[Phys-L] Re: Another attack on Evolution

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>]

At 15:49  -0600 1/19/06, James E Mackey wrote:
> John Clement wrote:
>
> > http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3412552
> >
> > Panel OKs bill to add footnote to evolution
> > Disclaimer: Committee insists there is no consensus on the origins of people
> > By Matt Canham
> > The Salt Lake Tribune
> >
> > A Senate committee split along party lines Tuesday determined that evolution
> > should continue being taught in public schools - but with a disclaimer.
> >    SB96, sponsored by West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars, would
> > require science teachers to specify that the state does not endorse any
> > scientific theory about the origins of life or the present state of man
> The state should not endorse any specific theory about the origin of life!

The "state" should not endorse (or dispute) *any* scientific theory.
Science is not an issue to be settled by political debate. On the
other hand, the state should not mandate that *any* religious theory
be taught in schools. Evolution is not a religious theory.
Creationism (and it's dressed up cousin, Intelligent Design) is a
religious theory, and thus has no place in a science classroom, nor
in school in general, except perhaps when it comes up in a class on
comparative religion, or in the context of an appropriate history
course. However, it is well within the province of a state
educational board, charged with creating school curricula, to specify
what scientific theories should be taught in science classrooms, and
which non-scientific theories should *not* be taught in science
classrooms. Specifying which theories to teach in not endorsing them,
only accepting that theories that lie within the scientific consensus
are appropriate to teach about.
>  >and that scientists are not in complete agreement on evolutionary theory.
>  >
> This is, of course, a true statement!
Nor are scientists in complete agreement about quantum theory, or
general relativity, or even Newtonian theory, for that matter. But in
the case of evolution, those who are not in agreement with its basic
tenets (but may still have active and vigorous disagreements about
some of the details), are in a minority so tiny that if they weren't
making so much noise, they would be completely negligible, and they
include virtually no one of any significant stature in their
scientific community, nor are they publishing on the subject in the
peer-reviewed journals. It is also my understanding that it is not
just that their articles are not being accepted by the mainstream
journals, but that they are not even being submitted.

So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by your two comments.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
                        --Douglas Adams
******************************************************
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l