From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd go further. I support the heresy (from the science camp standpoint)
that ID
_should_ be taught in the classroom. For two reasons:
1) Refusing to discuss ID in the classroom, when ID has been presented to
many
students elsewhere as a credible alternative to evolution, sends exactly
the
wrong message about science. It says that science suppresses views it
disagrees
with, rather than debating and refuting them with logic and evidence.
That's a good point.
This is
the way religion operates, not science.
That's a unfair characterization of religion. First of all, each religion
is
a complicated set of theological premises, and within that set of premises
there is contained a diverse group of individuals who range in how much
they embrace questions, doubts, dissents, etc.
Perhaps you would be closer to an accurate statement if you
zeroed in on most stripes of religious fundamentalism.
We want students to understand this
distinction, and the best way to ensure that they do is to meet the ID
challenge head on. To refuse to discuss ID suggests to students that it
represents a valid alternative which evolutionists are unable or afraid to
debate.
Another good point. I think if ID is left out of the discussion, it
can make scientists appear to be too afraid to face the "facts."
At this time I remember a wonderful book I mentioned several years ago
on this list, "Seduced by Science." I believe the author would bemoan the
ID vs. evolution debate because he would likely opine that religionists are
going to get their butts kicked.
To wit, by fighting to include ID alongside evolution they may wind up
de-converting people more than they imagined, simply because science
operates by a different set of rules than religion does, and is generally
much more verifiable.
A number of theologians have publically sided with those who wish to
leave ID out of the science classroom for this reason and others.
In particular, ID proponents argue for a Designer by attempting to find
flaws
in the evidence for evolution. Judge John Jones made short work of this
illogical claim in his recent Dover school district judgement, pointing
out
that whatevert the alleged deficiencies in evolutionary theory, they
provide no
support for its religious alternative.
At this point I fall short of any serious debate, because I have never been
equipped with enough acumen for fully understanding, analyzing, and
critiquing evolution, whether religion is pitted against it or not.
I suppose it does make sense that some would argue "Look, if I can show
you that evolution is flawed, then it shows God is the actual agent here."
But anyone can quickly see that's either/or and not necessarily tenable.
In the end, for a number of reasons, I do remain committed to seeing
evolution presented honestly and accurately, and with some humility.
I am tired of the simplistic attacks on religion, the same attacks that
ironically
we are bashed for when we make them on evolution/scientists.
I at least have read enough to know that there are plenty of scientists out
there, non-religious ones, who find many flaws with evolution, but
those like Dawkins who scream it's a FACT shout down and intimidate
those who disagree.
Apologists for the ID argument will no doubt cite (among others)
Polkinghorne,
theoretical physicist and colleague of Stephen Hawking, who writes:
"In the early expansion of the universe, there has to been a close balance
between the expansive energy (driving things apart) and the force of gravity
(pulling things together). If expansion dominated then matter would fly
apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take
place.(The possibility of our existence) requires a balance between the
effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the
universe's history (The Planck time) has to differ from equality by not more
than 1 in 1060 . The numerate (mathematical) will marvel at such a degree
of accuracy. For the non-numerate, I will borrow an illustration from Paul
Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as
aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable
universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark."
[One World (London: SPCK, 1986), p.57]
Jim Guinee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
