Subj: Re: ID
>Remarks of William S. Harris, Ph.D.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Bill%20H.%205-11-99%20rem.htm
[...]
>>3. Would embracing a design-based theory of origins mandate major
>>changes in the curriculum for science PhDs or medical students? Not at
>>all.
>Richard
>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.
Bertvan:
Hi Richard,
Why not indeed? At our present state of knowledge, declaring that the
universe is not designed is as much pseudoscience as stating it is. The only
thing that might undermine students' sense of intellectual integrity would be
to forbid them to consider one of the options.
Harris:
>>In conclusion, I believe it is intellectual tyranny to force students to
>>ignore any possible interpretation of a set of data.
Richard
>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?
Bertvan:
Merit is in the eye of the beholder. Let's encourage students to make their
own judgements of merit. While I doubt many will go for angels, the question
of whether the universe is the result of design, or the product of chance
arrangements of matter acted upon by meaningless forces, is obviously
debatable. If we are allowed to debate the question, why not school children?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 27 2000 - 10:27:40 EDT