This is no different than the processes engaged by scientists who hold creationist assumptions. By ruling out even the remote possibility that a single divine being may be involved in all that is observed, those who hold an entirely materialists view of the universe set up an unncessary dichotomy.
On the surface, maintaining a strict line between materialist and ID theories sounds fine. But what if a certain divine being has a greater hand in existence than we have yet to comprehend?
The scientists upon whose shoulders all scientists stand did not at all think it wrong, strange, bad, or unscientific to include God in the general picture. Only recently have certain scientists decided to climb off those shoulders and trapse about half cocked with their narrow, pre-conceived notions.
In my view, there is plenty of weight in creationist thought to be considered alongside a purely materialistic view. As for a disclaimer in school books, I don't think that's enough.
A good teacher of the sciences today understands that any textbook may easily be outdated by the time it goes to print. See if the textbooks in Louisiana and Alabama are up to date WRT the new Tree of Life theory.
A good teacher does not stifle the inquiring mind with his/her own preconceived notions. That's not education. That's indoctrination.
I know there is concern about the introduction of religion in public schools once creationism is given some thought. Frankly I'd rather have the camel's nose of religion under the tent of education than the horse's ass of evoultion sitting on education's face.
The people in Ohio and other states are now grasping the fact that this is a legitimate political issue, and that the American people ultimately have a right to determine how their own tax dollars are to be spent educating their children. Evolutionists claiming that the dictates of science override democratic practices are on no better ground than those who would claim that environmental issues such as the preservation of the snail darter in some lagoon should override democracy. I suspect that a majority of educated Americans now believe that evolution is an ideology and not a legitimate branch of science; these battles against an entrenched and militant group of people such as we observe in internet crevo debates could not be being won otherwise.
But they ARE being won. The evolutionists are going to lose in America and they may end up having to find some other place to peddle their wares. Perhaps Haiti...
This is no different than the processes engaged by scientists who hold creationist assumptions.
And where would I find these scientist's critically refereed papers?
By ruling out even the remote possibility that a single divine being may be involved in all that is observed, those who hold an entirely materialists view of the universe set up an unncessary dichotomy.
Well, fortunately, strict materialists are a rarity both in science and real life, so we needn't consult them. Nothing about scientific theories presently rule out God's intervention, and probably nothing ever will, as most scientists will tell you readily. Science is merely telling stories one can get a handle on to use and critically evaluate. You are welcome to tell stories about intervention in the material world by indetectable, immaterial beings, and I am free to point out that, however you may window dress that with the trappings of science, it ain't. Science is about evidence, and evidence is an unavoidably material sort of thing.
Philosophical materialists claim all you can see is all there is. Science does not make this claim. It merely confines it's efforts to things you can materially detect--because that's the nature of evidence.
A great deal of indoctrination is necessary to teach children what they need to know to become effective adults. Pure curiosity won't make a child memorize 30 spelling words every day, nor learn his multiplication tables. These attainments are a long-drawn out affair no child will pursue just to answer a few self-posed questions, modern educational theory to the contrary notwithstanding.
I know there is concern about the introduction of religion in public schools once creationism is given some thought. Frankly I'd rather have the camel's nose of religion under the tent of education than the horse's ass of evoultion sitting on education's face.
If you wish to abandon teaching science to pre-college kids, I can be pursuaded. I think it's largely a waste of time anyway. There time would be better spent on fundamentals. However, if you decide to teach science, than you should teach science as it stands--not some specially altered version that caters to some people's unscientific pre-dispositions. We keep religion out of secular, state-mandated schools for outstandingly good reasons. I don't wish to see my kids in a pitched battle with muslim kids over the use of the auditium for daily prayer.