My experience has shown that this is a hook that allows one set of dogmatic teachings or another to become entrained into the mainstream curriculum. If the proponents of ID were honest, they'd say this.
Let's say that's so. Then what are you going to do about it? Why, keep them out, of course, lest we corrupt scientist and lest we demarginalize creationists, perish the thought. And what does that accomplish? A Phyrric victory, methinks. Because if sixty percent of Americans still believe in creationism, what has been accomplished?
What's the long term objective here? We need to produce kids who are prepared to get along with each other and to compete against the Chinese and Indian kids in science and technology. Are they learning that now? Not hardly. Is this continued war going to get us there?
With weak thinking, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and while logically true in its construction, such an approach is wholly non-scientific and doesn't allow people to discard incredible theories in favor of more credible ones.
Seems to me that a school environment where the relationship between the absence of evidence and the evidence of absence can be discussed is a step in the right direction. If we have two scientific theories, even if one of them is neither scientific nor a theory, then we can discuss such things and develop critical thinking in the process. That's better scenario that faith vs. science. Banging those two against each other is very destructive because one of them is amorphous. Whether or not creationism is in the classroom or not, the banging goes on. I think that framing the debate as theory vs. theory, even if we have to wink while doing it, could elevate the discussion a level from where it is. You want it to be up another level still. So do I. But you can't get there from here. Maybe stepping down an increment to enable communication isn't really a step down. |
