Teaching teachers

| 4 Comments

Here's a nice news story about the new Teaching Evolution site from UC Berkeley.

4 Comments

i like what eugenie scott says here:

“Evolution is a science, a fact, and it’s not something to vote on,” Scott said in an interview. “When alternate views on evolution are proposed to be taught, they must be about accepted scientific alternatives, and they need to be appropriate to the knowledge base of the students. Caldwell’s proposal in Roseville doesn’t meet either of these criteria.

“Let’s be grown up about this: We’re talking God in this dispute, not real issues in science,” Scott continued. “That’s what’s really unconstitutional about debates over teaching evolution in Roseville.”

notice that scott first goes after the science behind these “alternatives” to evolution. only after does she bring up motivation. it’s an important sequence that is often overlooked. how much do you want to bet that an IDist somewhere is going to quote the 2nd paragraph and claim that scott is dismissing these alternatives because she thinks they’re religiously motivated, and not based on any scientific evidence?

I like my money better than that. I’ll pass.

Don’t need to bet. It’s already happened - in Roseville.

buy stock newsletter from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on March 29, 2004 5:44 PM.

How the ICR got its accreditation was the previous entry in this blog.

A very groovy brain gene is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter