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]

Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back



But we do give time (not ``equal'', of course, but some) to the Aristotelian viewpoint. And we demonstrate - sometimes in the lab - that it doesn't work very well most of the time (he was a pretty clever fellow, after all). We show, in fact, that Newton explains the parts where Aristotle got it wrong (like rocks falling faster than paper).

I just finsished a delightful book on the birth of modern thinking about the history of the earth. I will post a review of it in a separate mailing under the heading: Book Report, Seashell on the Mountain, which gives plenty of space to the then-existing biblical model. Maybe we should be doing more of this.
Regards,
Jack


On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, John Clement wrote:

But of course evolution is not a fact, it is the only well developed
scientific model for how life came about on this planet. 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.

So if one provides equal time, it should be proportional to the evidence.
Unfortunately, the kooks have more time on their hands to go to state
education agencies and petition for their version to be included in the
textbooks. The same pressure happens in other sensitive areas such as
health or history. So far English, chemistry, and physics have been
relatively quiet, because HS courses never get to cosmology.

Should we have equal time for the Aristotelian view vs Newton's laws? When
looked at this way it certainly looks like hogwash, but scientists
especially eminent Nobel Laureates can be helpful in this fight by
testifying before the state education agencies. But at least one of the
scientists must be knowledgeable about the ID arguments, and how the
evidence has been twisted or where half statements have been used. The big
problem is that the unprepared scientist is often hit by "facts" which have
been cooked, and are unprepared to reply concerning those specific
statements. But prepared scientists have demolished the ID proponents in
various debates, while unprepared ones have appeared to be bumbling. The
presence of a number of eminent scientists should help counteract the
testimony by nonscientists, technically trained nonbiologists, or biologists
from conservative religious schools. It will be hard to find a biologist
from a good university who will risk their reputation by arguing against
evolution. So Stein is right in a sense. Being anti-evolution will
probably ruin a scientific reputation.

The problem of preparation for the ID debate is quite vital. It is similar
to the problem of scientists trying to debunk charlatans such as Uri Geller.
The charlatans are clever at fooling everyone, but if the scientist teams up
with a professional magician, together they can always win. There was the
time Geller was on the Johnny Carson show and offered to show some of his
psychic feats. But Johnny was a magician and insisted that Geller use
Carson's materials (which had not been prepared by Geller). Geller took one
look and said no.

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. Indeed the
conventional lecture system degrades student understanding of the nature of
science, and makes them into more novice like problem solvers. The latter
part of the statement is supported by the research done by Joe Redish.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



So, too, has the creation science argument evolved.

My guess is that the argument will evolve further from "equal time for
intelligent design and evolution" to "equal time for and against
evolution" and thus avoid religious issues. The idea of irreducible
complexity (intelligent design is so pre-Dover...) is being used to
argue that the process of evolution, as it is currently understood, is
statistically unlikely to result in many of the organisms we currently
observe. This will allow ID-proponents (IC-proponents) to avoid saying
that a "better" explanation is intelligent design. Though that may
seem, to many people, a logical conclusion to make, it is not required
(just a "feature", so to speak).

I am not saying that that is a valid argument.

Rather, I am saying, as I think Bob is saying, that repeating the
argument that such an idea is hogwash (though it might be) or that it is
just a plan to get religion into the schools (though it might be) is not
going to sway a significant number of non-scientists. And, saying
"evolution is fact and that is all there is to it" will only reinforce
the notion that scientists are hiding something.

What would you think if I told you something was too hard to explain --
just trust that I was right? Or that I was tired of repeating the same
arguments?



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley