Statements on Teaching Evolution
From Scienticity
JNShaumeyer (Talk | contribs) |
JNShaumeyer (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences. | The introduction of intelligent design theory in natural science courses would be a blow to the integrity of education in California. [...] [T]he domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools — observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences. | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Timothy P. White === | ||
| + | |||
| + | In a [http://www.president.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=85947 "Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students"] dated 4 October 2005, Timothy P. White, President of the University of Idaho, wrote: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | Because of recent national media attention to the issue, 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. | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
