On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:46:11 -0700, Neal K. Roys wrote:
[continued]
NR>*Although comprehending deep time is difficult, the earth is
>about 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens has occupied only a
>minuscule moment of that immense duration of time.
I have no problem with this.
NR>*When compared with earlier periods, the Cambrian explosion
>evident in the fossil record reflects at least three phenomena:
>the evolution of animals with readily-fossilized hard body parts;
>Cambrian environment (sedimentary rock) more conducive to
>preserving fossils; and the evolution from pre-Cambrian forms of
>an increased diversity of body patterns in animals.
This seems to be sticking to what Gould calls "the artifact
theory":
"Two different kinds of explanations for the absence of Precambrian
ancestors have been debated for more than a century: the artifact
theory (they did exist, but the fossil record hasn't preserved them),
and the fast-transition theory (they really didn't exist, at least as
complex invertebrates" (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess
Shale and the Nature of History", Penguin: London, 1991, p271)
of which Gould has pronounced "a death knell" in favour of "the
fast-transition theory" (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life: The Burgess
Shale and the Nature of History", Penguin: London, 1991, p273)
NR>*Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are
>highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the
>planet and in the history of life.
Agreed. I would have thought this should be before or included
with the "4.5 billion years old" item.
NR>*In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an
>extensive explanation developed from well-documented,
>reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated
>observations of natural processes.
Not much help in the case of unique origin events though.
NR>*The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory
>are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified
>and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus,
>science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand
>nature and natural phenomena.
Except that a Creator is ruled out of court before the 'evidence" is
even considered! :-)
NR>*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.
If "Science is not teleological" what was the pronouncement that
"Natural selection..has no specific direction or goal"?
NR>Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of
>dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are
>characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and
>designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research
>about natural events.
Except science is not allowed to "ask...questions" about an
Intelligent Designer! :-)
NR>*Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the
>taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion
>of the mechanisms and principles of evolution.
I thought they said (or implied) earlier that they did not know what
the "mechanisms...of evolution" were?
NR>*Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology
>requires inclusion of evolution.
Which "evolution" is that exactly - Gould's or Dawkins? :-) One
wonders how the "inclusion of evolution" adds to "cellular and
molecular biology" if "Modern biologists" are unsure about "the
patterns, mechanisms and pace of evolution". But again, if an
Intelligent Designer did progressively create life and life's major
groups, that would not change the facts of "cellular and molecular
biology", except the apparent design would be seem to be
*real* design, which could only enhance the subject, not hinder it.
NR>*Specific textbook chapters on evolution should be included in
>biology curricula, and evolution should be a recurrent theme
>throughout biology textbooks and courses.
And why not be honest and also include statements from Prof. Pierre
Grasse, France's leading Zoologist and former President of the French
Academy of Science that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is a
"myth"? And why not point out that the two leading Darwinists, Gould
and Dawkins, disagree vehemently over fundamentals of "the patterns,
mechanisms and pace of evolution"?
NR>*Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the
>scientific foundations of evolution.
As long as "their religious beliefs" do not include that "The
diversity of life on earth is the outcome of...an unsupervised...
natural process" with "no specific direction or goal".
NR>*Teachers should respect diverse beliefs, but contrasting science
>with religion, such as belief in creationism, is not a role of
>science. Science teachers can, and often do, hold devout
>religious beliefs, accept evolution as a valid scientific theory,
>and teach the theory's mechanisms and principles.
Again, as long as those "devout religious beliefs" do not conflict
with "evolution" which is earlier defined as "...an unsupervised...
natural process" with "no specific direction or goal".
Like the Red Queen, "Science teachers" who "hold
devout religious beliefs" must presumably be able to believe six
impossible things before breakkfast! :-)
NR>*Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it
>inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in
>the science classroom.
These are good illustrations of Johnson's thesis that the way
Darwinists use "Science and religion" is the equivalent of "fact and
fantasy":
"...empiricism is not the primary value at stake. The more important
priority is to maintain the naturalistic worldview and with it the
prestige of "science" as the source of all important knowledge.
Without Darwinism, scientific naturalism would have no creation
story. A retreat on a matter of this importance would be
catastrophic for the Darwinist establishment, and it would open the
door to all sorts of false prophets and mountebanks (at least as
naturalists see them) who would try to fill the gap. To prevent such
a catastrophe, defenders of naturalism must enforce rules of
procedure for science that preclude opposing points of view. With
that accomplished, the next critical step is to treat "science" as
equivalent to truth and non-science as equivalent to fantasy. The
conclusions of science can then be misleadingly portrayed as refuting
arguments that were in fact disqualified from consideration at the
outset. As long as scientific naturalists make the rules, critics
who demand positive evidence for Darwinism need not taken seriously.
They do not understand "how science works." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin
on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
1993, p118).
[...]
NR>Courts have thus restricted school districts from requiring
>creation science in the science curriculum and have restricted
>individual instructors from teaching it. All teachers and
>administrators should be mindful of these court cases,
>remembering that the law, science and NABT support them as they
>appropriately include the teaching of evolution in the science
>curriculum.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here. Gould, in commenting on
Justice Scalia's opinion:
"The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian
fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have
whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented
in their schools."
said
"I simply don't see the point of this statement. Of course they are
so entitled, and absolutely nothing prevents such a presentation, if
evidence there be. The equal time law forces teaching of creation
science, but nothing prevented it before, and nothing prevents it
now. Teachers were, and still are, free to teach creation
science..." (Gould S.J., "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding", "Bully
for Brontosaurus", Penguin: London, 1992, p457)
It seems to me that what the Supreme Court ruled was that *equal
time* for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science could not be made
mandatory. While it has "restricted school districts from requiring
creation science in the science curriculum", it has not "restricted
individual instructors from teaching...creation science in the
science curriculum". And it certainly has not prevented
"intelligent-design theory" or "whatever scientific evidence there
may be against evolution presented in their schools".
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------