Bagley draws it like he sees it:
Also in the Salt Lake Tribune, Duane Jeffery, teacher of integrative biology at BYU, and nine other scientists in Utah colleges and universities, as well as the state paleontologist, signed the following opinion published yesterday. One point they mention that I have not written on much here, I think is important to note:
… if developments reportedly appearing in other states (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Kansas) were to happen in Utah, our scientific and economic futures could be compromised. Top-flight scientists and research organizations (and their funds and accomplishments) are reluctant to come to states where science is treated with suspicion and where their children would not receive a high-quality education. Rather, they are attracted to states where science is valued and viewed with openness and public support.They could have gone on to mention that several others, like myself, who aren’t as tech minded and who resent the religious stereotyping and judgment that goes along with these kind of “developments”, also might think twice about this place. I think it kind of sad that several Senators, Gayle Ruzicka and her eagle chicks consider it a “family value” to condemn other Christians and accuse them of atheism. They really should stop imitating the Pharisees in that respect.
2 comments:
First I wanted to ask a question of the blog owner. Do you think Huntsman will veto? My guess is that he will veto. Of course, I first thought the bill wouldn't pass the Senate committee, then I thought it wouldn't pass the Senate, then I thought it wouldn't pass the House committee, nor the house. I am quite certain that Huntsman will veto it. The guy is pro-technology and business. He's going to veto.
Secondly, I read Beachcomber's post. Gould does not say evolution is a FACT. The gist of Gould's argument is that facts and theories are different things. Gould is a little bit unclear on his distinction between fact and theory. For that reason, I would cite this article as a great discussion of the topic although Gould hits some great points.
Gould does a great job showing why Creationism is just this nebulous hot air. The article really only alludes to the distinction between evolution theory and fact.
I love the part where Gould says that theory and fact are not part of a hierachical chain of certainty.
Beachcomber also wrote: "For my son to be taught otherwise is unacceptable."
The wording of the law that passed the House says simply that classes must make the distinction between theory and fact. There is nothing in that wording that prevents Beachcomber's kids from learning the distinction between fact and theory.
The problem with the nebulous directive is that it really is not clear what people are supposed to do.
In my bubbly optimistic view of the world, I hope the result of this directive is that students get engaged in debates about the foundations of logic and science.
Unfortunately, what will probably happen is that the nebulously worded directive will be used by bad teachers to drive out good teachers.
Kevin,
I am sorry I didn’t respond earlier, I’ve been out this holiday weekend. I wish I could say with certainty that I think Huntsman will veto the bill, but since it has actually gone this far, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t.
I’ll comment more later.
Post a Comment