Replies

Just a quick response to your post #2326: you appear to think that a student in a science class is expected to incorporate everything he hears into a belief system comparable to a religious belief system. That's not the way it's supposed to work (and if it does work that way at a school with which you're familiar, you should complain...I would).

A teacher of an empirical science ought to continually remind her students that what they're being taught is (ideally) the current best account of the phenomena they're studying...not that it's the final word or the gospel truth.

Apparently the judge in this case has enjoined any teacher from disparging the theory or otherwise calling it into question. To even question the theory of evolution as it now stands is an unconstitutional establlishment of religion (at least in Dover).

Is that the decision you guys all were rooting for? It seems to be the decision you are all celebrating.

A teacher of an empirical science ought to continually remind her students that what they're being taught is (ideally) the current best account of the phenomena they're studying...not that it's the final word or the gospel truth.

Wow! Couldn't agree with you more on that! There has been so much that has changed in science over the years since I was in high school and early college years. I've even been sharply rebuked on these threads when I made reference to something that I had learned in science class that has changed. Others have had the same thing happen to them and mentioned it. The point I ended up making is that sometimes when someone makes a statement that is no longer considered "true", it could be that they are just acting on old information and not trying to lie, deceive someone, or spread *creationist myths*. Some of what is now considered *creationist myths* used to be taught as science in science classes at one time. It's virtually impossible to keep up with the current rate of change in scientific fields. Even if one has a PhD in a field, that doesn't mean he's competent in others. I had a Physics prof who considered organic chemistry "to be just about black magic". He just didn't get it and he was no slouch teacher.

"A teacher of an empirical science ought to continually remind her students that what they're being taught is (ideally) the current best account of the phenomena they're studying...not that it's the final word or the gospel truth."

Exactly correct. And that is why I object so strongly to the teaching of ID:

Scenario 1, wherein ID is not taught:

Scientist 1: "We don't understand this particular element of this theory. It doesn't make sense."

Scientist 2: "No, we don't. Therefore, we must study the problem, experiment, and try to formulate a hypothesis which will start us on the path to understanding it."

Scenario 2, wherein ID is taught:

Scientist 1: "We don't understand this particular element of this theory. It doesn't make sense."

"Scientist" 2: "Goddidit! Problem solved, next issue!"

No incentive to actually advance.....