http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169

“First, any such discussion should be part of a philosophy of science class. Alternatively, it would be reasonable in a section of science class about scientific method and critical thinking – again, offered as an example of pseudoscience, alongside bigfoot and homeopathy.

It absolutely should not be taught alongside evolution or in the life origins section of science class.”

I disagree. I think a science education greatly benefits when social, cultural, philosophical and methodological issues are discussed in direct relation with the relevant subject matter. I don’t see any benefit to separating the critical thinking side from the bare facts side of science education.

If we want to teach students the historical and cultural impact and importance of evolutionary theory (and I think we do), then we should teach them how complex organisms have developed in the absence of a designer, and why arguments for a designer are misled and illgotten.

This is relevant to science, and should not be delegated to the philosophy classroom, as though the sanctity of science education would somehow be tarnished by such matters.

Does this mean I am for “teaching the controversy?” Yes and no. I am for teaching students to understand the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism and Intelligent Design, and for understanding the full weight and relevance of evolutionary theory in particular, and scientific discovery in general. This requires bringing religious and pseudoscientific discussions into the science classroom, where the “controversy” can be exposed for the nonsense that it really is.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece

Suggestion:

Teach students (in the methods portion of a course, a methods course, or a philosophy of science course) the basics – how knowledge is acquired and what defines science.

Teach students that knowledge gained through assumption (faith) is not “bad”, “wrong”, or “inferior”. It is not KNOWLEDGE. It is BELIEF or FAITH.

Teach students that science has nothing, nada, zip to say about faith or the value of faith, and nor do you (as a teacher of science).

It might not hurt to point out that attempting to mix the two does a disservice to faith itself. Evidence destroys faith.

I do all of the above in all of my courses. Nobody is offended and some “believers” start questioning their beliefs (religious, supernatural, or otherwise), but all are more open to learning what science IS, how to evaluate evidence, and how to acquire new knowledge.

Creationism is a lie, it’s a lie that was founded by a dying religion in it’s desperate attempt to survive. They is no scientific proof of a creator and of divine guidance in evolution, it’s just another “have faith and don’t ask any questions about what we tell you” situation.

The tide is not towards creationism, it’s towards atheism. Schools and Government should be secular, religion has no place in these two organisations. Modern knowledge should not be stifled by religions that are based on ancient dictators’ attempts to control the common people.

Religious people should not be involved in making decisions about our schools or our laws, they are biased and cannot see they own bias. Reverends have no place making these sweeping statements when clearly they are totally out of touch with the really of the people of this modern society.

I only expanded on NOMA because the term was offered without explanation or citation. There are people who are not aware of its meaning. As far as naming Gould, it simply gives credit where it is due. As a long-time, practical scientist, I have very little use for philosophy- Dawkins’ or Gould’s. However, I did get a kick out of that NOMA article.

“It is plainly true that scientists with religious beliefs can do high quality research and teaching. The scientific literature is filled with publications from people whose religious beliefs are not an issue. When it comes to science, it does not matter if you are a rastafarian or a pastafarian.”

This is a fair statement, but has no bearing on science and religion having conflicting claims. The fact that Stephen Jay Gould developed the idea of NOMA also has no bearing on its validity. It seems to me that subscribing to this idea requires a magic wand to remove all the overlap that does indeed exist between religion and science.