From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>But ID does not need to convince committed materialist-naturalists that it
>is science. That cannot be done. All that ID needs to do is convince the
>general public that ID is science and eventually materialist-naturalists
will
>either have to accept ID within science or part of
materialistic-naturalistic
>science's public funding will be removed to pay for ID science.
Once again, Stephen avoids the issue of why ID should be considered science,
and simply says that IDers will convince the general public that ID is
science. Yes, we know that IDers are attempting to bypass the scientific
community and appeal directly to public opinion, which is more likely to be
swayed by their disinformation and pseudoscience. But convincing the public
that ID is science will not make it so.
[...]
>See above. None of the above is about teaching ID in public schools, unless
>exposing evolution's philosophical assumptions and weakness and
>correcting its errors is defined as ID.
Well, at present, the ID arguments *are* all about attacking naturalistic
theories. IDers have not yet told us what their ID theory actually is. All
the claimed evidence for ID is actually negative evidence, which attempts
(unsuccessfully) to refute the naturalistic explanations. Dembski's method
for detecting ID, for example, is purely eliminative, despite claims to the
contrary.
>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>.
>
>Thanks to Wesley for posting this. But again it is mainly a critique of
>evolution. I do not see it as a full-blown positive argument for ID. It's
>author, David DeWolf, is a professor of law, not one of ID's scientists or
>philosophers. So he would be unlikely to take the lead in proposing a
>scientific or philosophical argument for ID. Another law professor ,Phil
>Johnson, would do that before him. DeWolf's forte is the *legal* side of
>helping those teachers who are trying to correct evolution's errors and
>expose its philosophical assumptions.
Once again, Stephen manages to ignore evidence that is right in front of his
eyes. It's quite clear that this article is advocating the teaching of
alternative theories of origins (including ID) in schools. Here are some
relevant extracts:
"Instead of presenting Darwinism as an agreed-upon theory that no reputable
scientist denies (this is the approach that the National Academy of Sciences
would have us follow), we propose that Darwinism be forced to compete with
other plausible explanations for the origin and development of the
biological world. Students should be invited to take a ringside seat in the
contest between competing scientific theories--or even get in the ring
themselves to go a few rounds. "
"Consequently, rather than use the term "creationism"--which may be confused
with the terms used by the court in Edwards to identify what may not be
taught, teachers and school districts should refer more generically to the
origins issue and to the competing theories that explain biological
origins."
"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."
>The title and objectives of the document make this clear.
Perhaps Stephen omitted to read the rest of the document.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 06 2000 - 06:32:05 EDT