The comment that:
"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution:
an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process
of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected
by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and
changing environments."
was clearly drafted in response to creationism. In stating, however, that
evolution is "unsupervised" and "impersonal" they are making a very strong
philosophical/religious statement. They are essentially stating that God
does not exist (or if He does, He takes a "hands-off approach to the world).
I believe there's nothing wrong with teaching evolution, indeed it should be
taught in the classroom, but one must be careful not to conflate a scientific
theory (evolution) with a philosophical belief (atheism). Whether or not
evolution is "unsupervised" or "impersonal," the question lies outside of the
legitimate bounds of a methodological naturalistic science.
The Statement on Teaching Evolution also claims that:
"Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not
start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge
as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion.
Science does not base theories onan untestable collection of
dogmatic proposals."
Fine sounding words but in reading the statement, one is struck by the fact
that the drafters of the statement will not acknowledge any data supporting
any role of a supernatural agency in the origin of the universe, earth, life,
or man. Suppose for a moment that "In the beginning, God created the heavens
and the earth" is a true statement (as Christians believe). The NABT will
never recognize that fact or acknowledge as valid any data supporting that
conclusion (i.e. evidence of intelligent design). Also, the strong impression
is given in the statement that evolution as a theory is not something that can
be legitimately doubted or critically examined.
Finally, the Statement on Teaching Evolution is also flawed because it
lumps together all those who have questions about evolution as young-earth
creationists. This is clearly not the case and insulting to many Christians
such as myself who are not young-earth creationists, yet do not whole-heartedly
support naturalistic abiogenesis and macroevolution, and still do legitimate
scientific research (in my case geology).
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum