Another point to consider regarding Michael Balter's proposal is: Why  
single out evolutionary theory for this treatment?

Virtually every fact presented as current scientific understanding  
has engendered controversies at least as well-founded now as ID. For  
instance, first graders are generally taught that the earth goes  
around the sun, but they are not offered reasons to believe this,  
rather than Ptolemaic theory. Later on, what evidence is given to  
high school students to believe, say, that atoms are mostly empty  
space, or that DNA  is the genetic material, or that it occurs in  
double helix form rather than in Linus Pauling's once- proposed  
triple helix?

Even science majors in college and graduate school are not encouraged  
to seek evidence for every single fact or theory they are taught.  
Were they to do so, they would never obtain their degrees. So  
singling out the incredibly well-supported, magnificent and complex  
theory of evolution to put up for debate with puny ID, seems in and  
of itself to be a direct bow to religion. (The Bible also describes  
the sun suddenly standing still, so even Copernican theory should be  
controversial on this basis.)


On Feb 27, 2007, at 6:52 AM, Mandi Smallhorne wrote:

> "...when your opponents are more like professional magicians than  
> serious researchers." LOL! Love it, great little simile!
> Mandi
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Phil Gasper
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:39 AM
> Subject: Re: dealing with creationism and intelligent design and  
> intelligence
> Agreed that Kitcher's chapter on the epistemology of science (I  
> think it's called "Believing Where We Cannot Prove") is one of the  
> book's strong points, although rather vague when it comes to  
> criteria of theory choice. It is one of the few accounts of  
> scientific evidence and confirmation that is neither painfully  
> oversimplified, nor inaccessibly technical. These days, though, I  
> just copy that one chapter and use it in conjunction with articles  
> that deal with the recent debate, including the Orr article you  
> mention below.
> I teach this material in philosophy of science classes, where it's  
> essential to "teach the controversy," but Kitcher's book actually  
> provides one of the best arguments against trying to do this in  
> biology classes, particularly high school biology classes.  
> Essentially it comes down to what's the most important thing to do  
> when time is limited and when your opponents are more like  
> professional magicians than serious researchers. I don't say that  
> Kitcher's arguments are decisive, but I have my students weigh what  
> he says against arguments like Michael's (which was also made by  
> Neil Postman in The Nation back in the 1980s).
> Incidentally, while Kitcher would agree that science is uncertain,  
> he wouldn't characterize it as non-objective, at least if that is  
> taken to mean incapable of getting closer to the truth. See his  
> more technical book, The Advancement of Science.
> --Phil
> At 8:04 PM -0500 2/26/07, Jon Beckwith wrote:
>> Phil-  What I really like about Kitcher's book is how it  
>> simultaneously deals with "creation science" (and even ID,  
>> although it wasn't called that, there were arguments of the ID  
>> type at the time) and science.  Stating right off the bat that  
>> "science is an exercise in believing what we cannot prove" , but  
>> effectively goes on to delineate what distinguishes science from  
>> things like creation science etc.  I use it in a course I teach  
>> and it is really effective in that sense.   That is, I almost am  
>> using it more to give a more accurate picture of science than  
>> students have absorbed- its weaknesses as well as its strengths  
>> (which can be the same thing).  I really liked H. Allen Orr's (an  
>> evolutionist) article on ID a couple of years ago in the New  
>> Yorker.  I was really excited by Michael's article as I have been  
>> suggesting teaching both evolution and creation science together  
>> (e.g. a la Kitcher) as a way to achieve the two goals- exposing  
>> the non-scientific nature of the ct\reationists arguments and  
>> "exposing" the wonderful non-objectivity and uncertainty of science.
>>                                         Jon
>> At 03:38 PM 2/26/2007, you wrote:
>>> Kitcher's book is titled Abusing Science--it's good for the most  
>>> part (although the chapter on science and religion is weak, and  
>>> Kitcher himself has subsequently conceded that his "plea for  
>>> peaceful coexistence [between science and religion] ... was too  
>>> facile"), but it was written in 1982 and is out of date (the  
>>> young earth creationism that is his main target is only one among  
>>> many creationist views now being advocated). I've suggested to  
>>> him that he should reissue it with his 2002 essay on ID theory  
>>> ("Born Again Creationism", reprinted in In Mendel's Mirror) as a  
>>> postcript. However, the best (meaning philosophically most  
>>> sophisticated) monograph on these issues is still Robert  
>>> Pennock's Tower of Babel (MIT, 1999), although I have several  
>>> specific disagreements with it. The best collection is Pennock's  
>>> Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (MIT, 2001). --PG
>>>>> On the issue of creationism., ID and evolution, I strongly  
>>>>> recommend the book "Use and Abuse of Biology"m MIT Press, by  
>>>>> Philip Kitcher- a philosopher at Columbia- an older but  
>>>>> timeless book plus his recent article in his book "In Mendel's  
>>>>> Mirror" Oxford Univ. Press.
>> Jon Beckwith
>> Dept. of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
>> Harvard Medical School
>> 200 Longwood Ave.
>> Boston, MA 02115
>> Tel. 617-432-1920
>> FAX 617-738-7664
>> e-mail [log in to unmask]
>> website <>
>> Recent books and articles:
>> My book, a memoir entitled: Making Genes, Making Waves: A Social  
>> Activist in Science, Harvard University Press, 2002. http:// 
>> Articles:
>> Copies conformes ou copies qu'on forme ? J. Beckwith. Sciences et  
>> Avenir Hors-SÚrie #149, p.71 (2006)
>> Should we make a fuss? A case for social responsibility in  
>> science. F. Huang and J. Beckwith, Nature Biotechnology.  
>> 23:1479-1480 (2005).
>> Whither Human Behavioral Genetics, J. Beckwith in Wrestling with
>> Behavioral Genetics: Ethics, Science, and Public Conversation,  
>> eds. E. Parens, A. Chapman and N. Press.  Johns Hopkins University  
>> Press (2005)
> __________ NOD32 2083 (20070227) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.