For curricublog, Ed Brayton’s post on Steve Fuller & ID is relatively interesting.
Of the dozens of items I see every day on the ID vs. evolution controversy, most focus on whether or not ID deserves treatment as part of “science,” without much attention to questions of curriculum decision-making, which is of course what is at issue in cases like the Dover, PA trial and the Kansas State Board of Ed policy conflict.
Brayton comments on a post by Fuller that ranges wildly across history and political and social theory (of sorts), but does depend crucially, at points, on assumptions about decisions on curriculum; and these are among the points that Brayton challenges.
For his part, Brayton assumes that the questions to be decided are science questions, and hence that the relevant expertise is that of scientists. There is no sign of awareness of other questions involved in these matters, questions that are curriculum questions — not science questions — and require understanding of curriculum principles.
That’s not his fault though, is it? Where has a response informed by curriculum consciousness been articulated? We need to get to work on that. I’m not sure if my own contribution will be ready before summer; but I promise that it’s coming.