As a person who generally disagrees with most of what's said here, I'd
thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>
>
> Wow.
>
> Thanks for obtaining and posting the NABT statement on teaching
> evolution, Roy. It amply demonstrates two classic symptoms: inability to
> distinguish science from philosophy, and conflation of all forms of
> creationism into YEC.
I should point out that YEC's have control of the creationist side of the
debate because they are the loudest. If you want this to change, you
must do it yourselves. That control is the reason why creationists are
lumped together.
>
>
> I like Brian Harper's idea. Let's draft a letter (any volunteers?)
> of response. I'd start by suggesting two strong points:
>
> 1) Teaching that evolution is "unsupervised" is extra-scientific and
> completely counter to their stated claim of being religiously neutral.
>
In science, the "unsupervised" part should be understood. However, I
am not critical of them including this because it limits the temptation
of teachers from interjecting their religious views. Although, I don't
like the wording.
> 2) It is scientifically credible to believe that evolution is
> limited to microevolution; the "weaker" areas of macroevolutionary
> theory should not be glossed over with hand-waving; and it is possible,
> with the right preparation, to mention in the science classroom that
> some scientists believe that purely natural mechanisms are insufficient
> to account for those developments in biological history.
>
Hmm, this is strange. You are critical for them for including
extra-scientific ideas, but you want them to include extra-scientific
ideas of your particular choice? I think you need to rethink this
statement. An alternative that is not extra-scientific would be, for
example, that some scientists feel that the proposed mechanisms of
evolution are insufficient to account for the fossil record, or what ever
you feel it doesn't account for. Remember, just because the proposed
mechanisms that exist today don't work, according to you, doesn't mean
that the ultimate explaination (if there is one) would be supernatural.
It could be as naturalistic as anything. Saying the current theories are
insufficient is enough, you do not need to imply supernaturalism.
> (That could be one letter, or two letters sent jointly.)
>
> Let's suggest a minimal amount of rewording to their statement
> necessary to make it reasonable.
I'd agree, but maybe not for the same reasons.
Tom