Let me start by saying that I agree that the Biblical account of creation shouldn't be taught in public school science classes. I'm against any form of metaphysics being taught. The teaching of science should be philosopically neutral. Unfortunately it isn't.
Obviously, science is not officially neutral on the issue of metaphysical implications because it accepts an arbitrarily attached and highly corrosive metaphysical assertion right out of the definitional starting gate - the assertion that methodological naturalism proceeds upon an a priori assumption of ateleology. This view is indistinguishable from philosophical materialism.
That Science is neutral on issues of the ultimate nature of reality -is anachronistically ideal, but in practice, patently false. The a priori assumption of ateleology IS a position statement on the ultimate nature of reality, and it IS direct support for Richard Dawkins’ metaphysical belief system. Heck, the assumption IS Dawkins’ metaphysical belief system, enshrined as a surreptitiously attached ideological booby trap right there on science’s very methodology.
It is a mistake to think that only a non-teleological approach can run investigations based on methodological naturalism {i.e. observations, logic, and testing}. The non-teleologists don't have exclusive rights to this type of thinking nor is one obligated to abandon observation, hypothesis-making, testing, etc. because they are skeptical of non-teleological origin explanations.
It is often said that science can't investigate the supernatural, I agree. However, the scientific method, the process of hypothesizing, predicting, and testing, can be used to investigate the possibility that life may be the product of advanced bioengineering and/or nanotechnology. In fact, Paul Davies recently published an article entitled "The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell."
As for what should be taught in school, I think it should be made clear that some conclusions of science are based upon the underpinnings of materialistic philosophy. And that there are some serious thinkers that question this assumption and are trying to evaluate whether bioengineering and/or nanotechnology might be inferred as the cause for some aspects of biotic reality. Without this slim inclusion, you're teaching materialistic philosophy to impressionable youth, and I think this is wrong.
Teleology is already apparent in the purposefulness of biological processes. All we have to do is NOT TEACH that the purposefulness of biological processes has been scientifically proven to be illusion. Because that's not true.
What is true is that there is an invalid a priori assumption of ateleology in science and this invalid assumption is attached to what is taught in school. Philosophical materialism disguised as empirical science.
Eliminate the metaphysical corruption and let apparent teleology speak for itself. It's not the job of teachers to thwart the teleological inferences that their student may have by indoctrinating them in philosophical materialism. To the contrary, students should be encouraged to follow their teleological suspicions and see if they generate testable hypotheses that help us better understand the natural world.
[This message has been edited by Warren, 01-18-2004]
™ Version 4.2