Dover resolution.
Of course, "teach the controversy was debuted by the Discovery Institute at least as far back as 1999 in Ohio and the attempt to change the definition of science was part of Phillip Johnson’s arguments almost from the start of the ID movement and is a prominent part of the change in the Kansas curriculum standards. Wexler may be overestimating the novelty of these ploys or, more likely, he may be reacting to what is perhaps the first attempt of a legislature to mandate equal time for the "controversy" in an entire state’s schools. In any event:
Opponents of an intelligent design requirement in Missouri classrooms, such as Rep. Sara Lampe, D-Springfield, say the legislation is more about discrediting evolution than improving standards.
"It’s very clever to come at the intelligent design issue from this angle," Lampe said.
Sen. Bill Alter, R-Jefferson City, who introduced a similar bill in the Senate, said it was necessary to continue discussion of the issue. Alter said both evolution and intelligent design are theories and should be handled as such in the classroom.
"If it’s taught the same as any other science, I’m all for it," he said.
. . . Marc Strand, a scientist with Eastman Chemical Co. who lectures on the origins of life as a hobby, told a gathering at Columbia’s Christian Chapel that intelligent design theory marks the halfway point between creationism and evolution. Proponents of intelligent design believe the world is so complex that there had to be a designer, but they stop short of arguing that the designer is God, Strand said.
Neither intelligent design nor evolution can be scientifically tested, he said, and therefore neither should be taught in a science class. Both theories are matters of faith, in his view, and belong in a philosophy or religion studies classroom.
Such attitudes shouldn’t surprise anyone, says Kenneth Miller, a professor at Brown University. Miller, who gave a series of lectures on evolution at MU in April, said the attacks on evolution as a theory obscure the fact that intelligent design lacks any scientific basis whatsoever.
"There is no controversy about evolution in the scientific community," Miller said, "and this particular bit of misrepresentation is simply designed to undermine the teaching of evolution in a way that will aid religiously derived ideas such as intelligent design."
Miller says that evolutionary theory has been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny and that if proponents think intelligent design is legitimate science, they should be willing to subject it to the same standard."The fact that they seek political means to inject their ideas into the science classroom shows just how threadbare their so-called theories really are," Miller said.
.The matter won’t be settled by scientists; it will be settled by judges in black robes.
adidas tubular
caterpillar shoes
kevin durant shoes
nike hyperdunk 2017
puma fenty
air jordan 6
derrick rose shoes
yeezy shoes
nike cortez
<< Home
