... in form of a three-hour video that a creationist student (I presume) group wants to show next Tuesday in the UC. If I was a creationist, I could come up with a less boring way to indoctrinate people, but since I am not one, I'll use something that is *more* boring: giving you reading material. So get ready for an exciting debate:
Since we're basically revisiting a debate that has been going on for about 150 years, first some historic documents: The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law provides the goodies (and a concise explanation of the different variants of Creationism and Intelligent Design).
Natural History Magazine presents a debate between the two sides of the Intelligent Design-Evolution debate.
The New York Times has a couple of lesson plans on evolution (and some on the debate on Intelligent Design).
Christianity Today has a number of articles sympathetic to Intelligent Design, among them interviews with Rob Moll (a journalist who makes the case for ID) and William Dembsky (one of its main proponents among scientists).
For a different perspective, read Judge Jones's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the recent Pennsylvania court case on whether Intelligent Design may be taught in public schools.
Last November, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a widely regarded Washington Post column arguing that faith and science are not in conflict.
And in TCS Daily, Uriah Kriegel argues that Intelligent Design is not a falsifiable theory and therefore not scientific.
And finally (for now), there is an interesting NY Review of Books article by Richard Lewontin on the evolution debates.
Still awake?
7 comments:
Thanks for the links. For what it's worth, my take on the issue is here
There was a problem with Joe Miller's link. This one should work.
Dr. Broscheid,
You know I think you?re a great teacher and you are indeed brilliant - which is a compliment I reserve for only a select few of the faculty at UNCP (including Dr. Miller, if he?s reading this!). I don?t say that to get brownie points, but simply to preface the following:
This ?debate? has become outrageously out of hand. Even the faculty are getting involved in the mud-slinging, and I can?t believe it. As I?ve posted on Dr. Miller?s blog, I know Fusion started this, but it?s not time to play to their level. Academic freedom ? ?tis a good thing. But posting about how fusion is attempting to indoctrinate people is not going to elevate the intelligence of the debate. I know, I know, you could be joking, but if Fusion reads that, you can only guess what the end result will be.
If it isn't indoctrination, what is?
Yes, I've read/seen A Clockwork Orange. I know what extreme indoctrination is. However, there are quite subtle ways of doing such, from politicking from the pulpit all the way down to simple propaganda. Indoctrination, all.
If the Fusion group doesn't like it being called that, they can just call it fellowship and we'll all be happy.
If your going to define indoctrination that losely, then the evolutionists position is just as much indoctrination as is the creationism position
If you want to use a definition that loose, then the biology department is trying to indoctrinate people too.
I'd say it depends. If a biologist tried to impose her conclusion as the right (and only correct) theology, then this would be indoctrination. If the biologist makes an argument within the framework of scientific analysis (logically consistent statements, testable hypotheses, empirical observation, acceptance of the result of empirical tests), it's scientific discourse.
By the way, my remark about indoctrination was made with my tongue firmly placed in my cheek. I am not trying to indoctrinate anybody; I am interested in rational discourse (and a few cheap jokes). So if you think my source list is too lopsided, just add to it.
Post a Comment