Keith -- I have delayed comment on this for several days. I am not (as
you might have guessed) in complete agreement with you.
You posted:
"You will notice a comment by John Wiester. I want to be on the record,
as an intimate participant in this whole affair, that his
characterization of the standards is completely false."
OK. 100% false. That's a strong claim. Did he get NOTHING right? I have
read some of his stuff -- that position seems to me to be suspect. John
Wiester is an intelligent guy; a Christian. Sorry -- I cannot buy your
first claim.
I also note that what we have are not John's words, but those of a
reporter.
"The committee that drafted the standards are extremely dedicated science
educators and teachers who fully understand the distinction between
scientific methodology and naturalistic philosophy."
That's nice. But sort of not relevant. Unless you are claiming perfection
for them.
"Nowhere in the standards is science, or evolutionary theory, associated
with a philosophical position that denies divine direction or purpose."
It is quite obvious that some people don't agree with that claim.
"One of the most consistent statements made by the committee, supporting
members of the BOE, and those testifying on behalf of the standards was
that science as a way of knowing is in not in conflict with Christian
faith. Rather, the limitations of science were clearly understood."
Is that particular statement in the standards themselves? If not, they
have little or no weight on what the standards actually say. If it is,
than that's a "good" thing to say but if other parts of the standard can
be read to stand in opposition to it, it is hardly sufficient.
Comments on the article by Lee Weeks:
> >Ý TOPEKA, Kan. (BP)--The Kansas State Board of Education voted
> >Feb. 14 to reinstate evolution as the primary theory in Kansas'
> >science curriculum, reversing its decision 18 months ago to
> >remove the controversial concept from state assessment tests
> >designed to measure student competency in science.
The words "primary theory" lead me to believe the decision is a good
thing.
> >Ý The board voted 7-3 to approve new science standards
> >recognizing the theory of evolution as the central thread of
> >biological studies and the origin of life.
That sounds like indoctrination to me. That evolution as a concept is a
central and important idea is not in question. That it is the "central
thread of 'origin of life'" is simply hubris masquerading as science.
That it is a viable candidate for that issue is not the question. It is,
simply stated, not the only candidate.
> >Ý The new standards restore evolutionary concepts to the state's
> >science curriculum such as the Big Bang theory on the creation of
> >the universe and the process of macroevolution leading to the
> >origin of humans.
Once again, indoctrination. Make no mistake here. I hold, as you do, that
some process of "macroevolution" very likely led from some sort of
primitive beings to modern humanity. But I do not hold this position as
an axiom. The fact is that there are, in spite of what my TE friends
assume, other possibilities.
> >Ý The Big Bang theory advocates that the universe originated in a
> >colossal explosion of matter and radiation about 15 billion years
> >ago. Macroevolution describes the process of change from one
> >species to another, culminating in the evolution of humans from
> >apes.
The last sentence, of course, sets off the controversy. I suspect the
standards themselves do not use that language.
> >Ý Abrams pointed to the volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens as
> >an example of where the earth can undergo monumental changes in a
> >short period of time. Since the 1980 volcanic explosion, rock at
> >the site has tested to be millions of years old, Abrams said.
All I have seen on this one says that the above is a bogus argument.
> >Ý Abrams countered the newly approved standards by proposing a
> >set of alternatives produced by Intelligent Design Network, Inc.
> >His recommendation was defeated by a 7-3 vote.
Are these people affiliated with Dembski, Johnson, et al? Or are they
independent? Is their alternative set published on the Internet?
> >Ý Proponents of intelligent design theory argue that the earth,
> >life and humanity owe their existence to a purposeful,
> >intelligent creator.
> >
> >Ý Darwinism, or evolution, the theory first proposed by the 19th
> >century scientist Charles Darwin, meanwhile holds that all
> >diverse and complex organisms exist as a result of undirected
> >mechanistic processes, primarily through random mutations and
> >natural selection.
Keith -- the operative word in the above is the word "undirected." Is it
in the standards, or did Lee insert it? If it is in the standards, then
all the "pretty words" about no conflict between "Gould's Magisteria" is
negated.
>snip a lot of the article
> >Ý "Teachers and scientists are very pleased that the Kansas Board
> >of Education made the right decision," Eugenie Scott, executive
> >director of the National Center for Science Education in
> >Berkeley, Calif., told Reuters news service. "It will show other
> >states and communities around the country that backing good
> >science education is the politically smart thing to do as well as
> >the educationally smart thing to do."
That's a typical Scott statement. Claim the high ground by saying
"Teachers and scientists" as if there was no dissent among them on the
issues. Saying "good science education" as if everybody who is anybody
agrees that what was edicted IS "good science education" and only country
bumpkins oppose them. It's a good strategy. Who wants to be a "bumpkin?"
> >Ý John Wiester, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation's
> >science education commission, meanwhile told Baptist Press, "The
> >new Kansas science standards tilt toward indoctrination rather
> >than education."
> >
> >Ý American Scientific Affiliation is an international
> >organization made up of 2,500 evangelical Christian scientists
> >who advocate teaching evolution as one of many scientific
> >theories not an ideology.
> >
> >Ý "The new Kansas science standards have enshrined philosophical
> >naturalism as the official definition of science," Wiester said.
> >"The purposeless, undirected Darwinian mechanism of natural
> >selection is our official creator. It is by definition protected
> >from critical analysis and alternative hypotheses by the new
> >Kansas science standards. ... Teaching our children that they are
> >the result of an accidental process is naturalistic philosophy
> >masquerading as science."
I assume here that John does not make such comments in haste. I also
suspect that John had no intentions of appearing to speak for the ASA and
that Lee's writing, unfortunately, does give that impression. That's to
be regretted.
> >Ý David A. DeWitt, assistant professor of biology at Liberty
> >University, Lynchburg, Va., and associate director of the
> >school's Center for Creation Studies, described the Kansas school
> >board's decision as "a political move" lacking "scientific
> >evidence" to support it.
> >
> >Ý "Now what they've done is limit academic freedom and inquiry,"
> >DeWitt told Baptist Press.
> >
> >Ý DeWitt said evolution theories such as the Big Bang and
> >macroevolution should not be taught as the only legitimate
> >explanations for the creation of the universe and origin of
> >humans because they are founded on inference and not scientific
> >fact.
> >
> >Ý "Scientists don't have good evidence or explanation for those
> >historical events," he said. "When you require testing on
> >information that is not fact but based on guesses and hypothesis,
> >you require students to learn things that may not be correct."
For what it's worth, I think DeWitt goes much too far in his objections.
But I've rambled on enough at this point.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
www.burgy.50megs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 21 2001 - 15:55:21 EST