ISEN-ASTC-L Archives

Informal Science Education Network

ISEN-ASTC-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Colin Purrington <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informal Science Education Network <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:37:25 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (46 lines)
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Dear Susan,

I think the most compelling reason to exclude intelligent design is that its inclusion would serve 
no secular purpose.  Its proponents have on many occasions confirmed that intelligent design is 
really about getting God back into science classes; the court system would thus likely view 
intelligent design as having a clear religious motivation, just like "creation science" does. Teaching 
Lamarckism (even if Lamarck is unfairly branded as Lamarckian) is a different issue because it 
does not introduce religious dogma into the schools.

The key issue is that intelligent design is, indeed, designed to sneak religion into schools.  If you 
are interested in the gruesome details, here are 3 items that might be of interest:

1. National Center for Science Education's article on the Discovery Institute's web site
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/
8325_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp

2. The "wedge document" in which Discovery Institute admits it's all about God
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/crsc_wedge.html

3. Revealing quote from intelligent design author Phillip Johnson (second row, left)
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/evographics/evographics.htm


-Colin Purrington
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/


On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:33:37 -0400, Susan Timberlake wrote:
>What would people think of the idea of including Intelligent Design in
>that context? Is it still inappropriate, because those other theories,
>though incorrect, were at least attempts at a scientific explanation,
>while ID is not? Or would this provide educators with a good opportunity
>to explain why ID does not hold up as science, just as those other
>theories did not hold up?

***********************************************************************
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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2