[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott: Science, Science, Science!

[Michael]

Ted,

 

Good to hear from you! Thanks for getting back to the discussion.  You
Write:

 

In keeping with the goal of focusing on the issue of whether or not
Intelligent Design/Creationism should be taught as a "scientific theory" in
science classrooms, it is puzzling that you did not respond to the problem
posed in my statement below, that was central (or so I thought it would
appear?) to the gist of my post that you answered on Eugenie Scott's talk at
the U of I.

 

Me:

 

My recollection of the discussion causes me to still keep three issues
fairly separate: 1.Plantinga and knowledge, 2.Intelligent Design in the
classroom, and 3. the argumentative failures of Eugenie Scott.  These three
issues inter-relate, but I have intended to keep them fairly separate.  I
don't think my criticism of Scott has yet been directly challenged.
However, regarding your concern about Intelligent Design/Creationism being
taught as a scientific theory, I wrote somewhere the following:

 

 

I think Joe has made some good distinctions on this subject already.

But I would like to add the fact that there should be room in a science

class to discuss topics that can have an informative role in how the

direction of scientific creativity goes. But it is not clear what your

take on this is:  Is it important that the Christian View be inherently

'scientific' or is it sufficient that the Christian View be merely "tenable"

and "relating to science?" 

 

 

 If Jane, a geologist, thinks that the earth is 6000 years old, this is
going to inform how

Jane approaches her hypothesis formation.  You think it will

inform Jane to Jane's harm; but if it was true, it would inform Jane to

Jane's benefit. In the same way, if Creationism is true, then scientists are

going to have to be prepared for a 'paradigm shift' if they wish to move

forward with regard to some current evolutionary paradoxes, gaps, problems,

etc. If Creationism was true, and if most scientists were laboring with a

good education on just how this could possibly impact their research, then

this paradigm shift would come about with much less pain.  Perhaps this

is the only way it could come about at all.  So with all this in

consideration, it would not seem silly to include some subject matter on

different metaphysical frameworks in the science classroom.  I think there

are other complicated considerations like this one, but this one example
should suffice

for now.  Because of this, I don't think it is necessary to call Creationism

a 'science,' as such, outside of its potentially potent ability to inform

scientific hypothesis formation-just as does the broader evolutionary

narrative that most scientists currently assume.  

 

And that's the end of the re-quote.  My own take on all this is that the
issue is politically, and not pedagogically, motivated.  Certainly, in a
classroom where 'origins' of human live are being discussed, it is going to
be relevant and interesting for everybody to talk about the two dominant yet
competing points of view (whether it is an intro to biology or intro to
ethics).  I can understand trying to nuance how these points of view are
communicated, but requiring that the point of view of half the American
populace not BE ALLOWED "in the classroom" is nothing short of statist mind
control.  How's that for a controversial statement!

 

Thanks Ted; hope to hear back soon,

 

Michael Metzler 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051105/29c22b90/attachment.htm