Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back

["Robert Cohen" <Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu>]

John Clement wrote:

<snip>
> Again, I say it is OUR fault this is going on because WE have 
> not properly educated our students to understand how science 
> actually works.  
</snip>

I agree with that.

<snip>
> Should we have equal time for the Aristotelian view vs 
> Newton's laws?  
</snip>

Maybe, maybe not.  But that isn't what non-evolutionists will be
requesting in the future anyway.  My point is that they will ask that
evidence be provided both for and against evolution (both observed
evolution and the validity of the theory being used to explain the
observations).  They are not asking time for alternative theories.  It
is a subtle but important difference.  It is like discussing evidence
for and against global warming (both whether global warming is occuring
and whether increased CO2 can produce it) without requiring any
discussion on what other factors might be acting.

<snip>
> The vast majority of evidence supports it.  I don't 
> know what the ratio of strong evidence to ambiguous evidence 
> is, but it is absolutely overwhelming.
</snip>

My point is that it is not sufficient to simply state that the evidence
is "absolutely overwhelming."

Maybe you've seen the evidence that supports it but many people haven't.
Many classrooms just present the information as fact without providing
the evidence because they don't want, or don't know how, to evaluate it.
And microevolution doesn't count.  Non-evolutionists will ask to be
shown an instance when a bacterium evolves into something we would no
longer call bacteria.  Or, better yet, a bird that evolves into
something that we would no longer call a bird.

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University 
570.422.3428   rcohen@po-box.esu.edu    http://www.esu.edu/~bbq