From: Wesley R. Elsberry <welsberr@inia.cls.org>
>Was anyone else bothered by the non-analogous analogy in the
>WSJ piece? Scopes was debarred by the Butler Act from teaching
>a scientific concept in a science class. Various ID proponents
>complain that something that is not clearly science is not
>taught in science classes. These don't look at all analogous to
>me.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I have to make the point that ID
proponents claim that their material *is* science. So I think you're begging
the question here.
The real question is how do we decide what is or isn't science when there's
a dispute. And the only sensible answer I can think of is to listen to what
the professional scientists say. Since the vast majority of professional
scientists--and especially those in the relevant fields--do not accept that
ID is science, schools should not teach it as science. It's crazy to think
that teachers or students are in a better position than the scientific
community to judge what is science. If ID proponents *do* insist that the
decision about what to teach as science be left up to individual teachers,
then that's a recipe for educational anarchy. Teachers then could (and some
would) teach OEC, YEC, flat-earthism, Atlantis, astrology, etc. And why stop
at the sciences? To be consistent, history teachers should be allowed to
teach any kind of revisionism they like, such as Holocaust denial.
As usual, ID proponents are not thinking through the logical implications
of their arguments. Or else they're asking for special treatment for ID,
i.e. that it be exempt from the same scrutiny which is applied to other
claimants to scientific respectability.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 12:30:11 EDT