In light of the information you provide about the origin of the ID discussion
(which I apologise for being ignorant of), I must voice agreement with your
sentiment, especially so that my other comments aren't misunderstood as
supporting creationism, anti-evolution teaching, etc., or condoning
politicization of science, which I fully agree is a threat to society.
the teaching of un-disciplined thought and arbitrary points of view - like in
most versions of religioius creationism, runs counter to other knowledge about
what constitutes knowledge. An understanding of epistemology should be
in the curriculum.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I don't pay much attention to such
groups, so did not recognize it as a political agenda.
At 03:12 PM 6/8/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Let me first note that John here reacts to a forward by me of a
>forward of a forward by Massimo Pigliucci of an original news
>statement about "Intelligent Design" theorists lobbying congress. It
>was Pigliucci who used the term "sickening". I would not go so far,
>but did use the term "frightening". Let me explain why I find this
>I don't imply that the US congress would take such radical measures.
>But the whole point of the lobbying exercise is clearly to make
>congress intervene in some way, most visibly by reducing the
>importance of Darwinian evolution in the school curricula, and by
>adding "Intelligent Design" or something along those lines to the
>curriculum as a valuable alternative theory.
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (Rm 1B158)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
web site: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/habitat.shtml
Posting to email@example.com from "John J. Kineman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 17:27:01 BST