Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote:
I don't think this is really an accurate statement. As regards abiogenesis, the origin of life on Earth, there is a difference between saying "there is no consensus as to how life originated" (which is a perfectly valid statement) and saying "there is no scientific information available" about it. We do have scientific information on which to build testable hypotheses about the origin of life. For instance, we can use air trapped in rock matrices and amber deposits to determine the ratio of different gasses in the early earth environment, giving us information about the environment in which life originated. We can test the ability of clay to catalyze the formation of amino acids and polymers and so forth. All of that is information that is useful in developing theories about the origin of life even if it's true that we don't currently have an accepted explanation for how it did occur. I think cosmologists would also argue that the statement about the origin of matter is also inaccurate, though this is not really my area of specialty. They would likely argue that the big bang itself was the origin of matter in all of its various forms, particularly the origin of the elements. It's certainly true to say that we don't have any information about what, if anything, originated or caused teh big bang. It's even likely true to say that in that instance we really don't have any information to go on, at least nothing past the point of Planck time. I would think it would be more useful to make a statement something like this: "The theory of evolution is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on earth, but it doesn't directly address the origin of the first life forms. Scientists continue to research the question of the origin of life, but as of now there is no accepted explanation on that question." That should perhaps be accompanied by a broader statement saying something like: "Science is only equipped to answer questions of an empirical nature, questions about 'how' things happen. It can't answer 'why' questions, nor does it attempt to. Science is incapable of addressing the existence of God. Individual scientists do of course have a wide range of opinion on the subject, but science itself cannot address it either positively or negatively. Nothing taught in science should be viewed as a position for or against the existence of God or the truth of anyone's religious views."
This seems fairly reasonable to me, all in all, though I don't think I'd use the phrase "intelligent design theory". There is no such theory at this point, so there's really nothing to teach. One could discuss various arguments for intelligent design, I suppose, but that phrase is a bit of an oxymoron. Ed Brayton |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
