**********
I'm wondering about another possible criticism of the NABT statement.
I question whether NABT's description (in their final three paragraphs) of
legal rulings is accurate and unbiased. But this remains a question
because I don't know enough about the legal details. Does anyone with more
knowledge want to comment?
Specifically, I have a feeling that everything NABT says is true, but
is said in a way that implies more than the courts meant to imply.
For example, McLean-v-Arkansas "invalidated...a state statute requiring
equal classroom time" -- but did it state that creationism could not be
taught? And how should "creationism" be legally defined?
Similarly, does Edwards-v-Aguillard prevent creationism from being
taught, or prevent it from being required? And should "creationism" be
defined narrowly (as YEC) or broadly (to include OEC and TE)? And what is
meant by "promoting creation science"? And NABT implies (based on rulings
in two states) that a school board *should* prevent a teacher from
"promoting creation science" even though it seems that the court merely
stated that a district *could* do this. {And, again, how should "promote"
and "creation science" be defined??}
In the third paragraph, it seems accurate to say that "courts have thus
restricted school districts from requiring creation science," but the
statment that the coursts "have restricted individual instructors from
teaching it" does not seem justified. {at least based on NABT's paragraph
about Edwards, although -- as admitted earlier -- I'm not an expert on the
legalities, and maybe the court's rulings *do* prohibit certain types of
teaching}
So does NABT imply more than the courts meant to imply?
Craig R
P.S. Also (although this is not directly related to the legal questions
discussed above), later in this third paragraph the conclusion is that
teachers are supported "as they appropriately include the teaching of
evolution" even though the focus (in the previous 2 1/2 paragraphs) had
been on the restriction of *creationist* teaching. So where is the
transition, and the connection to what came before? or am I missing
something? Maybe they should have started a new paragraph, and should have
referred back to the entire statement (which does focus on the teaching of
evolution). But they didn't do this, and citing "the law" seems
unjustified (based on what has previously been said about the law) at this
point.
Craig R
Madison, WI -- rusbult@macc.wisc.edu,
website ---- "Science and Design: Methods for Using
Creativity and Critical Thinking in Problem Solving"
http://labweb.soemadison.wisc.edu/users/rusbult/