<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Ted,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Good to hear from you! Thanks for getting back to the
discussion. You Write:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>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:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>I think Joe has made some good distinctions on this subject already.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>But I would like to add the fact that there should be room in a science<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>class to discuss topics that can have an informative role in how the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>direction of scientific creativity goes. But it is not clear what your<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>take on this is: Is it important that the Christian View be
inherently<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>'scientific' or is it sufficient that the Christian View be merely
"tenable"<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>and "relating to science?" <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'> If Jane, a geologist, thinks that the earth is 6000 years old,
this is going to inform how<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>Jane approaches her hypothesis formation. You think it will<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>inform Jane to Jane's harm; but if it was true, it would inform Jane to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>Jane's benefit. In the same way, if Creationism is true, then
scientists are<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>going to have to be prepared for a 'paradigm shift' if they wish to
move<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>forward with regard to some current evolutionary paradoxes, gaps,
problems,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>etc. If Creationism was true, and if most scientists were laboring with
a<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>good education on just how this could possibly impact their research,
then<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>this paradigm shift would come about with much less pain. Perhaps
this<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>is the only way it could come about at all. So with all this in<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>consideration, it would not seem silly to include some subject matter
on<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>different metaphysical frameworks in the science classroom. I
think there<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>are other complicated considerations like this one, but this one
example should suffice<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>for now. Because of this, I don't think it is necessary to call
Creationism<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>a 'science,' as such, outside of its potentially potent ability to
inform<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>scientific hypothesis formation-just as does the broader evolutionary<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>narrative that most scientists currently assume. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>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!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>Thanks Ted; hope to hear back soon,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
11.0pt'>Michael Metzler <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>