Bertvan:
>>As to whether they consulted a creationist organization, that should
>>have no relevance to what they DID. (the Kansas school board)
Richard:
>It speaks about their motivation, which is important for a public body,
>where conflicts of interest may occur.
>I would certainly question the judgement of a public body which consults a
>religious organization on a matter of science education.
Bertvan:
Hi Richard. If there were atheists on the Kansas school board, would the
board's action be suspect even though the document they produced said nothing
about religion? If the board had consulted an atheist scientist, would that
suggest a conflict of interest? If they consulted the ACLU, should their
motives be regarded as suspect by everyone who disagrees with the ACLU?
Richard:
>I would question the credibility of a person to speak authoritatively on
>this subject if that person accepts the flawed arguments for ID that I've
>seen (i.e. those of Behe and Dembski), particularly if that person has a
>strong religious motivation (as Behe and Dembski do).
Bertvan:
Dembski and Behe offer their ideas for public consideration. They have
degrees in their respective fields. I don't know what you mean by "speak
authoritatively". You regard the arguments for ID flawed. Obviously others
don't. Behe and Dembski are honest about their religion, but their religion
is not essential to the ideas they articulate. They appear valid to many of
us who are not even religious. Dawkins' or Gould's religion should have
nothing to do with whether "random mutation and natural selection" are the
explanation for macro evolution. During our communist paranoia some
respectable scientists were persecuted because of some alleged association
with communists. Don't you see the danger of judging a scientist's work on
the basis of his religious, philosophical or political beliefs?
It is true that scientific theories carry philosophical implications, but in
the end, scientific theories stand or fall on their merit. If biologists
insist that materialism is the only acceptable philosophy, will everyone who
rejects materialism eventually reject biology as a science? Or could biology
change, and become more relative, less rigidly materialist, as physics seems
to have done.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
P.S. In this battle over what school children are allowed learn, I am
delighted with the idea that "design theory" be considered illicit. I can
think of no better way to attract the interest of children.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 14:04:26 EST