Re: [Phys-l] About the "why" and "how questins."

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

William Robertson wrote:

> ... I want to make it clear what I'm concerned about. It's scientists complaining that there is an anti-intellectual, anti-science bias while contributing to the problem. Stating that evolution is a fact is one example.

"Evolution" *is* a fact.  Did you mean, perhaps, to say "the Darwinian theory of evolution"?  While I would agree with that technically, I don't see a tremendous problem there.  We shouldn't call any theory "fact," but nobody should shrink from making clear that the Darwinian theory along with its functional basis in DNA is among the best of all scientific theories that we have ... and we have some EXTREMELY good ones. 

As I've said many times before, I think the bigger problem is that too many scientists ridicule ID on the grounds that it does not enjoy sufficient evidence--a statement that sounds completely absurd to most people who see evidence for ID nearly everywhere they look--instead of simply pointing out that it isn't science since it's falsification is inconceivable.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona