Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

National Science Teachers group calls security over questioning Darwin

arroba Email
Fractal fist icon

Yes, but it’s not the big story:

[Herman] Bouma was to speak on “Darwin and Evolution: Using Historical Critiques and Responses to Address Student Misunderstanding.” Along with the title, he had provided to the NSTA a straightforward summary stating that his talk would address five of the critiques that Darwin received related to his theory of origins, and the responses that Darwin made to those critiques.

Bouma’s emphasis was on the civil dialogue that Darwin fostered in his writings, and the hope that educators today would strive for the same.

His presentation was scheduled for April 14 at 8:00 am. But the night before, something was wrong. Bouma could no longer find the talk on the conference app.

Sarah Chaffee, “National Science Teaching Association Censors Open Inquiry, Stonewalls When Questioned” at Evolution News and Science Today

You can pretty much guess most of the rest:

They told him to pack up. Meanwhile security guards joined the conference officials in turning people away at the door. The witness I spoke to confirmed this: “People were trying to come in and there were people outside the door — then a security guard said basically you need to leave. Herman said, ‘I don’t understand.’ He was told, ‘You have to leave this room.’ They literally were blocking the entrance to get into the room.” Imagine, the major U.S. science teachers group used security guards to stop a scheduled speaker from speaking and to hustle him out of the premises.

Sarah Chaffee, “National Science Teaching Association Censors Open Inquiry, Stonewalls When Questioned” at Evolution News and Science Today

They had apparently been informed that the talk was “faith-based” but don’t seem to have wanted to raise the matter with the speaker before acting in this way.

Now here’s the big question: How can the science teachers’ association be so out of touch as not to know that lots of people today are questioning Darwinism.

It’s understandable if they don’t want a “faith-based” approach. But, from what we see, Suzan Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, should be invited to speak. She would probably give a great rundown on the various streams of non-Darwinian (and some explicitly contra-Darwinian) research that doesn’t address any faith issues.

Unless, of course, the faith issue is something like: I have faith that I do not need to believe and uphold nonsense in order to be an evolutionary biologist.

See also: Mathematicians challenge Darwinian evolution “Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, Stephen Meyer, and David Gelernter, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books). ” When this stuff is happening, Darwinism is on the outs culturally.

News, given NSTA's track record, saddening but not surprising. I trust people begin to wake up before it is too late. KF PS: Notice the same group's ideologically loaded redefinition of science and thus science education:
All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [--> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [--> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [--> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [--> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [--> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that's why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [--> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [--> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [--> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [--> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]
All we are seeing is the first level outworking on the ground of what is implicit in what is in this definition and in what was threatened in Kansas. kairosfocus
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Seversky

Leave a Reply