Re: More about teaching the controversy

From: Richard Wein (rwein@lineone.net)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2000 - 07:20:26 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Teach the Controversy"

    From: Bertvan@aol.com <Bertvan@aol.com>

    >I urge Darwinists not to read the following article. It would surely be
    >detremental to their mental health. I offer it for the enjoyment of any
    >lurkers, skeptical of Darwinism, who might enjoy a particularly articulate
    >explanationof what ID is about, and an expression of the goals of some of
    >those considering ID.
    >
    >http://www.eppc.org/library/conversations/04-evolutioncurriculum.html

    Thanks for the warning, Bertvan, but I read it anyway. And it was indeed bad
    for my health, but physical not mental. It seriously raised my blood
    pressure. ;-)

    Reading about the goals of the ID movement is important, and I would
    certainly encourage anyone to do so, but being careful to read between the
    lines. However, the mythical "lurkers" (for whose enlightenment Bertvan and
    Stephen Jones are so concerned) will find nothing on that web page to
    support the scientific claims of ID.

    The seminar reported on that page seems like a cosy little discussion
    between people who are largely in agreement. Most of them appear to be
    journalists, with no mention of them having any scientific expertise. And
    most of them seem to take it for granted that there is some scientific merit
    in the ID arguments. In this respect, it seems that the ID propaganda is
    working.

    I've just been debating in talk.origins with yet another two ID proponents
    who were completely close to reasoned argument. This seems to be a
    characteristic of most ID proponents, which seems like another good reason
    (if another one were needed) for not teaching ID in schools. The ID
    proponents' demand for an "open" discussion in schools rings rather hollow
    to those of us who've seen how closed-minded they themselves are.
    Teaching their kind of irrationality as science would be disastrous for
    science education. It would undermine the respect of students for science
    and for their teachers, once they saw through the ID smokescreen.

    Richard Wein (Tich)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 10 2000 - 07:17:18 EDT