RE: [asa] The fight in Texas over evolution training in schools

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Wed Mar 25 2009 - 10:08:26 EDT

There is an implicit assumption one always make that unadulterated science is what is being taught in science classes. As many of us know, that is not necessarily the case. Newton was very clear that he constructed a model of the solar system that is not the solar system. There are philosophical assumptions one can make while teaching science that goes beyond science and ventures into all sorts of philosophical/theological arenas. This is what must be made clear, viz. the underlying assumptions being made in the scientific description of aspects of Nature. Surely, someone who says that evolution explains everything is going beyond science.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:13 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] The fight in Texas over evolution training in schools

Hi Randy,

My 2 cents...

The weaknesses within any scientific theory is tied to objective evidence.
It is clear where Newton falls short in his models relative to Einstein's,
and these differences are found in an objective manner. Religion has
limited or no ability to get in the ring with science as it offers little or
no objective evidence. Indeed, it offers no counter scientific theory to
evolution, only an untestable and subjective one. This does not invalidate
the religious one, of course, but it should move it into a non-science
classroom.

"Coope"

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:36 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The fight in Texas over evolution training in schools

Bill, indeed limitations of scientific theories can and should be taught in
science classes. On the surface, the issue of teaching strengths and
weaknesses of anything is pretty obvious. Of course it should be. But what
is seldom mentioned or discussed is "who is the arbiter of what strengths
and what weaknesses are taught?" Whose views of weaknesses should be taught?

Anyone's? Everyone's? The teacher's? It seems to me that in a science class,

all strengths and weaknesses being debated in the technical peer-reviewed
literature should be taught. Strengths and weaknesses outside that body of
literature may be interesting and worthy of discussion in some settings but
not to be taught as science until it gets addressed in the literature.

Randy

Bill wrote:

> Although I accept some form of evolution -- with the caveat that
> everything that happens happens according to God's sovereignty -- I
> think it's a pity that the limitations of scientific theories cannot
> be discussed in science classes. Students need to learn to critically
> evaluate experiments and historical analysis to determine whether the
> theory drawn from them holds water.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 25 10:08:45 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 25 2009 - 10:08:45 EDT