>2. Arguments based upon analogy between biological organisms and man-made
>(designed) objects are PHILOSOPHICAL, and should not be included in the
>science curriculum. (It is possible for science classes to occasionally
>tackle philosophical arguments, but they need to be clearly labeled as
>such and several competing points of view should be included.) In the
>same way, arguments for un-directed evolution based upon examples of "bad
>design" (e.g. the blind spot) are also philosophical, and should not be
>included in the science curriculum.
I agree with Terry and Bill. The philosophy of science (how you "do" science)
cannot be divorced from a full education in the subject.
But further, design arguments are not necessarily purely philosophical. There
are two aspects of science here, laws and explanations. The mistake is
limiting the science classroom only to the former. Inductive science looks at
regularities; historical science at explanations. Archeaologists finding
stones that happen to be shaped like arrowheads make explanatory-design
judgments.
The goal of inductive science is to find out how the natural world works,
regularly, in the absence of any supernatural intervention. But in explanatory
science that restriction need not apply (absent a severe bias, which is the
point of DOT). Thus, the hypothesis of intelligent design should be included
as the evidence dictates.
This subject is dealt with more fully in the concluding essay in OPAP.
Jim