I'm diving-in to one of the requisite courses this evening, Geology of the Pacific Northwest, and am immediately heartened by one of the introductory statements from the department and professor:
- Regarding the teaching of basic geologic principles (such as geologic time and the theory of evolution), the Portland Community College Geology Department stands by the following statements about what is science.
- ** Science is a fundamentally non-dogmatic and self-correcting investigatory process. A scientific theory is neither a guess, dogma, nor myth. The theories developed through scientific investigation are not decided in advance, but can be and often are modified and revised through observation and experimentation.
- ** “Creation science,” also known as scientific creationism, is not considered a legitimate science, but a form of religious advocacy. This position is established by legal precedence (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004).
- ** Geology instructors at Portland Community College will teach the generally accepted basic geologic principles (such as geologic time and the theory of evolution) not as absolute truth, but as the most widely accepted explanation for our observations of the world around us. Instructors will not teach that “creation science” is anything other than pseudoscience.
- ** Because "creation science", "scientific creationism", and "intelligent design" are essentially religious doctrines that are at odds with open scientific inquiry, the Geology/General Sciences SAC at Portland Community College stands with such organizations such as the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Geological Institute in excluding these doctrines from our science curriculum.
----
* And so recently after the anti-intellectual, incoherent blathering of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann were considered serious front page news.
--
Interesting James. So what you're telling us is that you're excited to take a class that is closed to people who believe that our world was created by a powerful God, but your mind must be closed to that possibility and the professors at PSU are expressly forbidden to teach and/or consider that possibility. Sounds like people with closed minds are being paid to attract and teach people with closed minds. Is that really teaching or learning? Just wondering.
ReplyDeleteActually, I beleive what this statement means is that they teach SCIENCE, because it is a SCIENCE class. If someone has their mind closed to SCIENCE, then they probably shouldn'ty be taking that class.
ReplyDeleteIn a similar way as someone who refuses to learn the alphabet, probably shouldn't be taking a class on English Literature.
No one would ever expect a Christian Bible Study class to teach scientific theory, so if you expect a college-level Geology course to teach Christian Dogma, then, Grace, I think you should revisit your definition of a 'closed-mind.'
Thanks for bringing up these points, Grace:
ReplyDeleteis closed to people who believe that our world was created by a powerful God
Actually, the class isn't closed to people with such a belief. As I write above, such people "either need to open their minds for the class, or drop out." They're certainly not barred from enrolling.
One corollary to this is that what the department and the professor are saying is that they also won't make time for people who want to debate spiritual matters in a science class. To do so would be a waste of time, because: 1) the rest of us are here to get an education in geological science; 2) there are entire colleges devoted to studying creationism, so if the student really cannot think outside of that box, he/she really should go elsewhere.
your mind must be closed to that possibility
Actually, it is: http://wwwhistoricalthreads.blogspot.com/2011/02/atheism-or-agnosticism-that-is-question.html
and the professors at PSU are expressly forbidden to teach and/or consider that possibility
I wouldn't characterize it as forbidden, with the negative connotations of repression that this word insinuates. I would characterize it as: the teaching of serious science in the world today (particularly outside of the U.S.) attracts people who approach science seriously, so the science educators at PCC, PSU, Harvard, wherever, will be a self-selected group of people with this approach. Just as Bible colleges don't attract nor recruit professors who don't believe in the Bible, higher educational institutions seeking to teach serious science don't attract or recruit those who believe in "creation science."
Sounds like people with closed minds are being paid to attract and teach people with closed minds.
Nope, not at all. It's actually the other way 'round: The department is telling students that if they cannot open their mind, they have no place in the class.