As far as I can tell Rebecca Keller’s position on the teachings of evolution and intelligent design seems quite reasonable. As someone who testified in front of the committee responsible for educational standards in New Mexico, she contributed by having unnecessarily ideologic language removed from the standards. As a Christian and a scientist I fully support the position that science should remain free of religious or anti-religious overtones. This posting was meant to share my surprise about the use of an intelligent design proponent as ‘opposing views’. Within the context of the issue, Keller’s position may indeed qualify as ‘an opposing view’.
We read from the announcement of DDD V
Consistent with objectivity, we will also hear the other side of the argument - why some think that science education should exclude critical analysis of evolution and limit its offering to ideas and theories embraced by recognized institutions of science.
So who is presenting the opposing view?
The Opposing View:
Science in the classroom - What do we teach the children? (Biophysical Chemist and Author of Real Science 4-Kids, Rebecca Keller, PhD)
Is that the Rebecca Keller whose curriculum was developed in partnership with ARN?
Access Research Network (ARN) announced the RealScience-4-Kids curriculum developed by ARN in partnership with author Rebecca Keller. It is a hands-on science curriculum covering chemistry, biology, and physics for elementary and junior high students. Although the curriculum is particularly targeted at the home-school market, it was also designed to be used in public and private schools.
Is this the Rebecca Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chem., U. of New Mexico who signed the “a scientific dissent from Darwinism by New Mexico Scientists”?
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
I have heard of playing the devil’s advocate but this seems a bit weird. Is the ‘opposing view’ presented by a ID proponent?
What’s going on here?
Schools’ Science Standards Will Serve Students Well By Rebecca Keller and Michael Kent Proponents of Intelligent Design (emphasis added)
Before the vote, Rebecca Keller endorsed the standards as a scientist, a parent and a Christian who believes the world is the result of intelligent design. The University of New Mexico research assistant professor in chemistry also served on the team that wrote the standards.
Students should understand what science can and cannot answer, she said.
“A student’s belief in God remains intact,” she said. “These are a good set of standards for Christian students and for all students regardless of their backgrounds.”
I support the effort to remove ideology from scientific standards. I am not convinced that the issue of ‘teaching the controversy’ is a correct approach unless a case can be made that ID actually represents an actual scientific controversy. That there is a debate about the relevance of the various mechanisms of evolution is undoubtably true but that should not be interpreted as scientific evidence of ID nor should it be blown out of proportion. Scientific disagreements exist in all areas of science.