Stephen Jones wrote:
[...]
WE>If anyone doubts that the DI CRSC has made it their policy
>to push teaching IDC concepts in secondary schools, have a
>look at
><http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48>.
SJ>Thanks to Wesley for posting this. But again it is mainly a
SJ>critique of evolution. I do not see it as a full-blown
SJ>positive argument for ID. It's author, David DeWolf, is a
SJ>professor of law, not one of ID's scientists or
SJ>philosophers. So he would be unlikely to take the lead in
SJ>proposing a scientific or philosophical argument for
SJ>ID. Another law professor ,Phil Johnson, would do that before
SJ>him. DeWolf's forte is the *legal* side of helping those
SJ>teachers who are trying to correct evolution's errors and
SJ>expose its philosophical assumptions.
SJ>The title and objectives of the document make this clear.
[...]
Denial is not healthy.
[Quote]
We're not suggesting that these theories [Origins stories from other
religions - WRE] be presented, although there would be no scientific
reason to suppress them; the reason we think that a biology teacher
would be wise to present intelligent design along with Darwinism is
that it is a necessary corrective to the impression frequently given
that Darwinism is the only scientific theory of biological
origins. Moreover, it explicitly addresses the question of the origin
for the appearance of design, which is the central question that
scientists have been addressing, both before and after Darwin. Also,
since intelligent design is now attracting a good deal of serious
attention among scientists, it is appropriate for teaching at the high
school level.
[End Quote - http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48]
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 22:59:27 EDT