Hi Brian,
I agree. Philosophical assumptions do not limit a scientist's ability to do
science. Believing nature is the result of a rational design (no junk) might
help, but is merely my personal opinion.
Brian:
>In the past I have tried my best to steer clear of the Kansas
>business since I don't consider it to be any of my business. The people of
>Kansas are free to educate their children however they see fit, provided
there
>are no constitutional issues of course.
>Thus, I haven't really kept abreast of all the developments, though I have
read
>a few of the items posted here and on the asa list. But from what I've read,
>I'm a little surprised by your statement. Do you have some evidence that this
>is all they did? I thought there was a warning label for text books (you
know,
>like the surgeon generals warning on packs of cigarettes :), or I'm I
>confusing the
>Kansas case with another case? Oh, and didn't they consult a creationist
>organization
>to help them draft the revisions?
Bertvan:
I plowed through that entire document listing what children were required to
learn by certain grades. There was no "warning label" mentioned. They
described lots of stuff, about which the children would be tested, on how
variation occurs within species. (Peppered moths and finches beaks and
domestic animals.) I don't remember if they specifically called it "random
mutation and natural selection", but all of it would have warmed the heart of
any Darwinist. They did not mention macro evolution. They didn't say
schools couldn't teach that "random mutation and natural selection" were the
mechanisms behind macro evolution. They just didn't list anything on the
subject about which the children would be tested.
As to whether they consulted a creationist organization, that should have no
relevance to what they DID.
I can't believe you advocate questioning the credibility of any agency which
consults or associates with a religious organization!! Do you consider all
who advocate ID to be "creationists"? And question the credibility of anyone
who entertains the entertains the possibility of ID and discusses ID or
irreducible complexity in a non confrontational manner? I'm not accusing
you of anything, I'm asking.
Bertvan
P.S. Did you ever conduct that pole to see how many biologists at your
university consider themselves materialists?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 19:52:19 EST