Ray,
Yes, it is a tricky business. That's why it has hung on so long and gets more mired as we go. I think if the ID people want to say that it isn't a "religious" theory, then it should be treated by the science teachers as such. It can't be "protected" as a religious belief.
What I mean is this: to your point about it being brought up by a student and how would a teacher address it...the teacher can treat it just like any other issue. The ID proponents want it to be seen as "scientific", fine. Then teachers don't have to worry about hurting someone's religious feelings when addressing it. It can then be treated, not as the scientific equivalent of natural selection, but as the half-baked postulate that it is. The teacher can use Flat Earth hypothesis to illustrate more bad science.
Then, the first time an ID proponent complains that his or her religious beliefs are being persecuted, ID can be uncovered to be the religious foot in the door that it really is.
They can't have it both ways, even though that's the way they want it. My newspapers here have something in the editorial section virtually every day on this. I feel sorry for most of the people who write in support of ID. They simply don't know better. They dont know even minimal science a lot of the time and parrot the ID tracts they read, word for word. But ALL of them are vehement and vicious in their attacks on evolution and those who support it. They even continually go from "theory of evolution" in one sentence to the Big Bang in the next, as if the two are somehow related, and that ID can address both theories (which is what they really want ID to do).
Anyway, just hoping that there are some really strong science teachers who are willing to help be proactive with this whole mess.
Glenn
|