Charles - the link is broken.
I see what you mean. I have had this to happen before. Thanks for contacting me. Charles
Charles, you do know that NCSE is for the teaching of evolution in schools without any adjectives in front of the word evolution. NCSE clearly opposes ID. as well as YEC, OEC, and TE, EC.
Can I quote you
- NCSE forms in 1981 with the purpose of serving as a national coordinating center for local grassroots pro-science organizations working to prevent creationism from being taught alongside or instead of evolution.
- NCSE is a driving force for the plaintiffs in the landmark 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover , which established the unconstitutionality of teaching “intelligent design” in public schools.
- NCSE adds climate change to its mission in 2012 after it becomes clear that politicization of the topic is affecting how it is being taught.
- NCSE, with researchers from Penn State University, conducts the first nationwide survey of climate change education in public schools in 2014–2015, which shows only 30% of science teachers provide their students with the scientific consensus on the human causes of recent climate change.
- NCSE launches NCSEteach, its teacher support program in 2014 with a monthly newsletter that reaches more than 6,000 educators. In 2017, NCSE adds the Teacher Ambassador Program, a capacity-building model to support the teaching of evolution and climate change.
- NCSE pilots the first Science Booster Club in Iowa City, Iowa, in 2015. Science Booster Clubs provide accessible and fun evolution and climate change activities in local communities, and help rally local support for local science education. By 2018, the program expands to fourteen clubs in eleven states.
Your sentences are about two different things. NCSE is for the teaching of evolution in schools. As far as I know, they don’t oppose TE/EC (although I have no doubt they would oppose teaching TE/EC in classrooms – as would most TE/ECs).
The history is interesting here. There was actually a time when NSCE flirted with presenting TE/EC in classrooms as an option consistent with science. As I understand it, the Discovery Institute objected to them bringing religion into the classroom. They, apparently, agreed and backed off. I’m remember reading about this, though I will have to go find those references. I also had some interesting conversations with Discovery Institute leaders about it, who (ironically) took pride in keeping NSCE from bring a (bastardized from their point of view) religious view into classrooms.
NSCE, in my experience, has no problem with theistic evolution or BioLogos. They probably would like to make it more known as a real option for religious students. However, they wisely realize they aren’t the people to make it known.
NCSE certainly does oppose. TE/EC is a form of creationism which NCSE is clearly opposed to having mentioned in science classrooms.
They certainly do what? Oppose TE/EC or oppose teaching TE/EC in classrooms?
Coyne, Dawkins, and FFRF lead the charge against this, going directly at Biologos. Sure Biologos’ TE/EC is a less egregious form of creationism than ID or YEC but it is still creationism which by court decree is religion and not science. Dawkins set up TIES which is aligned with NCSE for teaching of evolution (without any adjectives in front of it) in public schools. Note that TE/EC even has problems in Catholic parochial high schools in NY/NJ as state curriculum standards apply to them as well and state law opposes any creationism in science classes.
I suppose one could make a distinction between EC and TE. ‘Theistic evolution’ means (for me) just evolution that happens to be accepted by a theist, while evolutionary creationism could be considered a religious belief about creation that incorporates evolution. With this distinction, EC should certainly not be taught in publicly funded schools since it’s explicitly religious, while TE should be, since the content of TE is simply evolutionary biology.
I tend to agree with this. I for one, would be pleased to have Dr. Venerna teach evolution in my public school. And well as many qualified scientists/teachers who happen to accept TE. But they couldn’t mention those views in science class as they would have to stick just to simply evolutionary biology. (But they could mention TE in religion classes at Catholic High Schools in NY/NJ). Note that Dover had National repercussions and made it worse for TE. If ID, DI and Dover never happened, a Biologos-like TE would likely would have been unopposed in most of the country. Realize today the fear is that YEC will get into public schools via VP Pence and Sec of Education DeVos. A Francis Collins like TE would be a welcomed relief.
Patrick, I suppose I have learned something new. Why are they advertising about so many scientists accepting a deity? Is there any truth in what they are saying or is it fake?
To me it says that more work needs to be done to assure that science education in public schools is secular, (neutral on God), like all US Government (federal, state and local) are required to be. While YEC and ID are the biggest overt offenders, OEC and EC are not completely mindful of what is allowed and what isn’t. That is not to say that you can’t be a good science teacher in the public schools and not be a good Christian. I am sure that there are tens of thousands of very good and capable science teachers in the US who are both. Peaceful Science is a great place where discussing the rules can be done.
Would you agree that most American Christian scientists accept the wisdom of our Founding Fathers … that even when a scientist AGREES that God’s hand was on the process of Evolution… that this is NOT the same as advocating teaching theological explanations for Evolution?
Yes, that seems right to me.
Wouldn’t this be true even if 100% of scientists turned out to be athiest? Afterall athiesm is not a neutral position on God…
Sure, but it isn’t atheist teachers who are injecting religion into science classes.