<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:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" 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)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<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=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Previously wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I can understand trying to nuance how these points of view are
communicated, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>but requiring that the point of view of half the American populace not
BE <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>ALLOWED “in the classroom” is nothing short of statist mind
control. How’s that <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>for a controversial statement!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Ted Responds:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Are you joking...? Must be! <snip> Does this mean science
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>and medicine classes must teach these "theories" as though
they are <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>legitimate science?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>No is attempting to require what you state above, at least no one I
have <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>heard about. Students, even the teacher, may discuss Intelligent <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Design/Creationism informally in science classes. The issue is whether
it should be mandated as a formal part of the science curriculum. In fact, the
"mind control" is <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>coming from those seeking to teach religion in science classes, however
cleverly <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>disguised as an open minded investigation of alternative theories of
the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>origins of the universe or life. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Me:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Most of my involvement in this discussion has so far been, or was
intended to be, regarding Eugenie Scott’s talk; my criticism of that has
not seen much direct interaction. Here Ted once again seems to ask if
Intelligent Design must be taught as a scientific theory or a ‘legitimate
science.’ So far however, I have not gotten to this question, since I
wanted to point out first how parallel Creation and Evolution are in the way
they “inform scientific hypothesis formation” as grand
non-scientific narratives of origins of both life and ‘kinds.’ I
was attempting to take the discussion slow, and I was not addressing the
current legal battles on Intelligent Design (of which I currently know very
little). Instead of interacting with my arguments in this context, Ted appears
to be primarily claiming that I have not been answering the issue of the
current legal battles. He writes below, “The comments above do not
directly and honestly face what is occurring in this debate.” I would
recommend going back to my original post a while back; I think the original
context of discussion has gotten a bit confused. I don’t think my
arguments there have been directly interacted with. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>However, one quick challenge to a comment above from Ted. Ted says
that no one is attempting what I speak of above, which was the removal of any
discussion of Creationism from the curriculum of a science classroom. Ted says
he hasn’t heard about this. But I was referring indirectly to
White’s letter, which says,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>“Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write
to articulate the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType>
of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Idaho</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>’s position
with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to
be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and
a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles
that are testable and anchored in evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>At the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType>
of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Idaho</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, teaching of
views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in
religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However,
teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical
science courses or curricula.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I think this is pretty clear. “Teaching of views” that
differ from evolution may occur in religion, sociology (which likes to be
called a ‘science’), philosophy, and political science; yes, that
last one was political SCIENCE. However “teaching of views” that
differ from evolution is “inappropriate” in the “life, earth,
and physical sciences courses and curricula.” As an analytic philosopher
that likes to discuss science from a broad and critical stance, I think this is
an amazing statement, and I believe it is fairly unique. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Although I have not yet addressed the issue of whether Intelligent
Design should be classified as a scientific theory or thesis (I don’t
know enough about it to conclude either way), and although I would first like
to discuss the above and the importance of how world stories inform our
scientific hypothesis formation and our scientific revolutions, I do have one
question for Ted: What of Michael Behe’s research and argument?
Behe’s argument and research HAS been respectfully discussed in
professional academic scientific journals (I stumbled on an article myself, as
I have already mentioned). Behe’s research and argument is precisely
about evolutionary theory and it is also clearly an argument and research
proposing the fact that irreducible complexity at the cellular level
necessitates the hypothesis of intelligent design. In other word’s,
Behe’s work is published the way Ted requires and it is explicitly
regarding the hypotheses of evolutionary theory and the intelligent design
hypothesis. If I was an atheistic biology professor, I don’t have a clue
why it would be inappropriate to have his book called Black Box in my
curriculum. I would like to know what Ted thinks of Behe.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Michael Metzler<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><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>