tynor@uiucuxc.UUCP (04/14/84)
#N:uiucuxc:38800001:000:2872 uiucuxc!tynor Apr 14 12:41:00 1984 >> Next, should creationism be taught on a balanced treatment with >> evolution? I think yes here. Students should be given all of the >> scientific evidence in support of both models and then be allowed to >> make up their own minds. I oppose scientific censorship. Students >> should be taught how to think, not what to think. I, too, oppose scientific censorship. But until "creation-science" is shown to be scientific (it must provide a valid scientific theory for how life originated, not just an appeal to a supernatural agent...) it cannot claim to be unfairly censored. >> However, even though I support balanced treatment of both >> viewpoints, my next statement my surprise you. I am not sure I >> support legislation to achieve that goal. First, litigation is very >> expensive and is probably not the most cost effective way of getting >> scientific creationism accepted. Second, the courts are not the place >> to decide what is or isn't good science. Third, if the courts decide >> incorrectly, the entire strategy backfires and creationists face a bad >> situation legally that currently doesn't exist. So, I support the >> CSLDF's defense of the Louisiana law (because of the legal precedent it >> will set if it is defeated) but I have to agree with Dr. Gish who said >> he would "not recommend" other states to adopt balanced treatment >> laws. A. Ray, you suprise me... Your second point is the first thing that you've ever written that I agree with. Attempting to legislate creation into the science classroom can only weaken the legitimacy of the creationist's position. Creationists ask that "creation-science" be treated as a science. They must accept the consequences. Science is not legislated in the legal system. If they accept this point of view, which you apparently have, they have a much more difficult task ahead of them. They must convince the scientific community that 1) their evidence is valid and 2) this evidence requires the abandonment of evolutionary theory. This will be very difficult, because the evidence they cite requires not only the total restructuring of science's history of life on earth, but also geology, astronomy, and a host of other scientific disciplines will have to be restructured from the ground up. >> I close with a quote from Clarence Darrow, the ACLU lawyer in the >> 1925 Scopes trial. "It is bigotry for public schools to teach >> only one theory of origins." Until creationists can support their claim that creationism is science, creationism does not belong in the science classroom. It might, however, be appropriate to discuss the evolution/creation controversy in a philosophy or political science class. Steve Tynor ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!tynor University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana