|
|
Interversity Quotes"I think it's time to ask the Standardistos: Where's the test for compassion? For honesty? For curiosity? For moral commitment? Until they can answer, let's tell them to shut up." —Susan Ohanian (One Size Fits Few: The Folly of Educational Standards) Interversity ProjectsEchoes of Orwell:The purpose of this webforum is to promote a lively discussion among students and faculty alike about George Orwell's 1984 and the parallels or echoes found in today's society. |
[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index] Re: Intelligent Design in Minnesota (and ...?)
In a message dated 3/22/2004 6:13:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, shays@telis.org writes: Here is part of the text adopted by the Minnesota House last Friday (I was forwarded this passage and it LOOKS legitimate ... I have not verified it myself). ... 5.21 "The student will be able to explain how scientific and 5.22 technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge 5.23 portions of or entire accepted theories and models including, 5.24 but not limited to, cell theory, theory of evolution and germ 5.25 theory of disease." ... A legitimate goal of science teaching is to give the students ideas of how scientific theories are proposed, verified, and revised or rejected. This standard is certainly clumsily written and a bit circular, but I do not see it as necessarily opening the door to throwing up creationism or "intelligent design" as plausible rival hypotheses to evolution. Neither creationism nor ID are generally-accepted among scientists as "scientific" or technological" innovations," nor as "evidence." It makes just as much sense to argue that the standard closes the door as opens it. Art
Post a Message to arn-l: |
eric |