From: Bertvan@aol.com
>Remarks of William S. Harris, Ph.D.
[...]
>3. Would embracing a design-based theory of origins mandate major
>changes in the curriculum for science PhDs or medical students? Not at
>all.
Well, that depends. If you put a ring-fence around ID and say that it only
applies to the origin of life, then it won't affect other areas of science.
But what's the rationale for such a ring-fence? It seems to be entirely
arbitrary. If we must teach ID in origins, why not ID in physics, etc.
Even if we can restrict the pseudoscience to one small area of science,
legitimating pseudoscience at all is going to undermine students' sense of
intellectual integrity.
[...]
>In conclusion, I believe it is intellectual tyranny to force students to
>ignore any possible interpretation of a set of data.
Students can consider any interpretation they like. But not all
interpretations have merit. Should we teach the interpretation of
gravity which says that angels push the planets around in their orbits?
This sort of rhetoric is superficially very persuasive. It sounds so
reasonable, until you think through what it really means.
Richard Wein (Tich)
"When I told people I wanted to be a comedian, they laughed at me. Well,
they're not laughing now!" -- Bob Monkhouse, comedian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 27 2000 - 09:08:00 EDT