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

[William Robertson <wrobert9@ix.netcom.com>]

A perfectly reasonable inference, but an inference rather than a fact.  
The basis of this conversation is not about whether scientists are  
making reasonable inferences. It's about how scientists communicate  
their findings to the general public, in a way that causes an  
unnecessary backlash. If scientists overstate what science can do, is  
it any wonder that this creates mistrust of those delivering the  
message? Regarding Bob at PC's comments, it's true that the average  
person doesn't care about this argument in their day-to-day  
activities. Where the argument becomes relevant is in the conflict  
that takes place in schools, largely between scientists and  
fundamentalists. Does it harm the scientists to clearly explain the  
limitations of their enterprise and thus defuse much of the conflict?  
Why must we try to debunk ID rather than stick to the position that it  
simply is not science? No, that will not make fundamentalists be more  
reasonable in their arguments, but I believe it will foster greater  
understanding with the general public, who ultimately decide what is  
taught in schools by way of their votes for school board members.

Bill


On Dec 22, 2010, at 10:16 AM, brian whatcott wrote:

> And if I can easily demonstrate evolution in a quickly multiplying  
> life form
> within a week,    I can expect much the same of slower breeding life  
> forms
>  at any time and place.