>It's remarkable that the reason for the controversy over teaching
>evolution, which erupted most recently in Kansas, continues to elude
>leaders of the scientific community. Typically bodies such as the National
>Academy of Sciences try to frame the issue as biblical literalism versus
>science
there's no other reason to take Christian mythology seriously as science.
>A blatant example of slanted science can be seen in the booklet Science and
>Creationism published this year by the National Academy of Sciences
>specifically to address the controversy. In a section discussing the
>profound problem of the origin of life, which has stymied determined
>investigators for a very long time, the Academy casually comments, "For
>those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer
>whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving
>nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many
>pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells."
>That condescending attitude is more worthy of a political spin doctor than
>a scientist.
Behe is trying to convince his audience that there is no scientific basis
for such a remark. There is, of course. That's why the statement was made.
Fourty years ago abiogenesis was a mystery. Now it's not such a big mystery.
>The comments mislead the public by focusing on the attitudes
>of investigators rather than on results. They seek to shut off discussion
>on a wide-open question
not really *that* wide open. Obviously there's lots of room for more
research, but Behe knows there has already been a lot of fruitful research
in the area of ultimate origins. He also knows it has nothing at all to do
with the history of life or common descent.
>and steer schoolchildren into presuming that the
>origin of life was a completely natural process.
anything else is religion which may not be legally taught in public
schools--yet.
>Science has no evidence
>that it was a natural process, and should not pretend otherwise.
Science cannot investigate anything *but* natural processes. Anything else
is the realm of religion.
>Alberts, was devoted to the enormously intricate "Macromolecular Machines"
>typical of the startling, unexplained complexity at the foundation of life.
>Yet in an editorial on a 1996 evolution controversy in Colorado, President
>Alberts said nothing of such difficult evolutionary challenges.
the foundation of life has nothing much to do with evolution or the history
of life. Study of evolution and the history of life got along for nearly a
hundred years wihout knowing anything about abiogenesis.
>Instead he
>suggested that those who question evolution should read the popular book
>The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner.
good suggestion!
>Although fascinating, the book deals with very minor changes; it offers no
>insight into how Darwinian processes could produce either a finch, a
>macromolecular machine, or anything fundamentally new.
you add lots of time, as Behe well knows. What stops evolution? time marches
on and changes continue to accumulate. What stops the accumulation? Also the
book is an excellent portrayal of variation and natural selection (which
Behe knows).
>However, all sides
>of the controversy acknowledge small evolutionary changes.
he hasn't argued with some of the die-hard creationists I've argued with!
>The point in
>dispute is whether natural selection can produce major innovations.
Only creaitonists dispute it. For everyone else it was a conclusion reached
150 years ago.
>The cause of the controversy escapes them because many (but far from all)
>scientists presume that every event, present and past, simply has to have a
>completely natural explanation.
scientists are not in the business of investigating the supernatural.
Non-natural explanations are in the realm of the religionists. That's a
major flaw in Behe's arguments and Johnson's also. Scientists don't avoid
supernatural explanations because they are stubborn, pigheaded, ignorant or
evil, but because they are required to by the very perameters of science
itself. *Religion* can explore supernatural ideas and causes but *science*
cannot.
Behe, Johnson et al. like to claim that religion is religion and
non-religion is religion. It has a wonderful Zen-like quality to it, but it
just doesn't wash except to the choir to which they preach. It's *rhetoric*
not anything else.
>data. Furthermore, it is a rather parochial attitude, mostly confined to
>scientific circles, which is rejected by the great majority of Americans.
So what? Most of the people in the world believe in reincarnation and that
you can come back as a bug. Does that make it true?
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb