ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

> What we need to teach the public more of is the nature of science, the
> concept of scientific theories versus "facts" (evolution is, after all,
only the
> best theory we have now.  I am sure that Newton and Einstein would have a
few
> words about that!), and the presently accepted manner in which scientific,
versus
> faith or philosophical, investigations are carried out
> (although that can sometimes be called in to question as well - just ask
the
> drug companies).

Just one minor issue discussed above that I find to be a grave source of
misinformation with regard to the evolution/creationism topic.

There is both the fact and theory of evolution. Simply stated, the fact of
evolution is the occurence of biological change through time. This is what
is comparable to the fact of gravity, of plate tectonics, and so on. The
theory of evolution, on the othe hand, is natural selection and genetic
mutation.

The fact of evolution was apparent to "scientists/natural historians" as far
back as Babylonian times. It was the observations of this fact that Darwin
used to formulate his hypotheses. Before him, no mechanism for evolution
withstood the scrutiny of science - especially not William Paley's
'not-blind watchmaker' idea. The theory of natural selection is as well
grounded as the theory of gravity, the theory of continental drift, etc.,
and yet the ideas of creationism and intelligent design are still as
inadequate as Paley's original hypothesis.

To teach this alongside evolution as a valid theory is utter insanity, in my
opinion and will be detrimental to a student's understanding of science -
which has repurcussions in so many facets of life. But bringing it up in a
section that covers the development of evolutionary science certainly seems
reasonable - and though it may be said that the "debate" rages on, it should
be clearly stated why ID isn't a science and why it has been discarded by
the scientific community for two centuries.

I do agree that more inquiry-based science should be taught and in many ways
the above "debate" would provide a suitable example of science vs.
pseudoscience and thereby possibly help students better understand the
process. I don't understand why, when the National Science Foundation has
endorsed inquiry-based science and provided ample resources for
implementation, it still remains relatively unused.

Amanda

***
Amanda Chesworth, Educational Director
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
www.csicop.org
Inquiring Minds Program
www.inquiringminds.org
Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
www.skepticalinquirer.org
Skeptiseum
www.skeptiseum.org
Skeptic's Toolbox
www.skepticstoolbox.org

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]