Thus, even for acceptance into science, an adequate case has not been made for ID. As to mention in a 'college biology text book,' that of course depends on authors and publisher, and then on subsequent adoption of such a textbook. However, I would guess that if ID were discussed in a higher-education biology class at this point, it would most likely be as an example of something that is not considered scientific, to contrast to what is. In contrast to the foregoing, K-12 science education should reflect what science already accepts as part of science: meaning that ID has no legitimate role, and could earn such a role only by first being accepted by scientific fields as part of the science in their fields. In that respect, efforts, such as in Ohio, to politically force ID into science standards is just that -- politics outside of science, trying to infringe on science education.

-- James Swan, Professor, Wichita State University (posted 2/14, 2:40 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.