On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:39:57 -0500 kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller)
writes:
>Teaching science is not about
> compelling belief, it is always about introducing students to a way of
> learning about the world around us, and demonstrating the observation
basis
> for our current theorectical understanding.
As I see it, the problem arises when you withhold information which
undermines "our current theorectical understanding," which is why Wiester
said: "The new Kansas science standards tilt toward indoctrination
rather than education." If you, Genie Scott, et al could bring
yourselves to be candid in the presentation of *all* of the data, then
you would blunt the criticism you rightly receive.
On February 8, 2001, the Alabama State School Board voted unanimously to
approve an updated science curriculum with yet another warning: "The
theory of evolution by natural selection is a controversial theory that
is included in this document. It is controversial because it states that
natural selection provides the basis for the modern scientific
explanation for the diversity of living things. Since natural selection
has been observed to play a role in influencing small changes in the
population, it is assumed, based on the study of artifacts, that it
produces large changes, even though this has not been directly observed."
A number of educators and a few ministers, who refuse to tolerate any
criticism of the theory of evolution, stridently objected to this
warning. The Board approved it anyway. Board member Bradley Byrne (an
evolutionist) said: "I have no problem with a preface that says we should
teach our theories, certainly the most widely accepted theories, but at
the same time ask our children to question them and keep an open mind."
When you say that "science is .... demonstrating the observation basis
for our current theorectical understanding," rather than saying that
science is presenting not only data in support of but also against our
current theoretical understanding, then it seems that you yourself
provide the basis for Wiester to say that your standards "tilt toward
indoctrination rather than education."
Phil Johnson says "Teach the controversy." How can a conscientious
educator do anything less? The members of the Alabama Committee who
drafted the new warning, and the members of the Alabama State School
Board who approved it, certainly found they could not settle for less.
What am I missing, Keith? Have I misunderstood what you are saying?
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 17 2001 - 23:33:32 EST