Re: Viewpoint discrimination or careless reading.

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Fri Oct 07 2005 - 14:03:43 EDT

Ted Davis wrote:

>We clearly do not agree about what is "fair" for a science professor to
>"discuss." Note please that "discuss" does not mean "advocate" or "teach in
>any way whatsoever."
There is often a fine line to walk here between science, or violating
the establishment clause.

>Part of the problem with science and the public is, IMO, the fact that
>science faculty so often utterly ignore criticisms of evolution. Such
>criticisms exist. I know that no one on panda's thumb (e.g.) will admit
>that any of them could ever have any validity in any possible universe, but
>this does nothing to alter the fact that such criticisms exist.
So ID is criticisms of evolution? My reading of the Idaho statement does
not imply that such criticisms cannot be taught.

>If a professor wants to discuss the notion of "irreducible complexity," so
>that students understand what this point is about, that's just good
>educational pedagogy. Sure, it takes class time from yet one more example
>of biocehmical pathways or DNA sequences, but so what? We always have to
>omit things that someone else might teach in their course. The journal
>Nature, in late April, even went so far as to advocate in the lead editorial
>that science professors should share their religious views with students!
>Surely it can't be inadmissible in Idaho, for a biology professor to talk
>about the bacterial flagellum??

Of course not, and I doubt this is what the statement says. So what
creationist arguments should professors address and why in a science
class, distracting from teaching science? Where does this end? Young
earth geology? Astrology in astro-physics?
Received on Fri Oct 7 17:09:35 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 07 2005 - 17:09:35 EDT