Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Still More ID



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clement" <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Still More ID



The idea that the evolutionary model does not explain all aspects of the
development of life is certainly true. An unfinished model never explains
everything, and scientific models are never really finished. They may be
complete, but then something always intrudes to cause revisions. The
extraterrestrial part should be acknowledged as being an opinion, as there
have been no statistical calculations to back it up.

There have been many speculations about the possible genesis of life as
having some kind of outside origin. These have involved organic chemicals
from outside, and even actual micro-organisms from the outside. Science
fiction of course has many of these scenarios, but I have seen serious
speculations about this.

The real problem is that the major thrust is by fundamentalist Christians
because they want their theology taught as science, or at least to prevent
students from being infected by "godless" evolution. A number of the
witnesses in Kansas admitted to believing in major portions of the
Biblical
Genesis account. Now if there had been an equal number of witnesses from
the mainline churches, it is doubtful that the outcome would be changed,
but
at least the committee would have been confronted by the fact that they
are
making a decision to teach their theology in the schools. I think in
retrospect the scientists should have gotten together with mainline
ministers and been witnesses at the hearings. BTW most of the mainline
ministers and priests will say from the pulpit that the Garden of Eden is
a
charming myth which is an allegory of the human condition. The beliefs of
the congregation is another matter. I did see a survey that showed that
Roman Catholics tended to believe is evolution more than "Protestants" (I
will not get into the definition of this term), so it is not a
liberal/conservative church issue.

I don't think that exposing students to serious speculation is an issue.
But they should know that humans share over 95% of their genetic makeup
with
some other primates. They should learn that dolphins and some other
primates pass the mirror test for intelligence. They should be exposed to
the idea that there are many unanswered questions in all sciences. They
should also be exposed to learning situations that make them change their
misconceptions such as that bonds store energy (most biology teachers have
this one). One teacher even said it was a matter of opinion. They should
be exposed to the overwhelming evidence in favor of the evolutionary model
for the origin of the species and for the current cosmology.

All of this sounds reasonable to me. Science should be about examing data
and attempting to formulate explanations for the observations. All of this
should occur as dispassionately as possible.

They should not be subjected to the fabricated evidence against
these models.

Not sure how to respond to this, I guess it depends on how one defines
"fabricated". I'm guessing that you would exclude "evidence" that is
constructed from whole cloth, but not evidence that stems from existing
data. If so, I agree.

But this being said, it is perfectly appropriate in a history or
comparative
religion class to discuss what people believe about particular topics.
One
of them would be crationism or ID.

I think that would go a long way toward satisfying all but the most
vociferous and demanding.