Ed,
What
would your view be of a high school science text book that, for
example, noted that Darwinian therory offers no explanation for how matter
came to exist in the first place? Or, that macro-evolution is not subject
to testing under general scientific theory? I think that is where I
have concerns that some views of evolution are as much philosophical as they are
scientific - and that teaching macro-evolution raises the same concerns in many
ways that teaching ID or creationism would.
Gene Summerlin
Ogborn Summerlin & Ogborn P.C.
210
Windsor Place
330 So. 10th St.
Lincoln, NE 68508
(402)
434-8040
(402) 434-8044 (FAX)
(402) 730-5344
(Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----First, as to the idea that "science has no clue" how life originated, much of the testimony to the Texas State Board of Education this past year refuted that claim directly. Especially the work of Dr. Andy Ellington at the University of Texas, and his testimony specifically talking about the wealth of hard data researchers have, should be convincing.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NRO Article
But what do you guys think the Mars rovers are all about? Do you really think NASA has been shooting in the dark on this stuff? Astrobiology is a vital and exciting branch of science. Without resorting to a much longer post, let it suffice to say that there are more papers published each month dealing with the rise of life spontaneously, than there have been published about a hypothesis for intelligent design in the past decade.
Since there is so much evidence, speculating about what "might be" available is rather fruitless. A literature search produces a wealth of evidence, and denying that it exists simply can't make a case against evolution, especially in a federal court.
Here are a couple of links you may find useful:
Astrobiology Magazine :: Search for Life in the Universe
Testimony of Dr. Stephen Weinberg before Texas SBOE: Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution - Inside Science News Service
Dr. Ellington's testimony: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/adoptprocess/sept03transcript.pdf
(This file is 529 pages, so beware! Ellington's testimony begins on page 320 of the transcript)
And with that as background, let me turn to Mr. Beckwith's comments. High school biology is not the place to engage in long philosophical discussions over where exactly are the bounds of science, and where they may overlap with religion. The issues in the states involve what is required to be in the science texts, and what may be taught as science in science classes.
While it is possible to make an argument that there is a fuzzy line between science and religion, that has not proven useful in arguing that religious ideas should be taught in science classes.
I think a case could be made, if there were hard results from experiments that clearly backed the idea. For intelligent design, unfortunately, there are no such experiments. There are a small handful of partial references in literature, but there is no significant body of articles which lay out what a college biology student bound for graduate study would need to know about ID to keep current, and I suspect that is because there is nothing in that category. Since there is nothing available to give to college students on the vanguard of biology, there is similarly nothing to give to high school students. Teaching conjecture as science tends not to rest well with judges.
ID advocates tend to admit as much; they say that their only issue right now is problems with Darwinian evidence.
But their similarly is no body of literature to evidence problems with Darwinian theory.
So in the end, we come down to a very simple contest between well-evidenced science and claims that are not well-evidenced. ID loses out in such a contest.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
In a message dated 3/16/2004 11:06:06 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hereâs where it gets tricky. When one demarcates between science and non-science one is not in fact engaging in science, but philosophy. That is, one is offering a conceptual understanding about the order of knowledge. Ironically, the implication is that philosophy is logically prior to science, for it is by its insights that we distinguish science from other things. But it seems to me that labeling something science or non-science does no real intellectual work, for, at the end of the day, it is merely a matter of arguments and their soundness. If, for example, I were to drawn and inference from empirical premises, and that inference is consistent with a particular philosophical or theological point of view (e.g., theism or materialism), it seems to me that calling such a conclusion âreligionâ adds or substracts nothing to the quality of the case. Itâs calling a random piece of paper âmoney.â It does not increase your wealth. However, if we say that âscience canât talk about these things,â then we are back to the same problem: on what grounds to do way say THAT. Well, the grounds canât be science, for then we would be beginning the question. So, the grounds must be philosophical.
My articles, and book, deal with this in much greater detail.
Frank
On 3/16/04 11:00 AM, "Gibbens, Daniel G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:In part Steve and I agree, as he states the main question as well as Iâve tried to do. Where did all the matter/energy come from that went into the big bang? Is there any evidence that life forms started with the some accidental interaction between energy and matter? Science has no clue. Thatâs not to demean the value of scientific information about the developmental processes. Indeed, once one gets past the critical starting points, âa lot more than nothingâ is an understatement. My point is simply that one cannot infer from the incredibly interesting and valuable information science provides that science has information about beginnings, and in teaching science that needs to be made quite clear.
Dan
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
