>I like Brian Harper's idea. Let's draft a letter (any volunteers?)
>of response. I'd start by suggesting two strong points:
>
>1) Teaching that evolution is "unsupervised" is extra-scientific and
>completely counter to their stated claim of being religiously neutral.
>2) It is scientifically credible to believe that evolution is
>limited to microevolution; the "weaker" areas of macroevolutionary
>theory should not be glossed over with hand-waving; and it is possible,
>with the right preparation, to mention in the science classroom that
>some scientists believe that purely natural mechanisms are insufficient
>to account for those developments in biological history.
>
I would suggest a response that includes a stong reply to:
>>>>>>*Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start
with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as
valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion.
Cleary this is point that needs to be addressed. As it is it seems to be
squarely aimed at YEC's, even though other portions of the statement (Neal's
post) near the beginning try to circumscribe all creationists types.
Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of
dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are
characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and
designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research
about natural events.>>>>>>
Included in this might be a discussion on assumptions building to a
statement that even science has certain assumptions upon which require a
certain amount of "faith." I always discuss assumptions as a contect before
any kind of discussion on evolution in my classes. Clearly the miracles
(resurection etc..) lie outside of the abilities of science to question
because those events do not abide by the natural laws which science assumes.
Usually a discussion of such assumptions of science can put a perspective on
the discussion of evolution that allows students that have strong religious
beliefs to feel somewhat comfortable and know that they can talk to me
outside of class on a more personal note which many have.
Back to the assumptions bit: Pointing out the assumptions of
science lays the groundwork for an argument that a completely naturalistic
science is a type of religion itself. In addition doesn't the argument made
in many of these NABT statements imply a view of science which is highly
neutral (Baconian in a sense) and to which few scientists (who I know
anyway) really would strongly support. I suppose they believe in their minds
that they come to education completely unattached to their own beliefs and
so scientists must be doing the same and their conclusions as well are
equally as unbiased.
I'm done ranting now. I find it so difficult to read some of this
stuff without getting hyperactive and overgeneralizing in response I am sure.
Joel
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6509