[Buddha-l] teaching creationism

[curt]

Maybe we could start using the phrase "experimental sciences" in a more 
deliberate and insistent way. The word "science" and its progenitors 
have been used for thousands of years to mean various things. And an 
argument - a very convincing one, in my opinion - can be made that there 
is every reason to treat "science" as a branch of, and therefore 
subservient to, Philosophy. But when we talk about a "scientific 
revolution" that occurred sometime in the 17th century we are really 
talking about "experimental science" - which also existed previously, 
but only in embryonic form, at best. Insisting on the word 
"experimental" pretty much closes the book on creationism in the 
"science" classroom - or rather the "experimental science" classroom. 
For sticklers we could add a footnote that "experimental" subsumes or 
somehow also implies "observational" sciences like Geology, Astronomy 
and Meteorology, which can apply and must be consistent with 
experimental results, but which study phenomena not always amenable to 
direct experimentation. And for those who are even more sticklish we 
could add one of those double dagger footnotes (I always liked those) to 
say that "verifiable" is also implied - because, after all, Buddhism is 
based on observation, but we wouldn't want it being taught in Chemistry 
classroom. Fortunately Buddhism is not verifiable. Hmmm - or is it? 
Dang, maybe this won't work after all.
- Curt

Lee Dillion wrote:

> On 10/6/05, *curt* <curt at cola.iges.org <mailto:curt at cola.iges.org>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Here is a tentative reading list for a class (that exists only in my
>     mind) on "Creation and Cosmology":
>
>
> Nice list Curt.  Here deep from the red state of Idaho, the president 
> of University of Idaho just issued a statement on ID/creationism stating:
>
> "I write to articulate the University of Idaho's position with respect 
> to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be 
> taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific 
> community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm 
> scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.
>
> At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from 
> evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, 
> sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, 
> teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and 
> physical science courses or curricula."
>
> For many of us who are University faculty and staff, we aren't sure 
> this is the fight we would have picked given tight budgets and other 
> educational issues, but I have to appreciate his willingness  to stake 
> out a position that is sure to cause significant backlash.  After all, 
> how many university presidents are willing to tackle the angry bear 
> because of an idea.?
>
>
>
> -- 
> Lee Dillion
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>  
>