Of Interest:
Letter from Dr. Lechner
| The terms "scientific" and "fact" need careful definition. Both are red
| herrings because these words have been abused so badly in the long
| history of creation-evolution debates. Those, on both sides, who have
| been burned in the past will be wary of them.
|
| For example, is a young-earth belief "scientific" ? Some courts have
| tried to rule that it is not, because it is religiously motivated and/or
| because its proponents hold this belief despite strong scientific
| evidence to the contrary.
|
| Some evangelicals have tried to maintain, in legal cases, that
| "evolution" was not "scientific" because it was in fact an (atheistic)
| religious belief.
|
| Likewise, both opponents of evolution and opponents of creationism have
| tried to argue that the other's beliefs aren't factual. After all, none
| of us were around in the beginning to see Who created the universe, or
| what methods He used. "Punctuated equilibrium" is merely Steven Gould's
| opinion, some would say; so why should we [choose one: "have to" / "be
| allowed to" ] teach it in the high school classroom?
|
| Having been involved in science education for over thirty years, I
| certainly realize that science is far more than "fact". Beliefs,
| theories, and arguments in favor of / in opposition to them are just as
| important as "the facts".
| As a teacher, I would be wary of any proposal that, by stating that
| "facts may be taught", implies that theories and opinions may not be
| taught. That would not be an acceptable shackle to place upon the wrists
| of educators, regardless of what personal position the teacher / student
| / parent may happen to hold with respect to origins.
|
| Are we then to permit certain teachers to discuss "the facts" of
| origins, while others are forbidden to do so? How do you justify a rule
| that says a science teacher may mention origins, while a literature or
| history or art or music teacher may not? "The Origin of Species" is a
| great piece of literature. "Inherit the Wind" is a famous motion
| picture about the Scopes trial. May English teachers discuss these?
| What schools teach about origins has been a matter of public debate for
| at least 130 years. This debate has largely been an American phenomenon
| and it reflects upon our political system as well as our popular
| culture. May history teachers discuss it? Creation and evolution have
| inspired music, paintings, sculpture, drama, and poetry. Are art or
| music teachers allowed to discuss these? My view is that all the
| disciplines of learning are interrelated. They must not be
| compartmentalized.
|
| Still worse, "the scientific facts may be discussed in appropriate
| science classes" leaves the implication that they MAY NOT be discussed
| in inappropriate science classes. Which classes aren't appropriate? I
| think the theory of biological evolution is pertinent to astronomy,
| chemistry, geology and physics. To the extent that it can be simulated
| quantitatively, it is pertinent to mathematics and computer science
| classes. Must a non-biology teacher seek special dispensation to broach
| this subject? And if so, whose job is it to determine whether the
| science class is an appropriate one? Why would you want to shackle
| teachers so that they may only teach what someone else has determined to
| be "appropriate" for their class?
|
| Thank you,
|
|
| Joseph H. Lechner, Ph.D.
| Professor of Chemistry
| Mount Vernon Nazarene University
| 800 Martinsburg Road
| Mount Vernon, OH 43050-9500
| [740] 392-6868 extension 3211
|